Quote:
|
Originally Posted by tecoyah
Thank you Ustwo....your reply (at least the second half) was concise and accurate. Truly the information withn the world community did point to WMD production in Iraq. As this thread was meant to deal with this issue in its entirety, I truly appreciate the input you have given. Part of the reasoning for invasion was indeed the failure to comply with U.N. resolutions, and this must be taken into account in the grand scheme of things. Still...the facts remain that we were told of weapons that simply do not exist. These may have been moved to Syria, but there is no factual information to confirm this.
Please continue to defend.
|
Well... To be really picky about saying what is factual, it is more true to say that we were told of weapons that have not been found than it is to say that we were told of weapons that simply do not exist. They may be in Syria, they may be elsewhere, or they may not have existed at all. Of course, it matters very much which one is true, but as you pointed out, at this point it is basically a matter of faith to accept a particular viewpoint.
Whether or not WMDs were transported to Syria, there was certainly an intelligence error:
1) The weapons never existed and so the intelligence provided by many entities and even several governments was wrong, or;
2) The weapons did exist, and despite our resolve we failed to prosecute the war in a way that actually secured them. They may be hidden in Iraq, Syria, or some other place.
So I suppose if you really want to think about it in terms of making a choice, you can choose which way you want to describe the error, and how responsible you think the president should be. Certainly Tenet remaining at the CIA was not an option after 9/11 and the lead-up to the Iraq war. Whatever reasons were given to the public, it would be hard for me to imagine a political or professional future for him after those two errors. Of course, the President (Bush, Clinton, whoever) is responsible for what happens below them. However, there are clearly several points of view as to whether this includes losing the presidency. Believe it or not, I actually think that the proposed reforms for the intelligence system and their oversight are more important in the long term than who our next president will be. After all, presidents come and go, but overhauling an entire system that includes many agencies and the political clout of the intel guys doesn't happen very often. What is most important to me is that this opportunity to bring our information-gathering capablities into the real world is not wasted. President Bush's decision to give the new intelligence director budgetary authority is a strong step in the right direction. I'm not sure if it will be enough to keep him in office though...