Originally Posted by Iriemon

I thought the argument was that Congress was equally to blame for Iraq because they had the same information that the administration did.

Originally Posted by JMak

Who is arguing this? That seems to be a silly notion. I know I raise the role of Congress when responding to some damned fool who argues that Bush unilaterally went to war or that Congress was hoodwinked.

Bhkar is correct that the President has more data than the Foreign Relations Cmte but that's irrelevant. The more relevant point is that the ranking members of Congress and members of the SSIC and the House Permanent Committee on Intelligence have access to raw intelligence analyses the same as the President does.

Based on that access we saw the ranking Democrat of the SSIC at the time, Rockefeller, characterize Iraq as an "imminent threat" just as another member Edwards did.

Not to blame. They are as responsible. They were not hoodwinked.

Originally Posted by JMak

Who is arguing this? That seems to be a silly notion. I know I raise the role of Congress when responding to some damned fool who argues that Bush unilaterally went to war or that Congress was hoodwinked.

Bhkar is correct that the President has more data than the Foreign Relations Cmte but that's irrelevant. The more relevant point is that the ranking members of Congress and members of the SSIC and the House Permanent Committee on Intelligence have access to raw intelligence analyses the same as the President does.

Based on that access we saw the ranking Democrat of the SSIC at the time, Rockefeller, characterize Iraq as an "imminent threat" just as another member Edwards did.

Originally Posted by bhkad

The President is aware of information that we aren't and it is this information that goes into his decision making. Not even the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee is privvy to some of the information the President has.

But here is what we know and can surmise:

What We Know And Can Surmise About The Invasion of Iraq

Let us take an imaginary leap of fancy to suppose that Bushco was "chafing" to attack Iraq.

Why would this be so?

I'd say it was to prevent a much larger war that spilled out throughout the entire Middle East and might have triggered a global war.

How do I come to this conclusion? By way of what we know and what we can reasonably surmise from the situation.

We KNOW (from CBS 60 Minutes Saddam's FBI interrogator, George Piro) that Saddam was making speeches which alluded to the existence of WMD's.

We KNOW that Israel had been attacked by Iraqi SCUD missiles in the 1991 Gulf War and the Israelis were concerned enough that these missiles contained bio or chemical agents that they issued gas masks to every citizen.

We KNOW that Israel wanted to retaliate but the US prevented not only their response after the first SCUD attacks but we stopped the IDF from participating in the coalition to preserve the Arab character of the war against Iraq.

We KNOW that whenever Israel is threatened they take action to negate that threat. (The Osirak Nuclear reactor attack 1981, and the recent targeted air attacks on Gaza following 1,000's of missiles launched on Israel since the end of the 6 month Cease Fire, for example.)

Based on what we know we can SURMISE there was pressure on the Israeli government to negate this perceived EXISTENTIAL WMD threat. But in attacking Saddam's perceived WMD's the probability existed that the Israelis would have triggered a larger war.

We KNOW that Israeli PM Sharon counseled President Bush before the invasion of Iraq.

What we do not know are the details of those discussions.

But based on what we know it is not all that difficult to make a plausible and reasonable argument that if the Bush Administration was "chafing" to go to war with Iraq it was with good justification.

A Middle Eastern War from Algeria to Afghanistan could easily have triggered a global holy war and cost millions of lives and resulted in nuclear exchanges with Pakistan, at least.

Instead we have two wars, limited in scope, one of them winnable and almost won, with far fewer casualties.

The facts of the matter will not be necessarily ever be revealed but I believe that knowing the truth should vindicate GWB and should be very interesting.

Originally Posted by Billo_Really

Two things:[*]Of coarse Bush attacked "unilaterally". He never received UNSC authorization to "use all necessary means" and I'll give you a $1000 if you can show me one Security Councel resolution that contains the words "regime change".

Originally Posted by Iriemon

I'll let Bkhad defend his assertion if he wants: "The President is aware of information that we aren't and it is this information that goes into his decision making. Not even the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee is privvy to some of the information the President has."

Originally Posted by Billo_Really

At least they had a trial.

I doubt if Bush/Cheney will ever see the inside of a courtroom.

Originally Posted by JMak

Why stop there? Why not simply subordinate our national government to the will of the UN Security Council? I mean, if that counil is going to exercise control over US foreign policy why not have them determine US domestic policy, too? Maybe we can scrap our governing institutions altogether, eh?

Originally Posted by Billo_Really

We also know that Hussein was completely contained within Iraq.

Originally Posted by Billo_Really

We also know that Hussein was not threatening anyone at that time.

Originally Posted by Billo_Really

We also know that UN inspectors were crawling all around that country looking for WMD's.

Originally Posted by Billo_Really

We also know, at that time, no WMD's had been found.

Originally Posted by Billo_Really

We also know that Curveball was unreliable.

Originally Posted by Billo_Really

We also know that the IAEA said the uranium tubes were for centrifuges, not weapons.

Originally Posted by Billo_Really

We also know that Iraq was in compliance with all UNSC resolutions at the time we attacked.

Originally Posted by Billo_Really

We also know that George Bush said Hussein wouldn't allow inspectors in the country at the same time UN inspectors were in that country.

Originally Posted by Billo_Really

We also know that Bush tried to make everyone believe that a country with barely any running water or electricity, 9000 miles away with no navy, is a threat to the most technologically advanced military the world has ever seen.

Originally Posted by MrVicchio

Cept for all that money and support going to various terrorist organizations... do we wait for that support to result in a hit on the USA?


Not directly, this is true.

This is also true, you do leave out the fact the Saddam Regime was actively playing a cat and mouse game with the inspectors... making it appear they were hiding something. But let's ignore that red flag.

Some have been, but most of it was left over stock from 10-20 years ago, so your statement factually is inaccurate. That and 200 tons of Uranium Yellow Cake was moved out of Iraq negates your statement entirely.

We know that now, we know he was both trusted and suspected at the time. Hindsight is not wisdom.


And it's also REALLY easy to change that from "civilian" to "military applications".

Wrong.


And why was this.. oh yes to perpetuate the lie and ensure the oil companies are enriched... my bad.


The USS Cole was a HIGHLY advanced warship, the terrorist that attacked used a rubber boat... result?