> WMD/Terrorism/atrocities/cheap
> beer" argument is pointless. Mr. Bush has already
> stated, immediately
> after the war, the main reason that he invaded Iraq
> was because he
> thought it was the US's duty to liberate people.
> This is documented
> by Mr. Woodward.
I posted President Bush's interview where he explains
why we went to war.
You ignore that and rely on what Woodward says?
> The rest of the reasons are open to debate because
> they don't make
> factual or logical sense. Which is because the
> decision was not made
> in a factual or logical way. Mr. Bush simply felt
> it was the right
> thing to do and he's already said so.
If you know how President Bush thinks then hell, I'm
sorry I even questioned you.
> Since then he just picks the reason that sounds best
> based on the
> morning headlines.
Can you really read his mind?
> > Franks also saw the same info and was convinced
> the
> > threat was real.
>
> Wrong - read his book or Mr. Woodward's book. Gen
> Franks was brought
> into the know once the decision was made. Yes, he
> saw some
> intelligence, but not the key stuff. Only the
> President's direct
> reports and key advisors saw that and Mr. Franks
> wasn't one of them.
I'm half way through with Franks book but I did skip
to the end to see what he said about this war. He
claims he started preparing for the war in May 2002
just in case. To prepare for the war he accessed all
the same info.
You rely to heavily on Woodward’s book.
> Gen. Franks was asked by the Pentagon to plan for an
> Iraq invasion as
> well as a North Korean invasion and about 10 other
> contingencies. He
> was given classified intelligence to do this, but
> not the full
> workups.
>
> I believe the only non-direct reports that had full
> access were Dr.
> Wolfowitz and Mr. Libbey.
Should we just go by your beliefs as well as your mind
reading ability?
> Yes, but according to Mr. Bush there has never been
> ANY evidence
> linking Al Queda to Iraq. He's said this plainly.
> Therefore invading
> Iraq disrupted "them", but not Al Queda.
You're twisting things again. He said there's no
connection between Saddam and 9/11 but there is a
connection Saddam and al Qaeda.
> I'll believe anything that has proof - there is
> none, zero, zip, zilch
> proof that Al Queda has had anything to do with
> Iraq. Mr. Bush has
> explicitly stated this.
The president answered:"The reason I keep insisting
that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam
and al Qaeda, because there was a relationship between
Iraq and al Qaeda."
Bush reiterated that the administration never said
that "the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated" between
Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. "We did say there were
numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and al
Qaeda," he said.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/17/Bush.alqaeda/
> This also makes sense based on Mr. Hussein's
> personality - he's a
> secular megalomanic. He would have nothing to do
> with Al Queda unless
> it benefitted him and nobody has provided motive,
> much less evidence
> of a connection.
But we know they contacted each other, it's documented
and nobody, except you disputes it.
> So you're saying a United States General, at war in
> Iraq, witnessed
> WMD travelling to Syria, but didn't fire a shot?
Yeah. Should we have attacked Syria at the same time?
Should we have started the war that you're so against
a few days earlier?
> Wrong. They said that Iraq PROBABLY had WMD and
> that it had
> PREVIOUSLY had them and been asked to destroy them,
> but PROBABLY
> hadn't. That's what the weapons inspectors were
> verifying since the
> first Iraq war.
I said "thought" and you said "probably". What's the
difference?
> If the UN had PROOF that Iraq had WMD than what were
> the weapons
> inspectors for? They were to verify a theory.
Yes. Even if they found the weapons France wouldn't
have approved the war. What else can the UN do?
> Further if the justification for war was over WMD,
> since we havn't
> found any, why isnt' the war a mistake?
You just claimed Bush said it was to liberate Iraqis.
You have the list of reasons.
> Ironically the UN, and, "the world", now says that
> Iraq PROBABLY
> destroyed them. So if the "probably' was enough to
> go to provide
> retroactive justification, is it enough to justify
> leaving? (not that
> I'm advocating that)
I haven't heard that. I heard Saddam thought he had
them and his scientist lied to him or that he buried
but never he destroyed them.
> No, I'm referring to what Powell advised BEFORE the
> war. The "Powell
> doctrine" is widely publicised and in it he rejects
> the idea of war in
> Iraq. What you're referring to is his wobbly
> General's spine he
> displayed AFTER - that is, when the
> commander-in-chief says jump, you
> say you support jumping.
The Powell Doctrine is from 1991 and has been ignored
since.
> > Don't we have proof Saddam was ready to start his
> > nuclear program once the inspectors were gone?
>
> We' ve got proof of nothing - mostly because Mr.
> Hussein was nuts and
> his government was on the verge of collapse.
No we have proof he tried to buy yellowcake from
Niger. It's a shame he'd waste all that money just
before his government collapsed.
> In any
> event, North
> Korea says they have them. But according to Mr.
> Bush the CIA is "just
> guessing."
You want us to go to war with Korea?
> There's no conflict. Secretary Powell didn't
> support the war and that
> is well documented. However, he followed orders
> once Mr. Bush had
> committed to invading Iraq. This is all well
> explained in Mr.
> Woodward's book.
And Powell denies it's true. But you believe
everything Woodward says.
> So, to clear up the Mr. Powell thing for you:
>
> 1.) Mr. Powell didn't support GOING to war in Iraq
> or any other
> country. This is why he was Secretary of State. He
> favored diplomacy
> and thought/thinks war was the result of a failure
> of diplomacy.
We did try diplomacy and it did fail. Correct. After
the failed diplomacy he supported going to war.
> 2.) Once Mr. Bush made it clear that he disagreed
> with Mr. Powell and
> was going to invade Iraq despite Mr. Powell's
> advice, Mr. Powell
> agreed to help out as needed.
> Most probably this is because Mr. Powell is a life
> long soldier. He's
> used to executing orders he doesn't agree with.
> But, in the end, he
> feels it's his duty to do as commanded.
>
> The conflict isn't mine, it's Mr. Powell's.
So if you have no respect for Mr. Powell why do you
keep using him to support your argument?
-sm
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
