Another Bush insider spills the beans.

[skywalker]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: The Daily Show rocks. Look, all this does is give more evidence to what I believed happened. Bush wanted something to be true, and let that desire skew his review of the evidence. Given evidence that could have gone either way, his and the admin's desire for one result caused that result. That is overzealousness, it is mistake, it may be irresponsible. It is not a lie. The two things are different. I don't think any of this information, if true, changes that.

It just illustrates that he does not have what it takes to be President. You can't always get what you want and it shows that Mr. Bush will get what wants even if the facts need to be shaken and not stirred.

Mark

[Timber Loftis]

Well, if I'd thought he had what it took to be Pres. I'd have voted for him. [img]graemlins/heee.gif[/img] Anyway, sometimes I too wonder how much he shakes the facts around.

Hey, Iraq's been good for us though. We've had no terrorist bombings now that we gave the terrorists a target nearer to home. [img]graemlins/heee.gif[/img] I think I've posted about this before -- in the extreme, taking over the country at least re-focused terrorist efforts. It may be a selfish viewpoint and insensitive to victims in other countries, but if bombings are going to happen somewhere, I'd rather it be anywhere but here. NIMBY rules the day, does it not?

[Sir Taliesin]

I don't think Bush let the evidence get skewed. REMEMBER we are talking about the period of time right after 9/11, not a year and half later. Iraq may have been on the radar, but Afghanistan was the first target. That tells me that the Bush administration didn't get the facts skewed at all. Especially since Osama admitted as much in November of 2001. Had Mr. Clarke been right, it seems to me that we would have attacked Iraq first. And quite frankly, I'm sure most of the world rather suspected Saddam was behind or at the least, aided in the attack on 9/11 in the days that followed.

I still remember that news about Hungarian Intelligence observing Atta meeting an Iraqi agent and obtaining anthrax.

[Timber Loftis]

Actually, Sir T, we'll let the other members voice the world views, but I think generally most people thought he had WMD of some sort, but the terror connection was very suspect from the get go.

[Night Stalker]

Saw just this weekend (maybe last week) on The Discovery Channel in their documentry of the invasion, the Marine Expediciary Unit did encounter a major terrorist camp along their vector between al Nassaria and Bagdahd. That is why the resistance in al Nassaria was much greater than expected, and why the Marines were delayed in securing the SE sector of Bagdhad for the seige. Oh, and this is deep in Saddam's base of control.

[Sir Taliesin]

I'd be surprised that anyone doubted Saddam's Terrorist connections, at least to the Palestianan Terrorist groups. After all it is a known fact that Saddam paid a bounty to the families of suicide bombers in the West Bank and Gaza. I also think it's a known fact that those same groups had contacts and probably received money from Al Quida. What is not known beyond a doubt is if Iraq had direct contacts with Al Quida.

My guess is in late September the Bush Administration couldn't tie Iraq to Al Quida and they then, concentrated all their efforts on Afghanistan. While I'm sure they took a VERY LONG, HARD LOOK at Iraq, they passed on. I would have expected nothing less. It could even be that the National Security Council assigned Clarke to head up the Iraqi investigation, counciling him to leave no stone unturned. While others were investigating Iran and Al Quida and the Taliban. In the end Al Quida became the target not Iraq. That's my point. The Bush Administration stopped pursuing Iraq at the time.

[Rokenn]

According to Bob Woodward's book "Bush at War" We came within a hairs breath of attacking Iraq first over Afganistan. The Hawks were barely over-ruled and checked by Colin Powel. Cheney and Rummy in particular wanted nail SH first, even with no evidence that he was involved in 9/11.

[ 03-22-2004, 06:16 PM: Message edited by: Rokenn ]

[Stratos]

Well, there was a debate worldwide if Saddam still had WoMD or had gotten rid of them, but as far as I know, Bush didn't get much support for the Saddam-bin Ladin thing. Besides, if we talk about 9/11 then Saddams support for Palestinian terrorists doesn't count as it was al-Qaeda that was behind it, and not any Palestinian organization.

NS, are you sure it was terrorists that MEU encountered and not one Saddams para-military groups?

[ 03-22-2004, 06:17 PM: Message edited by: Stratos ]

[Oblivion437]

Remember fellas, we (the ignorant, drooling mass called the public) are running on less than adequate information. Everyone you accuse of incompetence and ignorance, is in fact privy to information you'll likely never know about, and also, understand that the president is, and has been for some time a puppet...

[Night Stalker]

Quite sure. The bulk of the inhabitants were non-Iraqi. Fadayeen Sadam were there as well, but the documentry mentioned mercs and terrorists. I'll grant the possibility of creative journalism, but that is what the source said.