Why do Democrats insist the pretext to War was Bush faulty intelligence when it came from 1999?

Question

Dr. Rihab Rashid Taha al-Azawi (born 1957) is an Iraqi microbiologist who worked in Saddam Hussein's biological weapons program. A 1999 report commissioned by the United States Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) named her as one of the world's most dangerous women. [1] (pdf; p. 20) She was nicknamed "Dr Germ" by UN weapons inspectors. [2]

Taha first rose to prominence in the Western media after being named in a 2003 British intelligence dossier, released to the public by Prime Minister Tony Blair, on Iraq's biological, chemical and nuclear capability. The dossier alleged that Taha had played a leading role in the manufacture of anthrax and other biological agents. [3] It was this dossier that triggered the chain of events that led to the death of British UN weapons inspector David Kelly, who was accused of telling a BBC reporter that some of the intelligence had been manipulated

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rihab_Rashid_Taha

According to former weapons inspector Scott Ritter in his 1999 book Endgame: Solving the Iraq Crisis, UNSCOM learned that, between July 01 and August 15, 1995, 50 prisoners from the Abu Ghraib prison were transferred to a military post in al-Haditha, in the northwest of Iraq, (Ritter, 1999). Iraqi opposition groups say that scientists sprayed the prisoners with anthrax,

wb...you simply are simple-minded

the Clinton JOC..

Hans Blix?..from the Oil for Food UN?
there where 17 resolutions..by that time..not good enough..you share the blame..live with it

you can't explain anything to the Irish..they are too worried about fixing elections..out of some inherent providence

Answer 1

I don't know. If Democrats made any sense on this issue, then I could.

Answer 2

Explain this:

On March 15, 2003 UN weapons inspectors were inside Iraq searching for WMD's, on March 16, 2003 Bush told them to leave Iraq and declared war was imminent. Why did Bush not let them finish?

not all dems were so naive:

"I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars."

-Barack Obama November 2002

Answer 3

I'm pretty sure that it is insisted upon by both Democrats and Republicans. The reason behind the initial invasion of the Middle East was due to 9/11 but moving in to Iraq has been found to be due to faulty intelligence. This decision has been found to be supported by a number of members of all parties. It has been reported on by the major news organiziations. This claim of yours is as silly as the 9/11 conspiracy theories.

Answer 4

What a crock of crap. Why is it that a democrat using wikipedia gets blasted but republicans using it is OK, and since when is America the enforcement arm of the UN? You are doing exactly what President Bush did to get us into Iraq, cherry-picking what you want to present to others.

Answer 5

Wow..I didn't know that all intel stopped after 1999. Let's be real...the American people were supposed to be fooled by 'intelligence' reports that couldn't be checked out because they we're 'secret'. Only Cheney and his stooge Bush 'knew' what was what and we were either supposed to believe these goofballs or we 'hated America' and wanted Saddam to win. I for one am really sick of the dead enders of the reactionary right still trying to justify this grab for middle east oil and the extention of US authority over all people everywhere. 21st century technology means we don't need the oil, and if you have 'authority' you also have responsibility...this bonehead administration doesn't even accept responsibilty for its own actions and definately not for the American people that elected them. Here's some 'intellegence' for you. Until we get the Bush Junta out of Washington we're $%^&ed!

Answer 6

The U.S. did know about such claims much earlier, but we also knew about counter-claims that suggested these people were either mistaken or deliberately lying (often for immediate financial gain). (And it should be noted that it was these counter-claims that turned out to be true.)

The result was that we simply weren't sure Iraq had such wmd's. The lie wasn't publicizing the intelligence -- it was publicising ONLY the intelligence that supported the administration's claim.

To say you are sure when you are not sure is a lie.

Answer 7

Sigh. We don't. By the time LittleBush got around to starting war on Iraq after abandoning efforts to capture binLaden, the weapons inspectors determined that the old weapons were gone/dismantled/ not available for use. Reading further in the article you reference, sounds like this lady was lying about how much material she had to avoid admitting to her boss that she had dumped it.

Give it a rest.

Answer 8

Noah H has definitely got a handle on the situation. The American people were scammed by Bush/Cheney. End of story!

Answer 9

they don't sound too intelligent if they were given outdated facts and used them. didn't bush say that they were facts, hard facts? he doesn't sound too smart in picking key people who furnished him with embellished data. democrats are not to blame for that. he is the decider after all. just sounds like a bad decision to me. maybe he couldn't wait to put on that flight jacket that clinton left.

Answer 10

Bush actually invaded a country that had not attacked us, even though Saddam was safely contained.

Answer 11

you are correct, but bush sr. was the one having all the problems with saddam...so it was even before 1999 that this all started. while the republican george bush was in office.