Is Obama Really this Bad?

[Burgold]

Only 29% of Republicans believe Obama was born in America. Only 39% of Democrats believe Bush wasn't complicit in the murder of 3000 Americans. We've got you on volume of loons but your conspiracy nuts have ours beat on sheer nastiness.

Can't we just agree that the idiots on both sides suck and appreciate our non-loony cross-party unity? Reject the conspiracy nuts on the right AND the left.

Has this become a my father can beat up your father thread?

Reading backwards, but sheesh you guys.

[PeterMP]

According to the Politifact article, Democrats in Congress were made as aware of the doubts within our intelligence agencies as President Bush.

Sure, but it was President Bush that was suppossed to be in charge of those agencies.

Your argument is that Bush was just incompetent and allowed incompetent and liars have important positions in his administration and wasn't just a liar himself.

http://www.factcheck.org/iraq_what_did_congress_know_and_when.html

I'd like to see any analysis the Dept. of energy conducted that wasn't based on biased intelligence generated by others.

Yes, it seems that way now. We didn't know that until after the Iraq invasion.

But it something that should have been foresable.

People that wanted to attack Iraq (Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc (people that were neo-cons and supported attacking Iraq even prior to 9-11)) generated analysis that favored attacking Iraq.

Is that really shocking or surprising?

[mardi gras skin]

Has this become a my father can beat up your father thread?

Reading backwards, but sheesh you guys.

I thought maybe twist and I were working toward a "both our redneck cousins are embarrassing" kind of thread but after his last post I guess that's not happening.

---------- Post added May-15th-2011 at 05:42 PM ----------

Your argument is that Bush was just incompetent and allowed incompetent and liars have important positions in his administration and wasn't just a liar himself.

Nope. My argument is that Clinton got it wrong before Bush got it wrong because EVERYONE got it wrong. I don't think any of them were incompetent or liars or manipulators or whatever else you want to project on them. I don't think either Administration manipulated the collective intelligence agencies of the world who agreed that Saddam had WMD.

I think they ALL just got it wrong. They all agreed Saddam had WMD because Saddam wanted the world to think he had WMD.

I'd like to see any analysis the Dept. of energy conducted that wasn't based on biased intelligence generated by others.

So now PolitiFact is a part of the conspiracy? Sheesh.

But it something that should have been foresable.

Why do you think Clinton and Bush should have known Saddam didn't have WMD? Did you have it all figured out before the invasion?

People that wanted to attack Iraq (Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc (people that were neo-cons and supported attacking Iraq even prior to 9-11)) generated analysis that favored attacking Iraq.

Is that really shocking or surprising?

What shocks and surprises me is that you ignore ALL the evidence that predates the Bush administration that Saddam had WMD. Clinton bombed Iraq for 4 days because he was SURE Saddam had WMD. But somehow it was Cheney's fault that we thought Saddam had WMD.

You're flying blind here, Pete. You're conspiracy theory only works if you ignore the obvious fact that Bush/Cheney/pick-your-boogieman was not capable of the far reaching influence your overworked imagination is generating.

[Burgold]

Going way back in time, I remember when the Iraq War was being argued about I believed that he had WMDs, but I wasn't convinced they were an iminent threat to us. Not one that justified a pre-emptive war anyway. Now, on a humanitarian level, I could understand the motivation. Sadam was a monster and a mass murder and had genocidal tendencies (killed a hundred thousand Kurds if I'm remembering correctly. Although that was a decade prior to our invasion.) On that level, I supported the idea of going in. Mind you, that was about 10 percent of the rationale being given to the public.

So, I do think that Bush, Clinton, and many others were fooled by bad intel. I also think that Bush worked pretty hard to cobble together a story with pieces that he knew weren't as well-fitting as he implied. That's part of the President's job. The President is a salesman and I don't begrudge Bush that except I think that he went too far. There was a little too much propaganda and bologna served up with the real intelligence.

One of the things that I find interesting is that in our cynical lives we all pronounce politicians to be rats, lying rats, corrupt bums even and yet when we talk in specifics, for some reason, we believe that a politician wouldn't lie. Politician's lie, exagerate, and manipulate to try to make their case and win the people. Bush did. Obama does too. Even Washington lied (except when it came to cherry trees)

So, I think two things happened. The politicians and the intelligence community got fooled and they fooled us on top of it. Lies on top of lies. Who knows where the truth begins.

[mardi gras skin]

And that's cool Burg. If your position is that they all lied about Saddam and his WMD program, at least your consistent. Clinton and Congress lied before they agreed to bomb Iraq for 4 days during Clinton's administration. Bush and Congress lied before they declared war on Iraq and sent Saddam into a rat hole.

To me, the simplest answer to the multi-administration agreement is that they all honestly believed Saddam's WMD program was a real threat because the intel consistently said Saddam was a threat.

[Burgold]

Oh, I think they believed and they lied.

It's like the classic fish story. You went out fishing with your buddies and you pull in a 2 pounder. By the time you got home your the old man and the sea wrestling with a marlin using a bit of twine. I think that they believed some intelligence and then built upon it or made connections that they either wanted to be there or needed to be there to make their case. Intelligence says, based on evidence we believe Sadam has the capacity to make mustard gas. Politician relays that to us this way... Intelligence says that Sadam is only days away from a devestating biological and chemical arsenal. We know of his hatred of the U.S. and we know how he has funded terrorists. We need to stop him now before there are mushroom clouds in New York Washington and Austin.

[mardi gras skin]

Intelligence says that Sadam is only days away from a devestating biological and chemical arsenal. We know of his hatred of the U.S. and we know how he has funded terrorists. We need to stop him now before there are mushroom clouds in New York Washington and Austin.

After 9/11, that mindset was inevitable. I think the Iraq invasion was a classic "we can NOT make that mistake again" scenario. America was reeling from the most devastating attack our country had felt since WWII and everyone was asking, "Why did our intelligence agencies miss the clues?!" At that point, possible threats became actual threats.

After September 11, the next mistake was definitely going to be one of over reaction.

[Burgold]

I absolutely, 100%, unequivocally agree with that. The spectre of the boogeyman haunted Bush.

That day shaded how they saw reality and how they acted and reacted. It's incredibly likely I would have been as overzealous and overprotective if something like that happened on my watch... especially with all the hindsight evidence that they probably really tortured themselves with. I also think some of the lies that they knew were lies that they comitted to were said for what they thought were the best and noblest reasons. They were wrong and they made mistakes, but it wasn't about evil or malice. It was about fear, protectiveness... and possibly anger. I wish there had been someone to hit the breaks, but I don't think anyone dared to do so because of the same fear that drove the Bush Administration. What if Bush is right and my objection allowed another 9/11?

As to 9/11, Bush could not have prevented it, but I bet looking at some of that intel afterwards there were some devestating games of what if that haunted their nights. And no, I don't blame Bush and company for 9/11 in the least.

[mardi gras skin]

I wish there had been someone to hit the breaks, but I don't think anyone dared to do so because of the same fear that drove the Bush Administration. What if Bush is right and my objection allowed another 9/11?

Bingo. You're dead right and I think Tony Blair wrapped this line of thinking up perfectly:

Can we be sure that terrorism and weapons of mass destruction will join together? Let us say one thing: If we are wrong, we will have destroyed a threat that at its least is responsible for inhuman carnage and suffering. That is something I am confident history will forgive.

But if our critics are wrong, if we are right, as I believe with every fiber of instinct and conviction I have that we are, and we do not act, then we will have hesitated in the face of this menace when we should have given leadership. That is something history will not forgive.

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

Nice to see Sec. Gates call it one of the most courageous decisions he's ever seen a president make--on 60 Minutes right now. But wtf would he know.

[mardi gras skin]

Robert Gates is the man. Not that Obama needed more confirmation that he rose to the occasion but an endorsement from Gates means something.

[Burgold]

Nice to see Sec. Gates call it one of the most courageous decisions he's ever seen a president make--on 60 Minutes right now. But wtf would he know.

Yeah, I don't really get those trying to diminish this. It really is petty beyond belief.

Blair was a heckuva good speaker. I believe the Iraq War was a mistake and I did pretty much from the beginning, but even though I think Bush lied I think his intent was good. We probably should not have gone in. We should have focused on Afghanistan and routing Al Qaeda, but I think all were trying to protect the United States as best they could.

Edit #2 I wonder if Gate will run for Pres one day. I wouldn't mind. He stood up against the Republicans in Walter Reed and he stood up against the Democrats too. He also stood up for both groups. His apoliticalness and his ability to lead and how he leads has been very good. One of Bush's very best appointments.

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

Robert Gates is the man. Not that Obama needed more confirmation that he rose to the occasion but an endorsement from Gates means something.

Yeah man. I really, really, really like and respect Gates. I think he's an example for all to follow.

[mardi gras skin]

I wonder if Gate will run for Pres one day. I wouldn't mind. He stood up against the Republicans in Walter Reed and he stood up against the Democrats too. He also stood up for both groups. His apoliticalness and his ability to lead and how he leads has been very good. One of Bush's very best appointments.

He's carved out a uniquely solid resume but I don't think he'll do it. By 2016 he'll be about 73 (I think).

[PeterMP]

So now PolitiFact is a part of the conspiracy? Sheesh.

No, they aren't part of a conspiracy. What they stated is a fact.

Are you really saying that the Dept. of Energy wasn't affected at all by information like that coming from the CIA?

What information did the Dept. of Energy evaluate with respect to Saddam having a nuclear program, other than centrifuge tubes?

Why do you think Clinton and Bush should have known Saddam didn't have WMD? Did you have it all figured out before the invasion?

I think its safe to say that Bush did much more work in terms of determining if he had a WMD program.

What evidence did the Clinton administration ever present that Saddam had WMD?

What evidence did the Bush administration use that was developed prior to 1998?

How many people would have okayed an invasion based on that evidence?

What shocks and surprises me is that you ignore ALL the evidence that predates the Bush administration that Saddam had WMD. Clinton bombed Iraq for 4 days because he was SURE Saddam had WMD. But somehow it was Cheney's fault that

What evidence?

Clinton bombed Iraq because they had kicked out the inspectors.

You're flying blind here, Pete. You're conspiracy theory only works if you ignore the obvious fact that Bush/Cheney/pick-your-boogieman was not capable of the far reaching influence your overworked imagination is generating.

You mean like statements made by the President and VP of the US. That sort of influence?

Right, people knew things were being said weren't likely to be true. Go back to your Factcheck page even:

"Vice President Cheney, for example, said this on NBC's Meet the Press barely a month before Congress voted to authorize force:

Cheney, Sept. 8, 2002

: But we do know,

with absolute certainty

, that he (Saddam) is using his procurement system to acquire the equipment he needs in order to enrich uranium to build a nuclear weapon.

As we've seen, that was wrong. Department of Energy and State Department intelligence analysts did not agree with the Vice President's claim, which turned out to be false. Cheney may have felt "absolute certainty" in his own mind, but that certainty wasn't true of the entire intelligence community, as his use of the word "we" implied."

And just to be clear the IAEA disagreed too. We consisted him, Bush, Rumsfeld, etc. (i.e. the neocons).

"Similarly, the President himself said this in a speech to the nation, just three days before the House vote to authorize force:

Bush, Oct. 7, 2002:

We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases

. And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.

Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists.

Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.

That statement is open to challenge on two grounds. For one thing, as we've seen, the intelligence community was reporting to Bush and Congress that they thought it unlikely that Saddam would give chemical or biological weapons to terrorists – and only "if sufficiently desperate" and as a "last chance to exact revenge" for the very attack that Bush was then advocating.

Furthermore, the claim that Iraq had trained al Qaeda in the use of poison gas turned out to be false, and some in the intelligence community were expressing doubts about it at the time Bush spoke. It was based on statements by a senior trainer for al Qaeda who had been captured in Afghanistan. The detainee, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, took back his story in 2004 and the CIA withdrew all claims based on it. But even at the time Bush spoke, Pentagon intelligence analysts said it was likely al-Libi was lying."

How'd that happen?

Look, it is a simple fact. Studies show even in science where there isn't the conviction/political pressure to find something that people tend to find what they are testing for. I started a thread at some point in time on a study where somebody had done work and concluded that a pretty large percentage of published scientific papers are probably wrong.

So even there, there is an effort to have an impartial check through a review process.

That almost certainly wasn't happening at the upper levels of the Bush era intelligence community.

[mardi gras skin]

That almost certainly wasn't happening at the upper levels of the Bush era intelligence community.

So Clinton's intelligence community came to the same conclusion as Bush's intelligence community but Bush's intelligence results were tainted.

---------- Post added May-15th-2011 at 10:49 PM ----------

You know what's so interesting about this to me is how natural it is for otherwise level headed posters to accept this particular conspiracy theory. Bush doctored CIA information and tricked us all into war. Poor John Kerry, and Nancy Pelosi, and Hillary Clinton were duped by dastardly George Bush and his neo/nazi cons. Clinton Era intelligence never happened. Cooperating information from foreign intelligence services didn't exist. Somehow Bush extended his influence through time and space to fool the entire world into a Holy Crusade through Persia.

Just amazing.

Some more light reading for all you conspiracy theorists:

http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html

Bush's "16 Words" on Iraq & Uranium: He May Have Been Wrong But He Wasn't Lying

July 26, 2004

Updated: August 23, 2004

Two intelligence investigations show Bush had plenty of reason to believe what he said in his 2003 State of the Union Address.

Summary

The famous “16 words” in President Bush’s Jan. 28, 2003 State of the Union address turn out to have a basis in fact after all, according to two recently released investigations in the US and Britain.

Bush said then, “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa .” Some of his critics called that a lie, but the new evidence shows Bush had reason to say what he did.

A British intelligence review released July 14 calls Bush’s 16 words “well founded.”

A separate report by the US Senate Intelligence Committee said July 7 that the US also had similar information from “a number of intelligence reports,” a fact that was classified at the time Bush spoke.

Ironically, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who later called Bush’s 16 words a “lie”, supplied information that the Central Intelligence Agency took as confirmation that Iraq may indeed have been seeking uranium from Niger.

Both the US and British investigations make clear that some forged Italian documents, exposed as fakes soon after Bush spoke, were not the basis for the British intelligence Bush cited, or the CIA's conclusion that Iraq was trying to get uranium.

What he said – that Iraq sought uranium – is just what both British and US intelligence were telling him at the time. So Bush may indeed have been misinformed, but that's not the same as lying.

But yeah, Bush probably reached across the pond and doctored up Tony's intelligence agency too. Bush must have been the most powerful president ever.

[twa]

Just to pile on....even Wilson had evidence of Iraq seeking Yellowcake

[Destino]

What more did he do? Did he train the SEALs? Did he fly the helos that dropped them off or picked them up? Did he pull the trigger? No. He was informed that the SEALs had reached their objective and approved the killing of Bin Laden. That's all he did. He doesn't need to get an action figure for it. The reasoning behind the "action" figure is what's frustrating people, not the actual "action" figure. Why in the world would he get one? Did Truman get an action figure when Hitler died?

Actually I think what's frustrating people is that a democrat is getting credit for a major accomplishment. It's been pointed out in this thread already that others of these sinister action figures that have you so angry have been produced. The more that comes out about this the more Obama's involvement comes to light. Everything from the number of helicopters to making Osama the focus of his war on terror. You are correct though, he didn't pull a trigger and he's not a navy seal. He's just the President of the United Sates.

[twa]

He's just the President of the United Sates.

Which should confer some respect.

I think some of it is pushback from the excessive cheerleading,but the man and position deserve better than some of this garbage.

[Hitman21ST]

Everything from the number of helicopters to making Osama the focus of his war on terror. You are correct though, he didn't pull a trigger and he's not a navy seal. He's just the President of the United Sates.

As opposed to...

[NoVaO]

As opposed to...

The distraction in Iraq.

[Predicto]

As I have said already, I do not think that Bush "lied" to get us into Iraq.

I do think that Bush and Cheney made Paul Wolfowitz and especially Douglas Feith and the Pentagon "Office of Special Plans" the sole arbiters of what intelligence made it up to the White House and to the Congress and other nations. They did this because the CIA wasn't telling them what they wanted to hear - what they were SURE must be true - that Saddam was an imminent threat.

In an interview with the Scottish Sunday Herald, former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) officer Larry C. Johnson said the OSP was "dangerous for US national security and a threat to world peace. [The OSP] lied and manipulated intelligence to further its agenda of removing Saddam. It's a group of ideologues with pre-determined notions of truth and reality. They take bits of intelligence to support their agenda and ignore anything contrary. They should be eliminated."[3]

Seymour Hersh writes that, according to an unnamed Pentagon adviser, "[OSP] was created in order to find evidence of what Wolfowitz and his boss, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, wanted to be true—that Saddam Hussein had close ties to Al Qaeda, and that Iraq had an enormous arsenal of chemical, biological, and possibly even nuclear weapons (WMD) that threatened the region and, potentially, the United States. [...] 'The agency [CIA] was out to disprove linkage between Iraq and terrorism,' the Pentagon adviser told me. 'That’s what drove them. If you’ve ever worked with intelligence data, you can see the ingrained views at C.I.A. that color the way it sees data.' The goal of Special Plans, he said, was 'to put the data under the microscope to reveal what the intelligence community can’t see.'"[4]

These allegations are supported by an annex to the first part of Senate Intelligence Committee's Report of Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq published in July 2004. The review, which was highly critical of the CIA's Iraq intelligence generally but found its judgments were right on the Iraq-al Qaeda relationship, suggests that the OSP, if connected to an "Iraqi intelligence cell" also headed by Douglas Feith which is described in the annex, sought to discredit and cast doubt on CIA analysis in an effort to establish a connection between Saddam Hussein and terrorism. In one instance, in response to a cautious CIA report, "Iraq and al-Qa'eda: A Murky Relationship", the annex relates that "one of the individuals working for the [intelligence cell led by Feith] stated that the June [2002] report, '...should be read for content only - and CIA's interpretation ought to be ignored.'"[5]

Douglas Feith called the office's report a much-needed critique of the CIA's intelligence. "It's healthy to criticize the CIA's intelligence", Feith said. "What the people in the Pentagon were doing was right. It was good government." Feith also rejected accusations he attempted to link Iraq to a formal relationship with Al Qaeda. "No one in my office ever claimed there was an operational relationship", Feith said. "There was a relationship."[6]

In another instance, an "Iraqi intelligence cell" briefing to Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz in August 2002 condemned the CIA's intelligence assessment techniques and denounced the CIA's "consistent underestimation" of matters dealing with the alleged Iraq-al-Qaeda co-operation. In September 2002, two days before the CIA's final assessment of the Iraq-al Qaeda relationship, Feith briefed senior advisers to Dick Cheney and Condoleezza Rice, undercutting the CIA's credibility and alleging "fundamental problems" with CIA intelligence-gathering. As reported in the conservative British newspaper The Daily Telegraph, "Senator Jay Rockefeller, senior Democrat on the [senate] committee, said that Mr Feith's cell may even have undertaken 'unlawful' intelligence-gathering initiatives."[7]

In February 2007, the Pentagon's inspector general issued a report that concluded that Feith's office "developed, produced, and then disseminated alternative intelligence assessments on the Iraq and al Qaida relationship, which included some conclusions that were inconsistent with the consensus of the Intelligence Community, to senior decision-makers." The report found that these actions were "inappropriate" though not "illegal." Senator Carl Levin, Chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, stated that "The bottom line is that intelligence relating to the Iraq-al-Qaeda relationship was manipulated by high-ranking officials in the Department of Defense to support the administration's decision to invade Iraq. The inspector general's report is a devastating condemnation of inappropriate activities in the DOD policy office that helped take this nation to war."[

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

Everytime someone in this thread chain-quotes a generic statement by a European or a Democrat or someone to the effect that "Saddam had WMDs," I just shake my head. The question is not whether Saddam had some WMDs - the question is whether he was such an imminent threat that an immediate invasion by the USA was necessary. The intelligence that supported THAT conclusion was bad intel, and that is because Cheney did not want objective intel from the wimps at the CIA that he no longer trusted. He wanted the intel that told him exactly what he wanted to hear - intel that said we had to go to war right away - intel that was filtered and massaged by Doug Feith and his team to reach that result.

That is not "lying" but it is incredibly bad and irresponsible leadership. John Kerry and Nancy Pelosi and Tony Blair had no way of knowing that the intel they were being shown by the White House was not objective. I'm sure it looked scary as hell to them. I'm sure it looked scary as hell to Bush too. But that's what happens when you hire the intelligence equivalent of Stephen King to write the story and bypass all the sceptics and naysayers.

---------- Post added May-16th-2011 at 12:47 AM ----------

Which should confer some respect.

I think some of it is pushback from the excessive cheerleading,but the man and position deserve better than some of this garbage.

You guys were whining about "excessive cheerleading" fifteen minutes after Obama made the announcement that we got Osama. You had that complaint on auto-dial.

[mardi gras skin]

The review, which was highly critical of the CIA's Iraq intelligence generally but found its judgments were right on the Iraq-al Qaeda relationship

Am I missing something? Does this say that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Queda?

The question is not whether Saddam had some WMDs - the question is whether he was such an imminent threat that an immediate invasion by the USA was necessary.

Ok, Predicto. You're the President. Its 2003 and 9/11 is fresh. Everyone is sure, and has been sure for decades, that Saddam has Biological and Chemical Weapons. You've just received word from your own intelligence agencies and from British intelligence that Saddam has reached out to African countries for significant quantities of Unraium and most of these intelligence agencies agree with "moderate confidence" that Saddam will have nuclear capabilities in 4 to 6 years. Agencies outside the reach of Feith and Wolfowitz agree. Even the DoE, who disagreed about the tubes, agreed that Saddam had an active nuclear program. All this has been confirmed as accurate in previous posts in case you didn't read the entire thread.

At what point does Iraq become an "imminent threat." Would this occur before or after Saddam has the bomb?

---------- Post added May-16th-2011 at 05:53 AM ----------

Just a fun little tidbit from Politifact that adds a bit of tension to the "imminent threat" equation:

http://www.factcheck.org/article349.html

The bipartisan 9/11 Commission later cited reports of several "friendly contacts" between Saddam and Osama bin Laden over the years, and cited one report that in 1999 Iraqi officials offered bin Laden a "safe haven," which bin Laden refused, preferring to remain in Afghanistan. But nothing substantial came of the contacts. The commission said: "The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides' hatred of the United States.

So, as President, you also receive word that there are "friendly contacts" between Saddam and bin Laden. As you assess the threat level Saddam posses, are you confident that their ideological difference override their common hatred of the US?

[PeterMP]

So Clinton's intelligence community came to the same conclusion as Bush's intelligence community but Bush's intelligence results were tainted.

How about this?

It is March 10 2003, Bush goes to his advisors one more time 10 days before the war and says, there's so much going on and so much of the intel has been changed, TODAY, I want to know the best evidence we have for going to war with Iraq in terms of WMD program and involvement with terrorists?

What specific evidence do we have that is a "slam dunk"? Based on what was known at the time.

Don't give me the CIA said so.

Are you going to talk about centrifuge tubes that the Dept. of Energy doesn't believe are used for nuclear weapons development (and that he never actually obtained), are you going to talk about getting nuclear material from Niger (which didn't seem to happen), that the person that you sent to Niger doesn't think is good evidence that he has a nuclear weapons programs, and by June of that year the CIA is saying there is no good evidence of a nuclear program, are you going to talk about nuclear at all because the IAEA has already said that they don't think he has an active nuclear programs.

Are you going to talk about mobile chemial/biological weapons lab?

Where does that information come from beyond curveball, whom people are already saying probably isn't being honest?

Maybe you're going to ties with terrorists, except that your own intelligence community was already saying that there were no ties to 9-11 and that it was unlikely that Saddam would become overly involved with terrorists organization unless he was desperate, like a war was launched against him.

On March 10, what piece of evidence are you saying, this is why we need to attack Iraq?

Is it, 'well the British and Clinton administration thought he had WMD'?

If on March 10, there wasn't "slam dunk" evidence that Iraq had a WMD program or dangerous relationships with terrorists don't you think somebody should of stepped up and said something?

You know what's so interesting about this to me is how natural it is for otherwise level headed posters to accept this particular conspiracy theory. Bush doctored CIA information and tricked us all into war. Poor John Kerry, and Nancy Pelosi, and Hillary Clinton were duped by dastardly George Bush and his neo/nazi cons. Clinton Era intelligence never happened. Cooperating information from foreign intelligence services didn't exist. Somehow Bush extended his influence through time and space to fool the entire world into a Holy Crusade through Persia.

Just amazing.

Some more light reading for all you conspiracy theorists:

http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html

But yeah, Bush probably reached across the pond and doctored up Tony's intelligence agency too. Bush must have been the most powerful president ever.

And by June of that year, the CIA was saying the information was no longer credibile. What happened between Jan and June?

Where I have ever used the word doctor or even conspiracy?

Do you think that I believe most scientists are in a conspiracy to publish fasle information?

It might help if you improved your reading comprehension.

---------- Post added May-16th-2011 at 10:10 AM ----------

So, as President, you also receive word that there are "friendly contacts" between Saddam and bin Laden. As you assess the threat level Saddam posses, are you confident that their ideological difference override their common hatred of the US?

That is what his intelligence community was telling him:

http://www.factcheck.org/iraq_what_did_congress_know_and_when.html

"The intelligence estimate said that – if attacked and "if sufficiently desperate" – Saddam might turn to al Qaeda to carry out an attack against the US with chemical or biological weapons. "He might decide that the extreme step of assisting the Islamist terrorist in conducting a CBW attack against the United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him," the NIE said."

Out of curiosity, where is the eivdence that Iraq hated the US?

[mardi gras skin]

Are you going to talk about centrifuge tubes that the Dept. of Energy doesn't believe are used for nuclear weapons development (and that he never actually obtained), are you going to talk about getting nuclear material from Niger (which didn't seem to happen).

Peter, you're not paying attention. DESPITE THE FACT that the Dept. of Energy disagreed with other agencies about the tubes they STILL AGREED that Saddam had an active nuclear energy dept.

What Bush said – that Iraq sought uranium from African countries – is just what both British and US intelligence were telling him at the time. So Bush may indeed have been misinformed, but that's not the same as lying.

You don't get to monday morning quarterback this thing. As President and Congress, you have the information you have. Even accepting your conspiracy theory regarding CIA specifically, other American and British intelligence agencies agreed that Saddam ALREADY had Chemical and Biological weapons and THEY AGREED that Saddam had an active nuclear program that would most likely reach completion by 2007-2009.

This is not just the result of CIA intelligence. This is the cumulative intelligence of many agencies across multiple countries.

Your conspiracy theory is untenable.