|
First arrest in Iraqi Oil for Food scandal | by DesertRat66 | 2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
|
And I wonder | by evil_andy | 2005-08-09 06:54:30 |
|
Consider this: | by RetiQlum2 | 2005-08-09 08:12:00 |
|
And if Bush had used those reasons, he would go | by toxin | 2005-08-09 08:19:02 |
|
But would he have "sold the public" on it? | by esbita | 2005-08-09 08:27:32 |
|
No they wouldn't have | by DesertRat66 | 2005-08-09 09:04:51 |
|
It's just the pot calling the kettle black. | by esbita | 2005-08-09 09:15:24 |
|
So, basically, Bush is looking like... | by Peace_man | 2005-08-09 09:33:03 |
|
Who is the bully, really? | by esbita | 2005-08-09 09:57:21 |
|
But how did Saddam come to power? | by Pic | 2005-08-09 10:28:38 |
|
Your point being? | by DesertRat66 | 2005-08-09 10:45:35 |
| The objection is not removing Saddam as, |
by Pic |
2005-08-09 10:53:46 |
a point toxin has made repeatedly, but the reasons given for the invasion.
The US did indeed have intelligence pointing to Saddam wanting to acquire fissible materials and other WMD materials, but this intelligence was from the 80ies, not current intelligence. This has been said by officers who worked within the Pentagon prior to the invasion. The administration wanted to invacde and tailored the information to fit with that desire.
There's also the connection to terrorism and 9/11, which those who investigated 9/111 said was bunk.
Sure removing Saddam wasn't a bad thing, but if that's what they wanted to do, why didn't they say that? |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
Question about your "tailoring the information" | by classic_jon | 2005-08-09 11:22:36 |
|
That's a good question, | by Pic | 2005-08-09 11:39:27 |
|
That's one I'd like to see answered | by DesertRat66 | 2005-08-09 11:44:40 |
