Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction

[Ferre]

Salon exclusive: Two former CIA officers say the president squelched top-secret intelligence, and a briefing by George Tenet, months before invading Iraq.

Article:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/blument...9/06/bush_wmd/

Reminder:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvliUuXjbL4

[John Scott]

I would hope that the president knew. But who knows, according to that link he was receiving conflicting intelligence reports.

[backgammonnn123]

There was major pressure to go big into iraq whether he had wmd's or not.
Why do u people think bush makes the final decisions anyways?

[Thanol]

Originally Posted by John Scott

I would hope that the president knew. But who knows, according to that link he was receiving conflicting intelligence reports.

Same.

I would rather have a president that lies, than one that doesn't actually know anything. Between a liar and a dimwit for president. A liar would win everytime for me.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by Thanol

Same.

I would rather have a president that lies, than one that doesn't actually know anything. Between a liar and a dimwit for president. A liar would win everytime for me.

*Green*

[Ferre]

In my opinion, the president of the country with the most WMD's on earth and the urge to interfere with other country's policies, should neither be a liar nor a dimwit.

[John Scott]

Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction

No proof either way. Makes you wonder why the article would choose that title, when the article itself indicates that Bush received reports that he did have WMD, while also receiving conflicting reports that he did not have WMD.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by Ferre

In my opinion, the president of the country with the most WMD's on earth and the urge to interfere with other country's policies, should neither be a liar nor a dimwit.

I think that goes without saying, eh? Are you going to suggest that people should brush their teeth with toothpaste and not arsenic?

I don't like Bush too much myself. I would never vote for him. But the fact remains that he did something. A lot of people faulted his father for not helping the Iraqis. When they revolted, Bush Sr did nothing. They were slaughtered.

Is it that hard to understand that Bush wanted to fix that situation? I can't blame him. Was he wrong? Who knows. History will judge him.

I would think, if people are really outraged at the situation, maybe they should go to Iraq and talk some sense into the Muslims who are killing other Muslims simply because they believe in a few different saints.

[upsonians]

The attack on Iraq was made to destroy the massive distruction weapons but til now there are no proofs available that iraq was having those weapons.
While before the attack on Iraq in a press conference it was mentioned that Iraq has the weapons and thats why US will attack over it.This statement was given by US authorities.
Iraq was ready for negoiations with any one, but US attacked over it and till now no weapons are discovered and even the uS authorities has accepted that the inteligence reports were wrong.And they made a useless attack over Iraq.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by upsonians

The attack on Iraq was made to destroy the massive distruction weapons

Most people don't think weapons are the reason we liberated Iraq. It was to give the people democracy, and take out Saddam.

[upsonians]

Originally Posted by John Scott

Most people don't think weapons are the reason we liberated Iraq. It was to give the people democracy, and take out Saddam.

But jhon it is on the media record that America attacked Iraq for massive weapon distruction and similarly it is going to do with Iran.
Well if you think that democracy was the aim then i don't think that real democacy is brought there.
Though Aemerica is trying its best for it but there are some root causes who are opposing it.I will suggest America that try to put out those root causes which are opposing the peace there.

[John Scott]

But jhon it is on the media record that America attacked Iraq for massive weapon distruction

No, it is our media record that weapons of mass destruction were one reason amongst many.

Like I've said before:

• Weapons of mass destruction is not a reason for invading a country. Russia has weapons of mass destruction and we don't invade them.
  
• Weapons of mass destruction do not require an occupation. We usually just do an air strike on the area where the weapons are being developed or deployed.

[antolage]

Originally Posted by upsonians

But jhon it is on the media record that America attacked Iraq for massive weapon distruction and similarly it is going to do with Iran.
Well if you think that democracy was the aim then i don't think that real democacy is brought there.
Though Aemerica is trying its best for it but there are some root causes who are opposing it.I will suggest America that try to put out those root causes which are opposing the peace there.

You do not understand what is happening here. America does not want democracy as it has NEVER had democracy itself. The united states is a 100% capitalistic country, wich is a system much mistaken with democracy. The big difference is that, the one with more money has more power. If he is criminal or not, that does not matter. The key country with huge support from the Americans is Saudi Arabia, where your hands are cut off if you steal an apple because you are hungry.

America went for the oil and drugs, thats pretty clear. It is PROVEN that the CIA has a big hand in major drug dealing.

You should really check this out:

http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=4t3pl5Wxgyg

Don't you feel much better and maybe a bit awake after seeing this?

[John Scott]

The united states is a 100% capitalistic country, wich is a system much mistaken with democracy.

LOL! When you get to high school, you'll learn that capitalism is a economic system and democracy is a form of government. Only a moron would mistake one for the other.

[antolage]

Originally Posted by John Scott

LOL! When you get to high school, you'll learn that capitalism is a economic system and democracy is a form of government. Only a moron would mistake one for the other.

And only a fool would not see that in reality, they are very much the same type of contradictions.

The capitalistic system is based on the fact that power is gained by money. More money means more influence, you can buy even the houses where other people are allowed to live in. More money means more power in the capitalistic system. This totally contradicts with the democratic system. As the people we are allowed to choose from, all come from the same small elite of capitalists. Real democracy does no longer exist in the real capitalistic countries. In America for example, only 2 major groups have the power and the money to even start competing against the others for president. It ends up at choosing from 2 different people. Who actually are from the same group of families.

[John Scott]

And only a fool would not see that in reality, they are very much the same type of contradictions.

Um, you want to learn English and then try posting?

The capitalistic system is based on the fact that power is gained by money.

No, money is gained by money. Money doesn't equal political power. Especially on the local level, many of the politicians in the US are lower income.

More money means more influence, you can buy even the houses where other people are allowed to live in.

Buying houses doesn't buy you political influence. I've rented several houses and my vote was never influenced by the views of the owners. In fact, I didn't give a damn what the political views of the owners were.

More money means more power in the capitalistic system.

Nope. More money means more taxes.

This totally contradicts with the democratic system.

LOL. Seriously, where do you get this stuff? You should be a (fiction) writer.

As the people we are allowed to choose from, all come from the same small elite of capitalists.

I think you watch too much TV. The people who are elected are not, for the most part, elite in any way. Most are regular people who want to make a difference.

Real democracy does no longer exist in the real capitalistic countries.

As long as we are free to elect whoever we want, then real democracy does indeed exist in America.

In America for example, only 2 major groups have the power and the money to even start competing against the others for president. It ends up at choosing from 2 different people.

Nonsense. Go read a newspaper. Which two are you referring to? Most elections have many more than two candidates.

[antolage]