Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dc_dux
If you really want to read it: What Bush Was Told About IraqTwo highly classified intelligence reports delivered directly to President Bush before the Iraq war cast doubt on key public assertions made by the president, Vice President Cheney, and other administration officials as justifications for invading Iraq and toppling Saddam Hussein, according to records and knowledgeable sources. But I dont see the point of debating it further. |
This is from the article
Quote:
|
The disclosure that Bush was informed of the DOE and State dissents is the first evidence that the president himself knew of the sharp debate within the government over the aluminum tubes during the time that he, Cheney, and other members of the Cabinet were citing the tubes as clear evidence of an Iraqi nuclear program. Neither the president nor the vice president told the public about the disagreement among the agencies.
|
Bush and Cheney cited other reasons as well for evidence of a potential Iraqi nuclear program. Actually, what I have read Bush stated that Sadaam was seeking to or is reinstating its nuclear program. The author, is lieing based on ommision and lieing based on what Bush actually said about Iraq having a nuclear program compared to reinstating one.
Here is the second.
Quote:
The second classified report, delivered to Bush in early January 2003, was also a summary of a National Intelligence Estimate, this one focusing on whether Saddam would launch an unprovoked attack on the United States, either directly, or indirectly by working with terrorists.
The report stated that U.S. intelligence agencies unanimously agreed that it was unlikely that Saddam would try to attack the United States -- except if "ongoing military operations risked the imminent demise of his regime" or if he intended to "extract revenge" for such an assault, according to records and sources.
The single dissent in the report again came from State's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, known as INR, which believed that the Iraqi leader was "unlikely to conduct clandestine attacks against the U.S. homeland even if [his] regime's demise is imminent" as the result of a U.S. invasion.
|
This is not justification for Bush lieing by omission in my opinion. You would want Bush to say - ...and there is evidence or actually an opinion about what Sadaam might do if his regime's demise is imminent, ah - they say that he is unlikely but could conduct a clandestime attack against us on our soil...
I can see why this debate is over.