Quote:
Originally Posted by Chanda  Both Colin Powell in February 2001, and Condoleezza Rice in July 2001 stated in no uncertain terms that Saddam Hussein was not a threat: |
And OIF began when?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chanda Furthermore, Bush et al made the decision to go to war (apparently without evidence of any kind) in November, 2001, only 4 months after Rice stated Saddam Hussein was not a threat. |
Ms. Rice is not the President.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chanda "Significantly, the decision is made independent of normal policy-making procedures—a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq was not requested, members of Congress were not consulted, and the concerns of senior military officers and intelligence analysts were ignored." |
No doubt this is where Mr. Bush wanted to go.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chanda According to John D. (Jay) Rockefeller IV, Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence,
“Before taking the country to war, this Administration owed it to the American people to give them a 100 percent accurate picture of the threat we faced. Unfortunately, our Committee has concluded that the Administration made significant claims that were not supported by the intelligence,” Rockefeller said. “In making the case for war, the Administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent. As a result, the American people were led to believe that the threat from Iraq was much greater than actually existed.” |
Although Rockefeller is a Democrat, what he is saying is basically true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chanda Bush had to lie, because if he had told the truth--Saddam Hussein is not a threat, but we know he wants to acquire WMD-- the American people would never have allowed the Iraq war. |
I disagree with nothing above except the "lie" sobriquet. It would be extremely difficult to prove Mr. Bush lied. The information he digested was subject to his subjective analysis. He could always claim that he misunderstood, interpreted the information incorrectly, error of judgement, etc. That is why I suggested the term "prevaricate" instead of lie.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chanda Who should be held accountable? The evidence is overwhelming that Bush lied. You can only take the premise "he didn't know he was lying" so far before it begins to sound absurd. Considering the consequences of his actions, it's time to stop making excuses for him. |
I think you misunderstand me here. I am no supporter of Mr. Bush. Be that as it may and as I pointed out above, it would be extremely difficult to formally press a case that he lied. Has he been impeached under a Democratic Congress? No. For basically the reasons stated above. History will judge the legacy of President George W. Bush, and I do not believe history will be very generous.