Bush stated that he never said there was an operational relationship. I think he came to the conclusion there was a relationship based on circumstantial evidence. I accept the fact that there may have been occasions when he did not make it clear that his view was based on circumstantial evidence and other times when he did. Hussein had a standing offer to the families of suicide bombers, that is having a "relationship" with terrorists. Zarqawi was a terrorist leader who was in Iraq and managed operations from Iraq, I would assume Hussein was fully aware of that, and if nothing else that is enough for me to conclude there was a "relationship".
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Willravel
This sounds like a question I might ask of a member of the Bush Administration, especially the president.
How about we look at what's verifiable:
- A complete record of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell building up the case for war in the media.
- After the invasion, no evidence of any weapons of mass destruction was found.
- Before the invasion, it was verified that Saddam Hussein had no links to the 9/11 attacks.
These three things alone paint a magnificently simple picture. Either all the intel they were getting was incorrect, some of the intel was incorrect, or none of the intel was incorrect. If all of the intel was incorrect, we should close the FBI, CIA, NSA, and all other intelligence services, starting from scratch. If some of the intel was wrong, then the intel that supported the war was clearly cherry-picked by those mentioned above. If all of the intel was correct, then those above lied.
I'm not trying to present a false choice, so please let me know if I've missed something.
|
I think we know they emphasized the intel that supported their case. That is my point to Host, he does the same thing. Why is it o.k. for him but not the administration. I also admit that I will "cherry pick" to support my case, I assume everyone does. Because of that I don't accept anything on face value. If anyone listened to Bush and became 100% in favor of war, without question - don't they have a problem rather than Bush?