Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS
And I dont (I'll leave that misspelled for Scott) think the Dems. are any better than the Repubs. at "politicing".
|
Paul, some guy saying that things were made up, is not proof. Again. I can find guys who say Obama was born in Kenya, I can find guys who say 09/11 was an inside job.
Paul, for every report you cite saying the tubes were for conventional weapons, I can cite one that says they were likely for nukes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_aluminum_tubes
"The C.I.A agents said the tubes were destined to become the rotors in a gas centrifuge program to create enriched uranium for nuclear weapons. The CIA agents acknowledged there was another possible use for the tubes "
"
Secretary of State Colin Powell spoke on Fox News Sunday, saying "And as we saw in reporting just this morning, he is still trying to acquire, for example, some of the specialized aluminum tubing one needs to develop centrifuges that would give you an enrichment capability"
"
National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice said on CNN's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer that the tubes "are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs" and "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."[8] "
Again, I have zero doubt you can make a case (especially with the benefit of hindsight) that Bush was
wrong. Being wrong, i snot th esame as lying. To prove Bush lied, you need to show me that he knew the tubes could not have been used for nukes, but he claimed that they were.
That's lying.
And one last time, if Bush wanted to go to war so bad that he was willing to lie,
why did he give Saddam dozens of chances to avoid war by complying with the UN Sanctions? It doesn't pass the common sense smell test Paul, it just doesn't. If you can take off your tin foil hat for a moment, you'll see it makes no sense whatsoever, to give Saddam literally dozens on chances to avoid war, if your desire is to launch war.
Paul, analyzing intelligence is almost always an inexact science. The fact is this...back before the invasion, very few people were denying the claims of Bush (and Bill Clinton) that Saddam had WMDs.
Paul, did Bush mislead Bill Clinton as well?
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction..."...Nancy Pelosi, 1998
"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on weapons of mass destruction..." Clinton SecState Madeline Albright, 1999
So Paul, how do you explain the fact that Nancy Pelosi and Maedline Albright made these statements BEFORE Bush became president? Wait, I know...Bush kidnapped them, and replaced them with exact replicas, which were actually #^&#^&#^&#^& Cheney in disguise?
"he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons"...Al Gore, 2002
read the quotes in that thread...Bill Clinton, Terd Kennedy, John Kerry, Robert Byrd...all stating with no ambiguity, that they believed Saddam either had, or was developing, WMDs.
Paul, sometimes the evidence leads rational people to the wrong conclusion.
At least Bush admitted he was wrong. That's more than Obama will do regarding Benghazi, where 4 Americans died, in large part due to the administration's refusal to grant Stevens' obviously legitimate request for extra security. Rather than admit he made a mistake, Obama concocts a cockamamie fantasy abouta youtube video. God forbid Obama admit that he got caught with his pants around his ankles, when there was a ton of evidence suggesting that terrorists were increasing activity in that area. That's precisely why they are bending over backwards to convince us that it wasn't terrorists. If it wasn't a terrorist plot that Stevens was afraid of when asking for extra security, then this administration didn't put Stevens at risk by rejecting his claim.
Bush admits he was wrong when he concluded that there were no WMDs. Obama admits no culpability for the fact that on his watch, an ambassador was murdered for the first time since Carter (coincidence?) was president.
Obama can't be responsible for random, unforseeable acts of violence. In this case, everyone on the ground in Libya thought imminent terrorist activity warranted extra security. The Obama administration figured they knew better. We all know how that worked out.