English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I always knew there were none, but it was staggering the amount of people who thought otherwise and are now in silence over their big mistake.

Who here was brainwashed?

2007-06-19 08:21:35 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

5 answers

In the run up to the war, I was giving the benefit of the doubt to the president. it seemed unlikely that Iraq had working WMD's (especially since he let inspectors in at the last minute before the invasion.). But it was clear from his past that he wanted them and would do what he could to get them. At any rate, I thought maybe the Administration knew something it could not tell us.

But then when the Senate voted to Authorize War, Bob Graham the Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee voted against the resolution citing the intelligence did not support going to war. That's when my 'benefit of the doubt' turned to outright unease. Graham had it right then - a conclusion he reached by reading the same intelligence the Administration was using to sell the war.

2007-06-19 08:53:17 · answer #1 · answered by jehen 7 · 1 0

The CIA and DIA had serious reservations that were outlined in detail in a report sent to the Senate prior to the vote to go to war in 2002. Only the Senators could review the document, no staff, as, the report was Top Secret. Six senators read the report, so very sad. This was mentioned in an article in the Sunday NYT magazine a few weeks ago detailing the history of Hillary's various stances on Iraq. By the way, Hillary did not read the report.

2007-06-19 15:56:51 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

I believed that Saddam had some old artillery shells with older (WWI-WWII era) chemical munitions, like mustard gas. I thought much of it would have been rusted and likely more of a hazard to seep out of storage into the water supply than as a weapon.

Nothing biological or nuclear, though.

And nothing that could have been used in anything more than a local skirmish.

Most of that belief was based on my reading of Saddam as being fairly power hungry and weapon-obsessed. I'm still amazed that we didn't find any. But, we didn't, and there wasn't any. Goes to show you that preemptive war strategies require absolutely impeccable intelligence.

2007-06-19 15:54:50 · answer #3 · answered by Professor J 2 · 0 0

Saddam did have chemical weapons, but not nukes.

2007-06-19 15:50:57 · answer #4 · answered by Taylor G 4 · 0 0

True, I mean saddam gassed the kurds with flatulence (sarcasm).

2007-06-19 15:44:42 · answer #5 · answered by infobrokernate 6 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers