Cherry-Picked, Politicized Intel to Justify Iraq War
Just in case anyone out there has forgotten, the Vice President and President of the United States engaged in a disinformation campaign in which they selectively declassified intelligence snippets (not entire documents that would also include CIA caveats) in order to discredit officials who were speaking up in opposition to the prospect of war in Iraq.
Let me say it again: many people were saying, with good reason, that we did not have a strong case for invading Iraq. The President and Vice President of the United States, in order to gain public support for their war objective, picked their favorite pieces of intelligence to declassify, then leaked those bits to the press in order to fool the American public into believing that there was a good reason to invade Iraq.
There are some places in the world where that kind of behavior is frowned upon. Some, even, where it is not tolerated. There was a time, even, in this very country, when such behavior would get the offending public official tossed out of office in disgrace.
Let me say it again: many people were saying, with good reason, that we did not have a strong case for invading Iraq. The President and Vice President of the United States, in order to gain public support for their war objective, picked their favorite pieces of intelligence to declassify, then leaked those bits to the press in order to fool the American public into believing that there was a good reason to invade Iraq.
There are some places in the world where that kind of behavior is frowned upon. Some, even, where it is not tolerated. There was a time, even, in this very country, when such behavior would get the offending public official tossed out of office in disgrace.
posted by SouthJaw at
12:47 PM
3 Comments:
If the Republican party is doing such a bad job, and they do not have a plan to get us out of Iraq, what is the Democratic Party's plan to get us out of Iraq? Oh yeah,they will tell you once they are president. What has been said so far is to pull our troops back to Kuwait, basically providing a back up force over the horizon. Really smart there guys and gets the troops back home sooner.
In case you all have forgotten, we havent had any attacks in the US, or any other US property since 9/11 either. To me it looks as if Bush's plan is working. During Clinton's reign, we had what 3 or 4? One of them was the WTC in 93, Darfur Towers in S.A. (which was a military base where US troops were at), TWA flight 800, etc. Hmm, who has the better plan???
And sense all Democrats proclaim that they really support the troops, why do they want to stop all funding to the war. Doesn't make sense. The troops need funds to get them home, support, armor, gas, fuel, etc. Seems like the Dems really have their stuff together! I know what really goes through the Democratic party's mind, they just want to tell the people what they want to hear, but will never work because this is reality not some dreamed up state of mind.
In case you all have forgotten, we havent had any attacks in the US, or any other US property since 9/11 either.
If attacks inside the US are to be the measure of a successful campaign against terrorism, then Clinton was much more successful than Bush as after the WTC attack of '93 there was not another one until 9-11. That's eight years without an attack on American soil. Bush has managed, so far, to avoid an attack inside the US for six years. So, by your own logic, Clinton is - at this stage - more successful than Bush in thwarting terrorist attacks.
"Logic" is, alas, something in short supply among cowardly 'wingers who troll progressive blogs without identifying themselves.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home