drmiler

The problem with response #55 is that Bush and Cheney presented the threat from Saddam as absolute. Bush did not acknowledger ANY of the data that said Saddam was not a threat.

That is just what the Former CIA section chiefs said. Bush used ONLY that part of the Intelligence that supported what he wanted to do. He totally ignored the Pentagon Assessment that Saddam in 2002 was incapable of military operations beyond the central section of Iraq. He lied about the mushroom clouds to scare people into allowing him to invade Iraq when the intelligence said Saddam did not have a current nuclear WMD capability. Bush also ignored the advice about how invading a Moslem country would backfire. He was warned about becoming bogged down in a long war if he invaded Iraq. He was told it could destabilize Iraq. He was told it could create unrest in the greater Moslem world. He was warned about not sending force levels large enough to control Iraq after Saddam was removed.

Bush ignored all of this and guess what-- EVERYTHING he ignored was CORRECT and EVERYTHING he told us was INCORRECT.

How do you ignore everything posted to you and keep going back to the cut and paste responses which have been proved to be invalid?  Theses CIA chiefs have not provided facts col.  Just as your blog.

drmiler The problem with response #55 is that Bush and Cheney presented the threat from Saddam as absolute. Bush did not acknowledger ANY of the data that said Saddam was not a threat.

You OBVIOUSLY DID NOT read #55, lets try again shall we:

Fear! Fear that Saddam would as he suggested, give the WMD he had to AQ types that had a world wide network to distribute them. Yes, Iraq did not have the ability to hit anyone with rockets other than Israel. AQ did have the ability to attack America on American soil. It was at that point that Iraq became a serious threat to America. We did not have to invade Iraq had the leader of that nation kept to the agreement he made with the UN. His choce to thumb his nose at the UN and no bodies fault but his for his fate.

We are not talking about Saddam hitting Israel. The issue is WHAT danger did Saddam pose to the United States-- Answer NONE and Bush knew that in 2002.

The CIA Chiefs and Gen Zinni are the people that HAD FIRST HAND Intel and know better then anyone what was known and they have said Bush IGNORED any information that did not support what he wanted to do-- Attack Iraq.

We were NOT the UN inforcement agent!!!!!!!

The CIA Chiefs and Gen Zinni are the people that HAD FIRST HAND Intel and know better then anyone what was known and they have said Bush IGNORED any information that did not support what he wanted to do-- Attack Iraq.

Col repeating the same things even though they have been proven factless.  These people were selling books, and they many of them are affiliated wtih far left groups.  How many of them have documented evidence of what they claim? 

You are wrong!

Since you want to keep the focus off of federal funding.

Retired Gen. Anthony Zinni, who now complains that President Bush cherry-picked pre-war Iraq weapons intelligence and misled the country into going to war, warned six years ago that Saddam Hussein's WMD program was the biggest threat to U.S. interests in the Middle East. "Iraq remains the most significant near-term threat to U.S. interests in the Arabian Gulf region," Zinni told Congress on March 15, 2000. "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, in quotes unearthed Friday by the American Thinker blog. Gen. Zinni is currently leading to charge to get Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to resign - a campaign he began two weeks ago on NBC's "Meet the Press. "Even if Baghdad reversed its course and surrendered all WMD capabilities, it retains the scientific, technical, and industrial infrastructure to replace agents and munitions within weeks or months." "

The issue is WHAT danger did Saddam pose to the United States-- Answer NONE and Bush knew that in 2002.

Mr. Gene,

Since you are of the habit of taking one sentence out of a paragraph and ignoring the rest, I will simplify it for you. The threat from Iraq was his stated goals of doing harm to America. He had no way of getting his WMD to America but Al Qaeda had a way to deliver WMD but had none. Put the two together and you have a serious threat. Look at how people screamed that the President did not connect the dots for 9//11. There was a threat to the nation that the President ignored according to some.

Re-evaluating the intelligence after the 9/11 attacks showed that (a) Saddam publicly stated a desire to attack America for years but lacked the tools to do so. ( Saddam provided aid to terrorist groups and organizations in the form of money and safe haven. (c) Iraqi intelligence people were seen meeting with known Al Qaeda people in third countries. (d) Wounded Al Qaeda people from Afghanistan were seen in restricted hospitals in Iraq. Proving that he was still aiding terrorist after our President announced new policy and doctrine of holding any nation state accountable for the attacks of terrorist they support.

Putting all this together makes Iraq and Saddam a threat to the United States of America. Your contention that because Iraq alone had no way of attacking America equals no threat to America is bogus. On top of all this there were reports that Iraq was seeking nuclear weapons which it had the money knowledge and man power to create. Faced with this you think that the President should sit back and wait for the next attack to do something. If he had I would be first in line for his impeachment. With a war like this we are faced with two choices, sit and wait for an attack or warn people that if you do the precursors of an attack we will attack first. The world was duly warned of our change in policy. And until the anti-Bush people started their noise even Iran fell in line and provided intelligence to us. Once we were seen as weak willed because of the press Iran dumped their leader that assisted us and now we are faced with the next enemy in the axis of evil. One down two to go. And to the people that enjoy their freedom of speech even when it is bad for America I say this. It is your hatred of the president and possibly this nation that will make it more likely that we will have to invade more countries instead of using Afghanistan and Iraq as examples of what will happen when you threaten America.

gene...don't worry...some of these guys think that if they just keep being "true believers" and keep repeating the same discredited talking points crap over and over that their "faith based reality" will actually become real.

factis that you are right. saddam was not a threat. 23 senators saw the same thing as the rest of the senate, along with most of the nation fell for the fear game that was played, and continues to be played by this administration.

colin powell reported just before 9/11 that Iraq was contained and not a threat. and while many boiserous statements have been made over the years by people looking to gain political clout and appear "tough", no one was stupid enough to go into what our military already knew would be a hornet's nest. then came the neocons waving the sword they borrowed from the religious right and just plain scaring everyone else into supporting the invasion.

it has been good to see most people wake up from that fear induced coma, but there will always be that fringe that can't admit they were duped by neoconservatives in conservative clothing. maybe it's cause they fear that if they stand up against this war, they might "become" liberal, which couldn't be further from the truth. fact is, that EVERYONE in this country from virtually all sides of the spectrum except for that dimishing fringe has realized the truth. i'm not gonna say they "lied" about everything, but it is painfully obvious that going into Iraq was their agenda, come hell or highwater. it would have happened even if 9/11 didn't. 9/11 gave em an excuse and a rallying cry to get us there. but if that hadn't happened, other reasons (excuses) would have been made.

don't believe their hype Gene...keep fightin the good fight Col.

and btw,,,ya won the stem cell debate too..despite their protest...let em whine all they want...

LOL.

"and btw,,,ya won the stem cell debate too..despite their protest...let em whine all they want..."

Is ignoring other people's arguments and saying the same thing over and over winning? I never saw anything convincing posed as to why it was the federal government's job to supply the biotech with a few more patents. Did the Col ever explain why we should pay for research so that the companies in question can then charge us 400% more here than they do, say, in Africa?

Did we decide why were were asked to pay for private businesses to create drugs that later our lives can be ransomed for at the cost of billions? I don't recall that.

I never saw anything convincing posed as to why it was the federal government's job

that is not the issue. complaining about it over and over again doesn't change anything.

if you hold the philosophy that goverment is responsible to protect the country from invaders and pretty much nothin else, then fine, that's your philosophy. but in this country, the "job" of the government is whatever the people say it is either with their votes or thru their elected officials.

gene...don't worry...some of these guys think that if they just keep being "true believers" and keep repeating the same discredited talking points crap over and over that their "faith based reality" will actually become real. factis that you are right. saddam was not a threat. 23 senators saw the same thing as the rest of the senate, along with most of the nation fell for the fear game that was played, and continues to be played by this administration.

Nice description of the col. And it's about time that you BOTH realized that Saddam didn't have to be able to drop a missle in the middle of DC to be a threat to the US!

Okay "23" senators thought that way...what about the other 77 that didn't?

furthermore, the federal goverment does choose to fund scientific research. is it their "job" to ban this type of research if their funds are financing the research? or is it their "job" to allow this type of research since almost all the scientific community wants it, and a vast majority of taxpayers say "yes" to it?

again, if you want to contend that the goverment should immediately halt all funding of all scientific research, close down the CDC and do whatever it takes to get out of the business of trying to prevent and cure disease, then fine. you are certainly entitled to that opinion.

but what is even funnier is if the Iraqi's are watching our democracy as some sort of an example they are learnin all about goverment taking away rights and liberties guaranteed under the constitution and ignoring the will of the people...some example we are settin, lol.

Okay "23" senators thought that way...what about the other 77 that didn't?

i think that reflected the society at large at the time...i'd have to look it up , but at the time of the invasion, around 75% of the people did support it as well.

and many of the 77 who did support the invasion have admitted their error either publicly or just have stopped talking about Iraq altogether. word on the hill is that bush only has 12 of 49 republican senators supporting the troop escalation

Nice description of the col. And it's about time that you BOTH realized that Saddam didn't have to be able to drop a missle in the middle of DC to be a threat to the US!

get of the pills doc...lmfao!

saddam was not a threat, and we knew it. playing little rhetoric games and this crap will never change that reality.