Here is what I said. Quote: |
Originally Posted by tyreay Could this be because the Administration twisted the intelligence given to them by the CIA and other sources and that most of the Senators, Reps and Congresspeople, believed it too?
We all know Bush lied:
The president had hoped Saddam could be removed in some way short of war. But early in 2002, Woodward reports, the CIA concluded they could not overthrow Saddam. That word came from the CIA's head of Iraq operations, a man known simply as “Saul.” (Curveball?)
"Saul gets together a briefing and who does he give it to first? Dick Cheney. He said, ‘I can count the number of sources, human sources, spies we have in Iraq on one hand,’” says Woodward. “I asked the president, ‘What was your reaction that the CIA couldn't overthrow Saddam? And the president said one word. 'Darn.'"
The vice president led the way on declaring that Saddam Hussein definitely had weapons of mass destruction. Before that, the president had said only that Saddam “desires them.”
But ten days later, the vice president said Saddam already had weapons of mass destruction. And 12 days after that, the president too had apparently been persuaded: “A lot of people understand he holds weapons of mass destruction.”
Three months later, on Dec. 21, 2002, Woodward says CIA Director George Tenet brought his deputy, John McLaughlin, to the oval office to show the president and the vice president their best evidence that Saddam really had weapons of mass destruction.
”McLaughlin has access to all the satellite photos, and he goes in and he has flip charts in the oval office. The president listens to all of this and McLaughlin's done. And, and the president kind of, as he's inclined to do, says ‘Nice try, but that isn't gonna sell Joe Public. That isn't gonna convince Joe Public,’” says Woodward. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in612067.shtml | Seems like this intel had nothing to do with Clinton as it was collected after his term. This info was what Bush used as proof. Just another case of a goverment ass kissing conservative twisting my words again when they can't discount them. Don't misunderstand me here, again, I am not defending Clinton. I am sure He also believed there was a threat but does this mean Bush was right in twisting the intel provided to him? Or maybe you should now say that Saul was a democrat? What does word spoken by Clinton, before this deception, have to do with this anyway? Atleast make an attempt to make sense. Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong. ~Richard Armour There are many men of principle in both parties in America, but there is no party of principle. ~Alexis de Tocqueville |