based on false information given by the GWB administration...

WRONG! Based on information given to the administration by EVERY intelligence agency in the WORLD! Get real and start looking the info is out there! That is unless you don't really care, and just want to bash Bush?

Hey klink we do you always have to post WRONG info?That is unless you think CNN is lying?

...not to mention the Clinton administration. Let's not be totally silly about this. And it's quite easy for the critics to call this "false" after the fact, when everyone believed it was true at the time, including those who provided it. "Wrong" would be a better, and perfectly acceptable, description. #30 by COL Gene Wed, November 29, 2006 10:26 PM Daiwa There was a lot of Intel that said Iraq was not the danger Bush claimed. Bush ignored any Intel that did not support his desire to attack Iraq. We need an investigation to learn just what information was available to Bush when he asked Congress to invade Iraq. Several CIA officials have said Bush cherry picked only that Intel he wanted.

December 16, 1998 WASHINGTON (CNN) -- From the Oval Office, President Clinton told the nation Wednesday evening why he ordered new military strikes against Iraq. The president said Iraq's refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors presented a threat to the entire world. "Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said.

Link

In late 2002 the Intel about the Iraq nuclear program was that it was unlikely there was ANY active program. There was also Intel that said there was no active Bio program. The only undisputed Intel about WMD was that Saddam had some old gas filled Artillery Shells. Guess what- That was the ONLY WMD we found! That is why several former CIA Chiefs said Bush Cherry Picked that Intel that supported what he wanted to do and ignored ALL the other Intel that WAS AVAILABLE which said Saddam did not have most of the WMD Bush and Cheney claimed. Then there is the Military Assessment that was completed by the Pentagon as to what military capability Saddam had in 2002. That said, Saddam could ONLY effect military actions in the CENTRAL section of Iraq. How then was Iraq such a danger to the U.S. that REQUIRED our invasion? There was Intel that time has proven wrong. But there was also Intel that was ignored by Bush that has been proven CORRECT! We need Congress through the oversight function to learn just what Bush was told and if ALL that Intel was provided Congress before they voted to give the President the power to use force in Iraq.

The Clinton argument is not valid since he was not president in Mar 2003 and the Intel available in Mar 2003 was different then when Clinton was President. Clinton never proposed invading Iraq.

The Clinton argument is not valid since he was not president in Mar 2003 and the Intel available in Mar 2003 was different then when Clinton was President. Clinton never proposed invading Iraq.

Oh REALLY? Then what would you call this?

"Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowedz to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said.

Sounds to me like he was ready to go.

drmiler

Clinton did not say that the U.S. was the agent to stop Saddam. If a group of Moslem military had removed Saddam it would have not created the hate toward the U.S. that our invasion has created. Bush was warned that to send an American Army into a Moslem country would produce the VERY situation we see today. That is why his father did not go into Iraq even though he had a military over 3 times the size GWB sent to Iraq. In addition the Intel that was available to Bush that came AFTER Clinton said there was no active nuclear program and it was not likely Saddam had an active Bio WMD program. Add the military assessment that said Saddam was ONLY able to conduct military operations in the Central section of Iraq and you have a NON-THREAT. That being the case, where was the danger to our country and how did the facts justify invasion?

COL -

I disagree with the term "lot" when it comes that pre-war intel you harp on. The overwhelming weight of the pre-war intel supported the notion (as it turns out, wrongly). There simply wasn't the mountain of rock-solid contradictory intel that you claim, only scattered inconsistencies which are inevitable in the intel biz. You can't pretend otherwise now, though you do anyway for purposes of bashing your favorite whipping boy. To suggest all of Congress was duped by the "dimwit from Texas" is an insult to Congress of major proportions, unless you are willing to then concede Bush's brilliance.

 

There would not have been a vote in Congress if Bush had not insisted Saddam was such a danger that we had to invade Iraq.

Would you like me to quote all the democrats who said Saddam was a threat and should be removed?

 

Clinton did not say that the U.S. was the agent to stop Saddam.

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

Diawa

That is NOT what the Former CIA Agents claim. They have stated the Intel said that most likely there was NO nuclear program and no BIO WMD in 2002. They also said Bush Cherry Picked the Intel to use what supported the invasion and ignored ANYTHING that said there was no WMD. We were told by Bush and Cheney that there was NO question that Saddam had WMD. Given the Intel that contradicted that claim which has turned out to be correct, the case Bush and Cheney made was distorted at best and a lie at worst. The Military Assessment said Saddam had no military capability to attack the U.S. so even if he had WMD how would he have been a danger that warranted our Invasion?

Gen Ziinni also served in the Pentagon prior to our invasion and he said he saw ALL the Intel on Iraq and it DID NOT agree with what Bush and Cheney were telling Congress and the American People!
When ALL the facts are known and the conclusion of the Iraq war is established, this war will be recognized as the biggest mistake our country has made in its history. We will wind up with millions of new enemies, 3,000 dead, 25,000 injured and between 3/4 and 1 Trillion dollars spent on this war. We will have an Iraq that is NOT a stable Democracy and one that will most likely be too close to Iran with foreign terrorists operating within Iraq to plan future attacks on the U.S.

That is NOT what the Former CIA Agents claim. They have stated the Intel said that most likely there was NO nuclear program and no BIO WMD in 2002.

Who cares what some ex-cia hack claims? Your also "missing" a very important set of words. The FACT remains that almost every intelligence agency in the world said the same damn thing! We've had this disscusion before col, and you lost the arguement then and it's NO different no!

Notice they claimed "most likely", no facts, no proof to back them up just most likely.

Gen Ziinni also served in the Pentagon prior to our invasion and he said he saw ALL the Intel on Iraq and it DID NOT agree with what Bush and Cheney were telling Congress and the American People!

General Zinnis inept leadership was partially a reason the USS Cole was attacked.  He's also a member of some far left groups. 

drmiler

Yes “most likely did not have” does not mean that Saddam had nuclear weapons as Bush and Cheney claimed. It does not produce mushroom clouds above American Cities as Bush and Cheney claimed.

Island Dog

Gen Zinni is a hell of a lot more of a success then GWB. He earned is four stars and is in no way responsible for the Cole. He was a Marine not in command of any ships-- That is the Navy.

The CIA Chiefs for Iraq and Europe said the same thing as Zinni-- Bush cherry picked the Intel. Bush relied for most of his information about Iraq from Ahmed Chalabi who was a convicted fellon. Bush did not verify what Chalabi told him and it turned to be 100% WORNG. Bush and Cheney are the idiots. They were bent on removing Saddam despite the Intel, the military assessment that said Saddam could not fight his way out of a paper bag and disregarded the warnings of Powell and others in the State dept. who had real experience and knowledge about Iraq and the most likely consequences of the U.S. invading a Moslem country. Hell GWB ignored what his father knew about Iraq. GWB was also so dumb he repeated the Voodoo economics of Reagan and has driven American more deeply into debt. GWB was so dumb that he expanded the failed trade policy of Clinton and has doubled the trade deficit!

Gen Zinni is a hell of a lot more of a success then GWB. He earned is four stars and is in no way responsible for the Cole. He was a Marine not in command of any ships-- That is the Navy.

Actually col, Bush is more successful than him and you, and it appears you have no knowledge of Zinni except his left wing exploits.

"The refueling of that ship in Aden," Zinni said Wednesday, "...Was my decision. I pass the buck on to nobody."

 

GWB was also so dumb he repeated the Voodoo economics of Reagan and has driven American more deeply into debt. GWB was so dumb that he expanded the failed trade policy of Clinton and has doubled the trade deficit!

The economy is doing very well.  Only gloom and doomers like yourself think otherwise.  There is more to the economy than the deficit.  Bush does not affect your entire life col, get over it.

Of all the threats to the well-being of the world, GWB is not one of them. It's phenomenal how pathetically personal and petty someone can make a political disagreement. But, we've banged our head on this wall before and it shows no sign of cracking in the least.

IslandDog

You have not looked at what GWB has done in his life. He was a FAILURE at just about everything he attempted and EVERY time his father and his father’s contacts fixed George's mistakes. That is all but as President. No one can fix what the Bush administration has done.

The economy for the wealthy is doing very well. It is NOT good for the Middle Income and poor of this country. Average Weekly Wage AFTER inflation is DOWN. The average family is in much more debt. Real Estate values are falling and adjustable mortgages are driving mortgage payments UP. Foreclosures are up sharply. New Jobs are paying far less then the jobs that were lost and more companies are cutting health and retirement benefits. Major industries such as American Auto and Air lines are in MAJOR trouble. This is not gloom and doom. It is the reality. The stock market up does not help the majority pay their bills. 80% of the stocks are owned by 20% of the population. The average person than owns stocks have small holdings and they are for the most part in their retirement accounts. That does not help them pay their bills UNTIL they retire. Thus the stock market being up does not help the average family! The poor have scene almost NO wage increase and have been faced with higher energy, health and food costs.

 

You have not looked at what GWB has done in his life. He was a FAILURE at just about everything he attempted and EVERY time his father and his father’s contacts fixed George's mistakes. That is all but as President. No one can fix what the Bush administration has done.

He has accomplished more in life than you col.  Also, why do have you to exaggerate so much?  "No one can fix what Bush has done"?  Get a grip col. 

 

The economy for the wealthy is doing very well. It is NOT good for the Middle Income and poor of this country. Average Weekly Wage AFTER inflation is DOWN. The average family is in much more debt. Real Estate values are falling and adjustable mortgages are driving mortgage payments UP. Foreclosures are up sharply. New Jobs are paying far less then the jobs that were lost and more companies are cutting health and retirement benefits

It's funny how you ignore the articles posted about how incomes are up, and are paying more than before.  You ignore everything that doesn't fit your narrow anti-Bush point of view.

Here's some information for you col to think about.  Bush does not control your wealth.  People are poor by choice in this country.  Bush has nothing to do with it.

I also see you ignore how I proved you wrong about Zinni.  Funny isn't it?

 

 

American paychecks are rising again at a pace not seen since the 1990s.  The pay increase amounts to 4 percent on average over the past 12 months, and it comes at a very helpful time for millions of households.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1120/p01s03-usec.html