American & British officials facing criticism over no WM

From Yahoo/AP

So, now the CIA and British spooks are questioning their intelligence, this Chalabi guy (a wanted criminal in Jordan, I might add) might have fed bogus intel to get Saddam overthrown, and now angry Europe is rising up again to challenge the credibility of Bush and Blair. No matter if taking out Saddam was right or wrong, no one will like the fact that the war was launched on an apparent lie.

"Rat Boy" wrote:

From Yahoo/AP

So, now the CIA and British spooks are questioning their intelligence, this Chalabi guy (a wanted criminal in Jordan, I might add) might have fed bogus intel to get Saddam overthrown, and now angry Europe is rising up again to challenge the credibility of Bush and Blair. No matter if taking out Saddam was right or wrong, no one will like the fact that the war was launched on an apparent lie.

Did you know that for 2.5 years after WWII we were still fighting Nazi hardcores? Did you know it took decades for families to get back what was stolen from them by the Nazi?

I''m not comparing Saddam to Hitler. We are in a 24hr news life and people want things last week.

Things take time.

Let me put it to you this way: if WMDs are found in 2 and a half years, will anybody care? Will anybody believe it? The longer they stay ""hidden,"" the less credible the find will be. Unless they consider ammonia-based fertilizer and pesticides WMDs. Of course then every corporate farmer would need to get bombed for using that stuff on migrant workers.

You know, Yomm may complain about this :roll:, but I think it works.

"Rat Boy" wrote:

Let me put it to you this way: if WMDs are found in 2 and a half years, will anybody care? Will anybody believe it? The longer they stay ""hidden,"" the less credible the find will be. Unless they consider ammonia-based fertilizer and pesticides WMDs. Of course then every corporate farmer would need to get bombed for using that stuff on migrant workers.

You know, Yomm may complain about this :roll:, but I think it works. :roll:

They have the labs that would only be used for Biological weapons. I think some of you are being silly. After the first weekend of the war, you and others on this forum were so worried that we were going to lose and we dind''t have enough people on the ground; that was wrong.

I''m willing to give it more time.

Um noone here on this site thought we were gonna lose.

We were all worried about the consequences in the region of going to war with less than stellar international support.

We questioned the administrations motives.

You''ve really got to stop attacking the generic liberal point of view and painting with a broad brush the members of this site who questioned what we were doing.

I made several comments how I dispised the antiwar movement here in the Bay Area. I thought it was infantile and ill informed. You do remember my posts condemning the dread locked burkenstock wearing hag that was throwing newsstands in the street to block traffic. Then when some old woman struggled to remove it the zealous hag sat on the newstand with a smug smile on her face.

You also remember the post I mentioned the 19 year old Berkley student that started whining that they shouldnt be arrested because they got this like flyer that said to come to the park and we were talking and war is wrong and stuff you know, oh my god, for sure!

I dont want war. There was no bombshell linking Saddam to Al Qaeda. I can and will criticise any past, present, future administration. Yes, Bush finagled and manipulated his way to the presidency. Yes Al Gore ran a f*cked up campaign. Yes the Supreme Court f*cked over Gore. Yet the Supreme Court had the right to stop a ludicrous amount of recounts. War can be necessary. War can be necessary to protect our natural resources. Saddam needed to go; if by force then so be it. There is no conflict in these statements. They are not unpatriotic. Some Democrats may lack spine and dont have a clear message. They dont speak for me and dont represent me. No matter what sway he has with common people, Bush Jr will never meet my needs as a communicator or President. Name one policy implemented by the current administration that has provided any benefit at all.

You''ve really got to stop attacking the generic liberal point of view and painting with a broad brush the members of this site who questioned what we were doing.

I''m not saying people thought we were going to lose. People thought we were losing the war after that bad weekend. Losing the war may not be the right term, they thought the war was harder than it was sold to be. I can dig up some quotes if needed.

They are not unpatriotic

I have never called or hinted that people are unpatriotic on this forum. I just think we have two different views on the same problem.

I can dig up some quotes if needed.

That won''t be necessary.
I stand by my view that we didn''t send in enough troops on the ground. We suffered needless casualties due to insufficient force protection in my opinion.
You can ""win"" and still have it be a Pyhrric victory.

As it stands now, these members of the Iraqi infrastructure that we promised similar positions in the post-Saddam government in exchange for their co-operation are pissed because we''re not giving them those positions.
Admittedly, many of them are Baath party loyalists but the fact remains we promised them that and we are not fulfilling those promises. Right or wrong, the ""disobey Saddam [not the Baath party] and we will reward you"" deal worked but now we''re not giving them their jobs back.
Of course these generals and chiefs of police will order attacks on American soldiers in retaliation.

The fact that there are reports of areas of Iraq that have yet to see one American soldier tells me there aren''t enough for the peacekeeping operation. If it weren''t for the oil, Iran, and Syria, Iraq would be another Kosovo or Afghanistan.