Infanteer said:
What the hell are you babbling about?
Read the list - it contains quotes from a President, a Vice President (and Presidential Nominee), a Secretary of State, and plenty of high ranking Senators (of which one was also a Presidential Nominee). These people get/got their information from the same sources that President George W Bush got his.
So basically all those quotes are of those various people,
stating thier opinions. They were speaking out with what they
believed was true right? They apparently "knew". But they didn't? Because as someone else stated, they were "misinformed" as Mr.Bush was? It's symantecs Infanteer, just because 100 people say something doesn't mean it's true... Kinda like when people start jumping off bridges? You know? Sometimes the way certain people post+react to a given stimulous on this site reminds me of the people that join the army so they
will not have to make decisions for themselves. "Blind leading the blind"!...
Lemming 1 to lemming 2, "Hey, everyone's running off that cliff! We should too!"
Lemming 2, "Crap, your right! Heck, if I must be one of the only one's left, there must be something wrong with me! I'm afraid! Hey! WAIT UP!!!"...
Infanteer, I know your not a Lemming, I know that. But it
is entirely possible that people can have opinions about things different than your own or your group(s)/status quo.
Is your conceit so much that you can't admit that perhaps the US Intelligence organs actually believed that the probability of WMD was high and that George W Bush would act upon this advice to formulate his policies regarding Iraq (remember, this is the same advice that Clinton used to keep the sanctions and occasional strikes on Iraq up during his 8 years).
Key word...
believed or, also,
assumed!. Yes, I can admit that perhaps the US Intelligence organs believed the probability was high. Just as you pointed out, they knew GWB would "act" on this information. They spurred him on. And they couldn't have had worse timing, right after bombing Afganistan back to the stone age! They could have at least waited abit longer to make it seem as if they weren't using the 9/11 strategy as a pre-text to invasion. At that point, it seemed as if they were just going to keep floating around coasts and attacking nations. Who will be next? That was the start of it, they started saying they
believed Saddam had WMD (which I agree he very while might have/had) and they tied it into 9/11 saying he was
possibly linked with the terrorist groups and Bin Laden. But wait! Apparently that card wasn't working and GWB's rating was dropping like a stone, his approval rating was the worst it had ever been when he announced war on Iraq. Then what? Oh my! They
DO have WMD!!! ATTACK! The whole nation in an uproar because he spurred them on... Do you see what I mean about how other people can have different views than you?
Your letting your personal bias on the character of the President colour the evidence that is sitting infront of your face.
Maybe yes, but, for the evidence that sits against him in my arguement and negates the value of (in my eyes) their reasons. They "believed" and "assumed" and "thought" he had WMD and made a mistake by saying he did when they couldn't come up with anything...
I am not disputing that possibly Saddam DID have WMD, nor am I saying they shouldn't have invaded regardless due to the danger of Saddam. I'm just argueing that they jumped the gun, knew it, and did it for simply more reasons that what was plainly stated. It wasn't all about WMD, it was about GWB.