Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
Bush thought Sadaam was a threat. I thought he was a threat, even without any access to classified information.
Bush thought he needed to be removed from power. I thought he needed to be removed from power, even without access to any classified information.
Bush thought Sadaam had or was seeking nuclear weapons. I thought Sadaam had or was seeking nuclear weapons, even without access to any classified information.
Bush thought Sadaam would cooperate with terrorists in future attacks - if he hadn't already. I thought Sadaam would cooperate with terrorists in future attacks - if he hadn't already.
Today you folks sit around and think that if you only had access to classified information, some information that verified spefics actions and other information that contradicted spefic actions, everything above would not matter. Bush clearly communicated what he thought, and what he thought was true. if you thought his statements were lies, and that caused you to go from Sadaam is not a threat to Sadaam is a threat, there is nothing that can be said that will make a difference.
|
ace...if Bush tooks us to war and invaded Iraq based solely on the information you had (which I think is highly doubtful) or based on what he "thought" and did not rely on intel from the CIA, DIA, NSA, etc..., it would be unconscionable and very likely an act of malfeasance in office and would justify an impeachment inquiry.
And if he did rely on classified intel (and cherry-picked it - which is supported by the facts and not just your or my opinion) and did not provide access to the same intel to members of Congress (also supported by facts not opinion) when asking them to authorize what amounted to a war resolution, it is equally unconscionable and unethical, although probably not impeachable in and of itself.
Either way (he didnt rely on the best and latest intel available or he withheld portions of it from the other branch of govt responsible for sending us to war), your position has no moral standing.