The ends justify the means.
*ducks tomato barrage*
Printable View
The ends justify the means.
*ducks tomato barrage*
Cool lets end world hunger by nuking the entire planet.
No humans=no hungry humans.
Its a great plan as it also guarantees a long standing world peace.
Some more stuff to read: U.S. Insiders Say Iraq Intel Deliberately Skewed
http://asia.reuters.com/newsArticle....toryID=2854511
Anger among security professionals appears widespread. Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, a group that says it is made up mostly of CIA intelligence analysts, wrote to U.S. President George Bush May 1 to hit what they called "a policy and intelligence fiasco of monumental proportions."
"In intelligence there is one unpardonable sin -- cooking intelligence to the recipe of high policy," it wrote. "There is ample indication this has been done with respect to Iraq."
cool
one group says this, one says the other
Huh?
Did you even read the article you linked to?
This guy says this, Intelligence denies it
Of course theyd do that, they wouldnt just go out and impeach themselves now would they?
Yeah, but it comes down to "who do you believe"...I'm not taking any sides' word for it. Hint, hint.
All signs point towards the doubters.
None of the things claimed have yet turned out to be true and a lot of things even before the war were exposed as fabrications, if low resource freelance journalists can expose US inteligence as fraud even before the war how can it be taken seriously?
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcrip...ecdef0223.html
TANENHAUS: Was that one of the arguments that was raised early on by you and others that Iraq actually does connect, not to connect the dots too much, but the relationship between Saudi Arabia, our troops being there, and bin Laden's rage about that, which he's built on so many years, also connects the World Trade Center attacks, that there's a logic of motive or something like that? Or does that read too much into--
WOLFOWITZ: No, I think it happens to be correct. The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason, but . . . there have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. Actually I guess you could say there's a fourth overriding one which is the connection between the first two. . . . The third one by itself, as I think I said earlier, is a reason to help the Iraqis but it's not a reason to put American kids' lives at risk, certainly not on the scale we did it. That second issue about links to terrorism is the one about which there's the most disagreement within the bureaucracy, even though I think everyone agrees that we killed 100 or so of an al Qaeda group in northern Iraq in this recent go-around, that we've arrested that al Qaeda guy in Baghdad who was connected to this guy Zarqawi whom Powell spoke about in his U.N. presentation.
Read the entire transcript - throws a different light on Wolfowitz's remarks.
And, about this WMD thing - it is strange that we haven't found WMDs, given that our intelligence forces were reporting large stocks of the stuff. However, hardly anyone was actually debating whether Iraq was still developing WMDs - that point was assumed on all sides of the debate. The question was whether it had enough to justify pre-emptive warfare.
Exactly. Nice try to bend the words, Ali.Quote:
Originally posted by burgundy
No. Out of the myriad justifications for an invasion of Iraq, the administration settled on WMD because it was the one they all agreed with.
http://www.dittohead.org/images/crybaby.jpg