What Should be done with "Faulty" Intelligence?
First read about how not all of the prewar intelligence was wrong from the Associated Press...
Yahoo! News - Iraq Uranium Claim Gets Some Support
We have only found about 20 WMD devices in post war Iraq. There is much debate as to whether Saddam used the year or so that we screwed around trying to get the UN to act to destroy the WMD, sell the WMD, bury it in the dessert, or perhaps he did not have any to begin with. Everyone is talking about this controversy and forgetting the real question which NEEDS to be asked, and ANSWERED.
First, let's get some PREwar facts strait. Russian intelligence believed that Saddam had large quantities of WMD. French intelligence did as well. German intelligence believed it too. And these three had every reason to WANT Iraq NOT to have WMD since they did not want the coalition to move against Saddam. If ANY of these three had ANY reason to doubt that Saddam had WMD, is there anyone naive enough to believe that they would not have announced this evidence against Saddam's WMD to the UN, the press, and anyone who would listen to try to stop the pending war?
Continuing... British intelligence believed that Saddam had them. U. S. intelligence believed that Saddam was a WMD superpower.
Now the Congressional 9-11 committee, set up mostly to discredit Bush, has stated that the evidence indicates that Saddam really was trying to buy uranium from Niger. The British committee, set up mostly to discredit Blair, agrees that there is convincing evidence that Saddam was trying, not succeeding, but trying to buy uranium from Africa. Even the aforementioned French, who would LOVE to discredit Bush and Blair, agree that Saddam was trying to attain uranium. By the way are the people who complained about the “16 words” in Bush's state of the union address going to apologize for their LIE that Bush lied? You and I both know that most of them are not “stand up” enough to do that.
Continuing... The UN security counsel past resolution, after resolution for Saddam to destroy his WMD. Something COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY if he had NONE.
In short ALL major intelligence agencies around the world agreed that Saddam had some bad stuff. ALL!
NOW THE QUESTION: Assuming that ALL intelligence agencies in the world were WRONG, but they ALL agreed that Saddam had WMD, and, obviously, Bush had NOTHING but these intelligence reports to go by when making a decision on what to do about Iraq, what should he have done?
Hindsight may be 20/20. (Given the political spin put on things since the war began, I do not believe it to be 20/20, but it probably is better than at that time.) It is easy to Monday morning quarterback. But FORGET EVERYTHING that we have learned since the Iraq war began, FORGET EVERYTHING that our troops have learned since placing “boots” on the ground in Iraq, and make the decision. A decision which John Kerry agreed with when he voted for the resolution which sent our forces there. One which the majority of congress agreed with when that passed.
Some, say that ALL of the world's intelligence agencies were wrong, that Saddam had no WMD. Let's play “what if.” What if the President had stated that he did not believe the consensus opinion of the world's intelligence agencies. He belived that Saddam did not have WMD, and we left Saddam alone. Then, a few months later Saddam sold mustard gas to al Zarqawi, an al Qaeda leader, who was in Iraq prior to the war, and it was used to kill thousands of Americans. Would these VERY SAME people who today are complaining that Bush should not have gone into Iraq, be complaining that he should have, because “One would have to be STUPID to disbelieve ALL of the intelligence agencies in the world, right?”
Read up on this issue and…
Think for yourself!
Make up your own mind!
Yahoo! News - Iraq Uranium Claim Gets Some Support
We have only found about 20 WMD devices in post war Iraq. There is much debate as to whether Saddam used the year or so that we screwed around trying to get the UN to act to destroy the WMD, sell the WMD, bury it in the dessert, or perhaps he did not have any to begin with. Everyone is talking about this controversy and forgetting the real question which NEEDS to be asked, and ANSWERED.
First, let's get some PREwar facts strait. Russian intelligence believed that Saddam had large quantities of WMD. French intelligence did as well. German intelligence believed it too. And these three had every reason to WANT Iraq NOT to have WMD since they did not want the coalition to move against Saddam. If ANY of these three had ANY reason to doubt that Saddam had WMD, is there anyone naive enough to believe that they would not have announced this evidence against Saddam's WMD to the UN, the press, and anyone who would listen to try to stop the pending war?
Continuing... British intelligence believed that Saddam had them. U. S. intelligence believed that Saddam was a WMD superpower.
Now the Congressional 9-11 committee, set up mostly to discredit Bush, has stated that the evidence indicates that Saddam really was trying to buy uranium from Niger. The British committee, set up mostly to discredit Blair, agrees that there is convincing evidence that Saddam was trying, not succeeding, but trying to buy uranium from Africa. Even the aforementioned French, who would LOVE to discredit Bush and Blair, agree that Saddam was trying to attain uranium. By the way are the people who complained about the “16 words” in Bush's state of the union address going to apologize for their LIE that Bush lied? You and I both know that most of them are not “stand up” enough to do that.
Continuing... The UN security counsel past resolution, after resolution for Saddam to destroy his WMD. Something COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY if he had NONE.
In short ALL major intelligence agencies around the world agreed that Saddam had some bad stuff. ALL!
NOW THE QUESTION: Assuming that ALL intelligence agencies in the world were WRONG, but they ALL agreed that Saddam had WMD, and, obviously, Bush had NOTHING but these intelligence reports to go by when making a decision on what to do about Iraq, what should he have done?
Hindsight may be 20/20. (Given the political spin put on things since the war began, I do not believe it to be 20/20, but it probably is better than at that time.) It is easy to Monday morning quarterback. But FORGET EVERYTHING that we have learned since the Iraq war began, FORGET EVERYTHING that our troops have learned since placing “boots” on the ground in Iraq, and make the decision. A decision which John Kerry agreed with when he voted for the resolution which sent our forces there. One which the majority of congress agreed with when that passed.
Some, say that ALL of the world's intelligence agencies were wrong, that Saddam had no WMD. Let's play “what if.” What if the President had stated that he did not believe the consensus opinion of the world's intelligence agencies. He belived that Saddam did not have WMD, and we left Saddam alone. Then, a few months later Saddam sold mustard gas to al Zarqawi, an al Qaeda leader, who was in Iraq prior to the war, and it was used to kill thousands of Americans. Would these VERY SAME people who today are complaining that Bush should not have gone into Iraq, be complaining that he should have, because “One would have to be STUPID to disbelieve ALL of the intelligence agencies in the world, right?”
Read up on this issue and…
Think for yourself!
Make up your own mind!
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home