Let's see how you let your imagination run wild.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by OddjobXL
I just got a nice new shiny copy of Middle Earth Online so I'll have to cut this short. It has been fun.
For anyone wondering about the quality of the responses here I'll just leave you with a fun mix-tape of good links:
Bush's intent to invade superceded any issue of WMD:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/27/in...i=5088&partner |
The issue of WMD's went way back into prior administrations, as I already pointed out. This article - assuming the memo is authentic in the first place - says at the most:
"The memo also shows that the president and the prime minister acknowledged that no unconventional weapons had been found inside Iraq."
So, what else is new? The whole argument was that the UN inspectors were useless, with Hussein playing cat & mouse. So how does this show that the intent to invade superceded any issue of WMDs, when WMDs was the concern pronounced by Bush and all prior admistrations as well, bi-partisan down the line?
Next........................................
Magic bean words like "corridor" and "cabal", uttered by yourself and an immensly disgruntled (verbatim quote:
"Larry Wilkerson seethed quietly during President Bush's first term") former staffer make for a "cabal"?
Dictionary, please!
ca·bal /kəˈbæl/ [kuh-bal] verb, -balled, -bal·ling.
–noun 1. a small group of secret plotters, as against a government or person in authority.
And this one man's cabal conspiracy is brought to you by Democratic party mouthpiece WP columnist Dana Milbank? Why am I not surprised!
BTW, if you insist on relying on Larry Wilkerson, then you have to take it all. In
this BBC interview, regading the ineptitude of "post invasion planning", Wilkerson states:
"It consisted of largely sending Jay Garner and his organisation to sit in Kuwait until the military forces had moved into Baghdad, and then going to Baghdad and other places in Iraq with no other purpose than to deliver a little humanitarian assistance, perhaps deal with some oil-field fires, put Ahmed Chalabi or some other similar Iraqi in charge and leave."
So, then, if Iraq wasn't invaded for oil after all, and if the administration's ultimate wishful thinking was to decisively defeat Saddam, install a civilian government and leave, then what was Bush lying about and whatever for? :hmm:
Once again, I'll claim that every bungle we've seen, both pre and post war, both in analysis and in military strategy, is symtomatic of an extremly sick intel system. And our enemies know it.
Sorry. I am bored beyond boredom to go on having to point out the details you smudge over.
So if we're not playing "false but accurate", we'll play "inaccurate but true" instead? I don't want to play.
The bottom line is none of this shows WMDs to be a false excuse. Well, surprise, surprise. Again, that's a separate issue from whether the WMDs do or don't exist. Intel Inside - NOT.
