Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Inquiry on intelligence for WMD

This should end a lot of questions about the Intelligence on WMD which was the foundation for us to go to war with Iraq. It has been reported on Fox New and I'm sure the others as well that President Bush is requesting a Inquiry to see if the intelligence reports were faulty for the WMD. I have to say the President has got BALLS, being that this could hurt his reelection but he wants the American people to know the truth whether it hurts or not.... Inquiry

He should have asked his questions before he had Iraq invaded and our sons and daughters wounded, maimed, and killed.

I'm sure he did and went with the trust that the info given to him was true although we haven't found but very little evidence of WMD at this point weither they didn't have them or moved and hide them should be inmaterial at this point other than finding who, what why that info was incorrect and making improvements to help prevent it from happening again. Just the fact of the inhumanities he was guilty off should be enough of justify this war. Just ask the people who had to live thru all this, not people sitting here in their easy chairs but the Iraqi's and our Soldiers that went over to do the job. They are the one with the answers not us.

Haggis,

What do you mean "our"? Do you have family members serving in Iraq? My son is a mature, well-educated man who left his wife and two children to do his duty, putting himself in grave danger. It was his choice, no one made him do it. What have YOU contributed? Oh, I forgot, only you liberals are "intelligent", and have the ability to discern the truth. The rest of us are simpletons who have been duped by Bush's lies.

Paul

Paul;

I don't think he meant it as a personal affront. I think his comment was general.

RAM,

Of course Haggis' comment was general. It's still an affront. There was plenty of justification to attack Iraq, whether or not Saddam actually had WMDs in hand. Hitler didn't have WMDs either, but he sure was close to having them by the end of the war. All the isolationist carping and hand wringing that we hear about Iraq was going on before Pearl Harbor, and the liberals had weakened our military in favor of "domestic programs". Sound familiar?

Paul

I did my part between November, 1968 and December, 1971.

My only son did his 6 years in the National Guard and was discharged a few months before the "late unpleasantness".

Many of my former students, who I've known for many years, are in Iraq or have returned having done their part. They come by and talk to me about what it's like over there.

All of the American service men and women over there are OUR children.

Had you rather I was thinking, "What the h**l, they ain't my children."

Haggis,

You answered my question and I respect your right to your opinion, including "our" in the context you meant it. Too many of the anti-war (anti-Bush) crowd have no personal investment and have never served. They are entitled to their opinions of course, but I put more stock in the views of those who have served or who have loved ones in the service. Since you are of the Vietnam era, I'm sure you recall that the "highly principled" anti-war protests stopped abruptly when the draft ended. I still believe that the war in Iraq is justified, and supported by the lessons of history. I thank God that George Bush is Commander-in-Chief and not any Democrat of the current generation.

Paul

The liberal media's obsession with WMDs is really pathetic. Run their old buddy Bill and WMD and Iraq in Nexis if you want literally hundreds of quotes from Clinton (and Kerry, and Clark, and everyone else who had access to intelligence) affirming that Saddam had WMDs.
Several hundred thousand Kurds, Iranians, and marsh Arabs would also confirm it if they weren't dead in mass graves--are they just holding their breath and pretending?
The UN, as well as the intelligence services of France, Germany, and Russia also confirmed it. The issue before the war wasn't WHETHER Iraq had WMDs but what to do about it--sanctions and inspections forever, or enforcement of Resolution 1441.
I have a problem with our not being able to find out where they were moved, or to find evidence of their destruction--our intel was obviously flawed. But it always is--that's the nature of intelligence. But that is a whole different proposition than the absurd notion that Blair and Bush just cooked up this lovely little war so they could blow the budget, kill their own soldiers, and run on a platform of war and deficits rather than peace and prosperity. Great politics.
We didn't start the war--they did.

As you can tell from my reply to Haggis, I get annoyed at anti-war liberals who don't contribute to our national defense, or encourage their sons and daughters to do so. Here's my suggestion, if you don't want your kid to wear a uniform. Since our intelligence services are in such dire straits, encourage your son or daughter to study international affairs and Arabic in college, then go to work for the CIA or NSA. They seem to be in desperate need of such qualified personnel. If I were younger I would do so myself. Actually, I am taking a short course in Arabic, but I doubt the government services would want an old bird like me. Besides, I don't hear so great these days. What do you think, Haggis? Would you suggest this to any of your students?



Paul

Paul, I'm the state Ombudsman for ESGR in Louisiana, so I spend a lot of time mediating disputes between servicemen and their employers. Almost without exception, I am impressed by the dedication, skill, and patriotism of these young people, and get a chance to talk to lots of them--both by email from SW Asia in real time and back here after their deployments end. When I compare what I hear from them and the tripe spooned out by the liberal media, its hard to believe how they get away with it.

I think you should be scared that we have found so few NBC weapon systems. Yes we have found some! The rest still exist. They are either buried and the leaders who know thier where abouts are dead or they are sitting in other nations such as Syria waiting to end up in some idiot liberal cities water suppley.
On another note. Just because some REMF puke was drafted doesn't make them a bonafide war hero. Just because a man had a brief moment of honor in life, he shouldn't be given a pass on all matters of foriegn policy forever.

Steve,

Keep up the good work. I lived in NO for a couple of years in the '70s. First time in my life I had to watch my weight!

Rogue,

Amen.

Paul

Saddam violated every sanction, UN resolution, cease fire agreement that was ever passed. I dont call the UN a whorehouse for nothing. We had legal justification for removing him a hundred times over, what were we supposed to do? Pass another UN resolution and this time really,really,really,really,really,really, mean it?

Maybe none of this would have happened if Bill Klinton would have remembered he was president of the US and not the world. If he would have taken action against Iraq earlier ; If he would have attacked Al Queda after WTC-1, the embassy bombings, Somolia, or the US Cole attack. But no! He stripped the Somolia mission of enough firepower to do the job, bombed an asperine factory,weakened the US military, and spent his afternoons chaseing skirt around the West Wing.

If theres a guilty party here its Klinton and his gaggle of PC liberal mutts.........10

10point et al,

You just don't understand. The liberal viewpoint is the raaaaaational approach and the intellllllligent perspective. Sorry, I just couldn't resist. I've lived in this liberal college town too long!

Paul

I always hear lots of whining about Iraq. What I do not hear is alternative solutions.
There aren't any. We've tried "Isolation" for twelve years.
Saddam kept saying "Who, me?" and he finally got kicked in the nuts by the only guy in UN town with boots fit to do the kickin'.
<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

And the Liberal idiots just keep repeating the same mantras all over all the time, in the face of reality.
Case in point: Nancy Palosi (Spelling?) and her state of the union response. After GW just got done explaining "International Backing" for Iraq, Nancy goes out there and starts blabbering "We need a real international coalition".
Gimme a break.
Check out the attachment

Rogue--that's a point somebody has to make on Kerry, and I don't hear it being made. Yeah, he was apparently a decent lt.j.g. on a riverboat, and showed courage and concern for his men. Good, so did thousands of others, and they don't claim that qualifies them to be president.
What is sickening is that he (and the media) think this insulates him from blame for all his anti-military votes during the long struggle with Communism, and his cowardly vote against the first Gulf War and funding this one. Being a brave man in one's youth is no guarantee of good judgment or moral courage later in life.
The French generals who botched and then lost the war with Hitler, then surrendered and collaborated with him, were almost without exception decorated heroes of the first World War. So what?

And the German generals in WW II committed unspeakable atrocities but did not in WW I. It is how you act throughout your life. G W was a drunk but turned it around.

Paul;

I wasn't denying you to take offence, I just think it may have been misplaced. Haggis didn't "go after you" if he went after anyone, it was "W"

I don't know if it is the "cloak of the internet anonimity" or what, but far too often people "shoot the messenger" on these boards. Even if its a guy asking a question, not making a statement of opinion or "fact" or "looking for a fight".

Personally, I'ld like an inquiry. I feel there are more than a few questions that need to be answered. Answering, or attempting to answer these questions IN NO WAY indicts or detracts from the men and woman over there doing their jobs. In fact, I think it supports them, and may even validate them further.

Try this analogy, Remember Clinton? (ugh) well anyways, many held the opinion on him that "it wasn't the sex, it was he lied about it". I think some, if not many (certainly the Media) are holding "W" to the same criteria. Visa vee, "its not the War, its that he lied about it" [did he lie? did anyone lie? who knew what?] The motives behind why some hold that opinion may be varied to say the least; and one may take issue with motive, if known, not presumed.

JMO.

I think every man and woman should be legally required to serve their country for a year or two in what ever capacity their abilities allow.

Then if they want of sound off their arguements would hold some credibility.