Quote:
Originally Posted by striperman36
Republicans made sure Powell had ALL the correct info when he went in front of security council. WMD's totally existed, right.
|
He had the available intelligence, all of which pointed to the existence of WMDs.
Striperman, it's funny. At that time, very few people doubted that Iraq had WMDs. Everyone saw the same evidence, and the vast majority of folks (including many Democrats in the US Senate) concluded that there were WMDs. Both Bill and Hilary Clinton said that, based on the evidence, Iraq had WMDs. Yet liberals don't hold the Clintons responsible for their error. Can you explain why that is?
Analyzing intelligence isn't always an exact science, and mistakes are made. There is a difference between being incorrect, and being dishinest and/or stupid. When analyzing evidence, yuo can do everything teh right way, and still come to the wrong conclusion. That's what happened in Iraq. That's not what happened in Benghazi. In Benghazi, everyone involved asked for more security, and it seems with good reason (lots of threats). 10 weeks later, we don't know who denied those requests, or why.
If you want to get some facts, look at the Democarts in the US Senate who approved of the invasion - such neocons as Hilary Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards, Joe Biden, Chuck Schumer, Diane Feinstein, Barbara Boxer.
If Bush had that evidence, and ignored it, and it turned out there were WMDs, would history view him more kindly?