Quote:
|
Originally Posted by cthulu23
I watched a documentary called "Uncovered" that dissected the build up to war in Iraq and featured career analysts from the CIA and State Dept who ridiculed the WMD "evidence" used to justify invasion and detailed the pressure that was brought to bear on intelligence agencies to come to the "right" conclusions. The White House formed the Office of Special Plans to cherry pick their own intelligence to justify the invasion, so obviously they felt that the existing intelligence wasn't good enough. Dick Cheney made multiple trips to Langley to pressure the CIA into massaging the data that they had. All in all, saying that the WMD threat was conventional wisdom in our intelligence agencies is a bit of a stretch. I'm sure that Bush & co did believe that the WMDs existed, and they weren't going to let a little thing like a lack of evidence dissuade them.
So far preemptive invasion hasn't done much to stop the spread of terrorism, turning a former terrrorist cold spot into a global focal point. Do you feel any more secure? The old methods may feel inadequate, but they are far more attractive than eternal war. Furthermore, Iraq was NOT a major sponsor of terrorism...Afghanistan was, but we've bungled that invasion in the rush to grab Iraq.
Doesn't it seem suspicious that a current administration official co-authored a document calling for the invasion of Iraq a decade ago, for reasons that had nothing to do with terrorism or the "threat" of Saddam? Is it just a happy coincidence that we turned our attention to Iraq so soon after 9-11 gave Bush a blank check with regard to foreign policy? Why did we put 10x the amount of troops into Iraq than we did into Afghanistan, where we knew the terrorists were? It doesn't take a conspiracy nut to start to put the pieces together here. I, for one, think that history will take a very dim view of this administration and it's insanely arrogant doctrine.
|
Sorry but if there was evidence of cherry picking the intelligence for Iraq Kerry would be screaming it from every rooftop. Opinions from a couple of intelligence "experts" is hardly significant enough to convince me that this happened. Additionally, the intelligence about Iraq was insufficient. I doubt anyone will say otherwise. It's easy to make decisions a year after the fact with free access to all areas of the country but quite another to make such decisions with no clear cut answers.
You claim that pre-emptive invasion hasn't worked (after just a year of trying it) but think that the methods used for the last 30 years which have proved ineffective since the beginning are our best option? Afghanistan was bungled? The Taliban is not exactly ruling the country and Al Qaida is not operating there with impunity any longer. These were two of our main goals and they've been achieved. They are on the verge of national elections but this is somehow a failure. The only failure in that regard is the capture of Bin Laden. And I'd love to hear how it was the invasion of Iraq that resulted in his continued freedom. And I do feel safer because we are more aware of the threat and hundreds (if not thousands) of Al Qaida operatives are dead or captured. I seriously doubt that their recruitment has improved significantly while on the run resulting in more fighters than are being killed or captured. But it's fine if you want to believe that since there is no evidence either way. I'm basing my belief on the simple fact that they are most likely in turmoil given the losses they've suffered. It will take them some time to regain the level of sophistication they had while they acted with impunity over the last decade or more.
It doesn't seem suspicious at all to me that members of the administration authored plans for Iraq. If that criteria eliminated someone's suitability to serve in an administration then I guess we'd have to get rid of all policy experts for every region of the world since they all have their own opinions and plans for the regions they've studied and focused on.