BUSH TAKES RESPONSIBILITY FOR INVASION INTELLIGENC

[aggielove]

I wanted to get some thoughts from the BDF and how you feel about Bush finally admitting that the intelligence that he received, and that ultimately led us to the conflict in Iraq, was "wrong." It was apparent to most that the intelligence was "wrong" when the administration kept changing the reasoning for our troops being in Iraq - 1st it was to get the Weapons of Mass Destruction, then the mission became Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Do you believe that the lie that he's told is enough to impeach him (in comparison to Bill Clinton)?

Do you feel that he was sincere in his admittance or is this just political posturing?

I'd like to know what you all have to say.

[DOOMS]

Can't impeach him. Where Bill did something that was morally reprehensible to pretty much everybody that votes, around 50% of voters are still dumb enough to follow Bush into anything he decides to do.

My feeling is that he admitted it because he had to admit it, so he is engaging in political posturing. While he has admitted the intelligence was wrong, I don't think he's admitted he was or more importantly continues to be wrong. There's a huge difference.

[Aggie One]

He's full of crap...from his head to his toes!

[Brandmasta]

He didnt admit that he lied, and I dont know that we can proove the he outright lied like we could with Clinton. Bush can just play dumb like he always has.

[aggielove]

I wouldn't say that he lied but the truth was stretched a little. We went to war, hastily, based on incomplete intelligence that said that Iraq was housing weapons of mass destruction. Three years and a UN visit later, it was proven that there were no weapons of mass destruction. Hell, if he had them, our troops would have had a much tougher time overthrowing that regime. I know if I had WMD's, there's no way someone could've come invading my country and me not wipe that a$$ off the face of the Earth.

I think there needs to be some kind of further investigation, much like the 9/11 commission, to understand where the breakdown was and hold someone accountable.

[analyzedis]

If you stretch the truth, you lie. There is not a middle ground between telling the truth and telling a lie. Stretching the truth is even worse because it gives people a false sense of security and a false sense of trust. I think it's obvious why the troops went to war, OIL. The middle east is rich in oil. Whomever controls the middle east, has a lot of power. If one country can be overthrown that easily and the american people do not dispute the fact that sons and daughters are fighting for a cause that is not their own, then why not try to overthrow other countries that control their own economy and oil? This is definitely not about democracy. If you look at the history of many of the middle eastern countries you will find that US has had a hand in a lot of oppositions in those countries. The US military trained Afghanistan troops to fight a war with Russia as Russia fell from being a superpower. It's so much going on behind the scenes that we don't even know about. The media gives us a distorted version of the truth.

[aggielove]

great points. I totally agree with you regarding the reasons for us being over there - i don't even think most Americans know that there's an oil pipeline that runs through Afghanistan, which is one of our reasons for aiding them against Russia in the 1st place. I wonder how long it's going to take for those that do follow Bush blindly to understand the depths of lies and deception.

For this president to circumvent the constitution in order to "protect" the country is pretty disgusting.

I think i need to be quiet though - they could have tapped into this website and reading all of these posts right now ;D

[analyzedis]

Aggie Love,... Wow.... you are right! He circumvented a constitution that his own people wrote.. Now that, my friend is heavy. Of course they are spying on this because he just got criticized for spying on people without just cause. LOL....

[Gator]

Analyze,

You have to admit, atleast the media gives us something rather than nothing at all.

[analyzedis]

Gator, you are right, they do give us something. The media serves it's purpose in some respects I must admit that. The problem is when people do not actively research information for themselves and believe what the media has to say on face value. My problem is that people have problems discerning the difference and you hear the famous quote "it was on the news". Everything that is on the news is not factual however they do give us something to go on. So, I am in agreement with you.

[elonpride]

Yes he did lie....but I'm suprised he's not pointing the finger elsewhere. I've read many articles about the sources of his supposed information, some of which was from Brittain (as most know, their intelligence agency is regarded as tops in the world). I'm suprised he's not trying to finger point over to Tony Blair, but then again, he probably wants to keep one of the only strong allies we have left (the other probably being Australia).

What many forget is Saddam's constant defiance of UN resolutoins and the ONW (Operation Northern Watch). After being deflected from his invasion of Kuwait, his nation was subject to brute military force, and even regime change, if he failed to follow the guidelines: here's a link to some of the rules the Iraqi militay broke:

www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/northern_watch-2002.htm

If Bush would have come out and said:

"We're going in to Dispose of Iraqi dictator becuase he has constantly violated UN policy regarding no fly zones and military operations,".......though vague, I would have been ok with it becuase it was the truth. The one that I truly liked in Bush's adminstration left shortly after the war started (Ari Fleischer), but I didn't like his statement to the start of the war, "The disarmerment of Iraq has begun."

AS far as the media giving distorted views, it's true. I do have to tell you guys, I had 4 family members and 2 close friends that went/and or currently in Iraq. They said it is unbeliveable what's going on over there. Schools are being opened where there were no schools, running water where there was no water before, people speaking in open forums in coffee houses. They said the media only reports what's going wrong.......and my family members and friends there say that the kiddnappings, murders, attacks etc only make up about 20% of what's truly going on......but hard news sells, so that's why we see it.

As for us aiding the Afgans agaisnt Russia, there's many reasons why (ie fighting against an invading falling communist country), not just an oil pipeline (though that's probably the main reason). What's funny is when you look at who we call our enemies now, and who we called allies with Reagan......simply amazing.

[DOOMS]

At first I was all ready to go over there and beat up somebody. That was exclusively because of the purported weapons of mass destruction. To put it simply: If somebody has a weapon and lies to you and tells you they don't have it they plan to use it on you.

To come to this point several years later and realize that blood has been shed and a sovereign (no matter how whacked out) nation was invaded under false pretenses makes me sick to my stomach. That country was invaded on a lie, and now there are all these compelling reasons to have invaded it after the fact. Iraq may now be more in line with what we in America find normal and take for granted, but is that what they wanted? Furthermore, if it's such a noble cause then why not just state that we were going over there to force them to democracy and take their oil in the first place?

Easy. Because that's not a compelling enough reason for millions of dollars and thousands of deaths.

[Aggie77]

It wasn't a lie, it was marketing.

I think it about oil but not in the same vein as most people. I think it’s about total control of the Middle East; oil; banking, construction, shipping, manufacturing, etc. Oil is the crank, but the long term strategy is to establish and maintain control of the Middle East. Previous plans; peace plans, economic plans, war plans proved unsuccessful from Anwar Sadat, the Shah of Iran, King Fadh, Saddam Hussein and countless other leaders. The US (capitalism) was unable to control the leaders or the leaders were unable to control masses, but this time everything is in place.

This is the first attempt to establishing a DEMOCRATIC (capitalism) beachhead in the Middle East. Think about it, they (the power brokers) have taken over a whole country and are going to build it up as a DEMOCRATIC (capitalism) country. When successful all those fundamental Islamic regimes will come tumbling down like the Berlin wall. Once the full-fledge imaginary of a better life (capitalism marketing) reaches that next generation Arabic citizens, they will be buying nike, slim-fast, Deer Park, and Victoria’s Secrets like the rest of us. If you don’t believe me now, you will when you see the first Pimp-Daddy Islamic Cleric broadcasting from the mega mosque from the suburbs of Baghdad.

[SHB2K]

aggie77 said:

If you don’t believe me now, you will when you see the first Pimp-Daddy Islamic Cleric broadcasting from the mega mosque from the suburbs of Baghdad.

Very well put A77...

My buddy that was over there driving in the military convoys for a year was telling me that Saddam's palaces were like 5 Biltmore estates in one building... AMAZING!

We also have to realize that by the time the US had grown into a powerful country, the concept of imperialism was being condemned. The truth is that America hated imperialism because they were too late in the game and all of the territories had been taken over by the European powers. Now, we have a modern day imperialism that exists under the guise of overthrowing dictators (Noreaga, Saddam, and EVERYONE in Africa) and replacing them with "Democracy" which tends to include the concepts of a republic-style government, laissez faire economy, and ultimately a high level of dependence on the US.