The Former CIA Chiefs s and the two generals told the truth. It makes no difference they chose to relate this information in books. They were the people that had the FIRST HAND Intelligence and they have ALL said Bush Cherry Picked that which helped his case and ignored everything else.

LOL.  As I said the investigations show you to be wrong.  I have debunked Zinni before, and shown he flip-flopped on Iraq more than Kerry did. 

It doesn't matter really, there is absolutely NOTHING you will do that will change the fact.  Whining and complaining will not do anything. 

""Despite claims that WMD efforts have ceased," the general-turned-war critic said, "Iraq probably is continuing clandestine nuclear research, retains stocks of chemical and biological munitions, and is concealing extended-range SCUD missiles, possibly equipped with CBW [chem-bio-weapons] payloads," Zinni said"

More from Zinni....

" Three (Iraq, Iran and Sudan) of the seven recognized state-sponsors of terrorism [emphasis mine] are within this potentially volatile area [CENTCOM], and the Taliban regime in Afghanistan has been sanctioned by the UN Security Council for its harboring of Usama bin Laden. "

IsalandDog

You could not find you way out of a paper bag much less debug people like Gen Zinni and the three CIA Chiefs. Bush lied about the danger Saddam posed to our country and has sent over 3,000 troops to their death for NO REASON! We have more enemies today then in 2002.

drmiler We had no UN approval to invade Iraq.

Like was quoted fool we actually didn't need their tact approval. For God's sake man do you even read what is posted?

Did not need the approval of the UN we already had the UN approval, not that you would notice petty things like the truth. The armistice which means a truce in a war to discuss terms for peace was signed and then the terms were delivered and accepted. This means that we will have peace as long as the losing side complies with the terms of the peace treaty. Pin head was kind enough to break the treaty. That means any nation in the UN has the right to continue the war. I know this goes against your rants which is why you quickly add in that there were no weapons of mass destruction and that we were lied to in order to go to war for oil. None of what you contend is true but why let that stop you. It sounds good and helps you muddy the waters.

Try your damnedest to argue your way around this.

You could not find you way out of a paper bag much less debug people like Gen Zinni and the three CIA Chiefs. Bush lied about the danger Saddam posed to our country and has sent over 3,000 troops to their death for NO REASON! We have more enemies today then in 2002.

We have already proven you wrong.  We have shown the threats, we have shown the reasons.  It's not my fault you fail to see anything but Bush bashing. 

We have enemies because we fight, and don't worry about "offending" them.

drmiler

Only by action of the UN Security Council could we claim action under UN resolutions which we did not have. In addition, Saddam was NO threat to this country and we had no business invading Iraq. Bush told us we were in such danger that to fail to act would risk mushroom clouds over American Cities. He had the Intelligence that said Saddam did NOT HAVE such weapons and DID not have a program to develop such weapons. In addition, Saddam had no way to deliver nuclear weapons. It was all HYPE to attack a country that was NO danger to the United States!

Keep repeating the same things we have shown to be false over and over again.....

Col, tell us how 19 people were a threat to the U.S. on Sept. 10?

drmiler Only by action of the UN Security Council could we claim action under UN resolutions which we did not have.

Again I guess you didn't read, just threw out some more talking points. "If" what you're saying was true the UN would be leveling sanctions and other things at us. ID was correct. Break a "peace treaty" and hostilities can and will break out again and nobodies say so is required.

I guess in all your much vaunted doings that you neglected to brush up on your international law.

IslandDog

The situation in Iraq and what we learned PROVER Saddam was NO threat. You HAVE NOT DISPROVEN anything I HAVE DOCUMENTED.

SINCE THE U.S. HAS VETO POWER IN THE SECURITY COUNCIL, THE U.N. CAN NOT LEVEL SANCTIONS AGINST THE U.S. Both the outgoing and incoming head of the U.N. has said the U.S. did not have the authority to invade Iraq. In addition since Saddam had no military or weapons that threatened us and we had no justification for our invasion!

"In addition since Saddam had no military or weapons that threatened us and we had no justification for our invasion!"

And you persist in silly rules that simply don't exist in the real world.

The situation in Iraq and what we learned PROVER Saddam was NO threat. You HAVE NOT DISPROVEN anything I HAVE DOCUMENTED.

Firing at our planes, planning to assasinate a former President, defying weapons inspectors, but he wasn't a threat.

LOL!

Bakerstreet

Attacking a country that does not pose any danger is not a "silly rule" It is WRONG. Firing at our planes did not threaten Mushroom clouds over our cities. I do not know of any incident of an American plane being shot down by Saddam. To sacrifice 3,000 lives, 22,000 injuries and 1/2 Trillion dollars because a few planes were fired upon is not a wise use of our armed forces. We took the appropriate action when our planes were fired upon. Bush did not justify the Iraq War over the shooting at our aircraft as we imposed the No-Fly Zone. That is just about the most lame excuse yet for this unjustified war! You should send that one to the White House for their Spin Doctors.

"Attacking a country that does not pose any danger is not a "silly rule" It is WRONG."

Then the vast majority of wars fought in the last 150 years have been wrong. Period. Civil War, (debatable) wrong. Spanish American war, wrong. WWI, wrong. Korea, wrong. Vietnam, wrong. Grenada, wrong. Gulf War, wrong. Yugoslavia, wrong.

With a track record like that, why do you assume we're functioning on your values at all?

"Firing at our planes did not threaten Mushroom clouds over our cities."

And neither were we threatened when a boiler blew up on the Maine and we blamed it on Spain. Neither would we have been threatened if we'd have let the little cousin's tiff in Europe during WW1 get settled on its own. Heck, Hitler might have been a successful painter.

Neither would we have been threatened if the whole of Korea and Vietnam had been left to the communists. Come on. You cannot make this point. History laughs at you.

Bakerstreet

You are CORRECT about some of the wars you list However WWI and WWII were of a scope that they impacted the U.S. Korea was a UN action of which we are a part. How does our conducting wars like Vietnam justify this war? If you rob a bank 3 times and then choose to rob another bank, how is the 4th robbery justified by the first three?

"How does our conducting wars like Vietnam justify this war? "

Again, you assume wars even need to be justified. You have to accept that you are functioning on a level of morality that is neither codified nor implied in the history of war. Beyond some meaningless and unenforceable international agreements, most of which were tossed out before the ink was dry, you have no reason to believe that your ideals are valid.

You seem to believe that there is some level of "decency" that we all have to abide by. As a student of history, I see absolutely no reason to believe so. On the contrary, there's plenty of reason to believe the OPPOSITE. So, you might as well be accusing the Bush administration of not following the Marquis of Queensbury rules.

You are thinking in terms of UN/League of nation morality. To study how the world really works, go back about 2000-2500 years and there you'll find the reality of war politics.

Bakerstreet

Yes I believe the vast majority of Americans would want a war to justified and Iraq like Vietnam was not justified. People would not agree to send their sons and daughters to their death and to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on a war they did not believe justified.

This country has a Constitution and is a republic that would not embrace an unjust war. The lesson Bush has not learned is you can not conduct a war that the majority do not support. WWII was a War the vast majority supported and the outcome was certain. Iraq and Vietnam were not just or supported by the vast majority of Americans. Both of those wars were civil conflicts. Bush was warned of the dangers of this war but refused to listen to those that are a lot wiser the he will EVER become. Powell was correct-- Break it (and we did) and it is yours. Now we do not know what to do with it!