ONE MORE TIME -- In Case You Missed It.

[cardcounter0]

WASHINGTON - There's no evidence Saddam Hussein had a relationship with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his Al-Qaida associates, according to a Senate report on prewar intelligence on Iraq. Democrats said the report undercuts President Bush's justification for going to war.

It discloses for the first time an October 2005 CIA assessment that prior to the war Saddam's government "did not have a relationship, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates," according to excerpts of the 400-page report provided by Democrats.

The chairman of the committee, Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., said it has long been known that prewar assessments of Iraq "were a tragic intelligence failure."

[Riddick]

But I trusted government! [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]

[haarley]

If Saddam would have complied with UN Resolutions he would still be dipping people in acid and other fun stuff....but oh well so sad to see him in jail huh?

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
If Saddam would have complied with UN Resolutions he would still be dipping people in acid and other fun stuff....but oh well so sad to see him in jail huh?

[/ QUOTE ]

he was complying... the inspectors were all over the country and finding nothing.... I remember thinking it was funny in a big brother kind of way that, that Bush was saying that Saddam had to be stopped because he wasn't complying... meanwhile, he had to order the inspectors out of the country who were going everywhere and finding out that Saddam was, in fact, complying.....

[nicky g]

[ QUOTE ]
but oh well so sad to see him in jail huh?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. It is sad though to see the catastrophic mess Iraq is in three years later and the enormous cost in lives, money, opportunities and good will paid to put him there, on completely false pretexts by incompetent and ignorant ideologues.

[PokerBob]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but oh well so sad to see him in jail huh?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. It is sad though to see the catastrophic mess Iraq is in three years later and the enormous cost in lives, money, opportunities and good will paid to put him there, on completely false pretexts by incompetent and ignorant ideologues.

[/ QUOTE ]

pwned.

[timotheeeee]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but oh well so sad to see him in jail huh?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. It is sad though to see the catastrophic mess Iraq is in three years later and the enormous cost in lives, money, opportunities and good will paid to put him there, on completely false pretexts by incompetent and ignorant ideologues.

[/ QUOTE ]

pwned.

[/ QUOTE ]

I love how when all pre-war rationale is exposed for the tragic smoke and mirrors display it was, we get to hear the "But he was bad! Did you want that bad man still there?" Which, of course, was basically an end of the list adjunct punctuating the original rationale (duh--we used to be buddies with him so it's not going to be high up on the list). It's also pretty irrelevant to the actual point--we went to war under false pretenses.

To everyone that doesn't quite understand why a lot of us are pissed about the way the war began/has been handled--imagine that Clinton has been president for the past 6 years, and get back to us about whether or not you'd still be fervent about supporting almost everything about the war.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
The chairman of the committee, Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., said it has long been known that prewar assessments of Iraq "were a tragic intelligence failure."

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it's so bad that we all got so hasty, isn't it? It would be better for us to be wiser in the future. Isn't it unfortunate that nobody realized the error ahead of time?

[whiskeytown]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The chairman of the committee, Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., said it has long been known that prewar assessments of Iraq "were a tragic intelligence failure."

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it's so bad that we all got so hasty, isn't it? It would be better for us to be wiser in the future. Isn't it unfortunate that nobody realized the error ahead of time?

[/ QUOTE ]

there was no error - this invasion was gonna happen whether 9/11 happened or not - 9/11 simply gave them a justification - we were intentionally decieved by Cheney and cohorts about the reasons for war - it wasn't a mistake. Planning for the invasion and explotiation of resources happened before 9/11 even happened.

whatever justification they used was gonna be [censored] - but this was the easiest -

this was about oil, a new colonalism, and keeping the Military-Industral Complex alive for another 50 yrs - long live the killing machines.

rb

[Copernicus]

For those who dont understand, the Dems worked with the same pre-war intelligence that the Republicans had, and were every bit as vocal about the threat that Saddam posed.

As far as there being "no connection" between Saddam and Al-Qaeda, thats semantics on the order of Clintons parsing of "sex" and "the". Dozens of contacts are between Saddam's government and Al Qaeda are well documented. Just because there was no direct operational link doesnt mean there was no financial and intelligence support. Any one who still wants to maintain the Saddam's was a secular regime and he had no sympathy for Islam didnt read his statements after capture and on trial.