From: Ben Giddings Date: 2004-11-05T04:44:14+09:00 Subject: Re: [OT] US Presidential Election Kujawa, Greg wrote: > 2) Bush lied about things to lead America to war. - He didn't gather the > intelligence himself. The intelligence was a result of a combination of CIA, > British, and UN data gathering. What was presented to him was the same > information that was presented to Congress. The majority of Congress was in > favor of what action was initiated based on the intelligence that was > presented. Looking back at it the intelligence wasn't 100% correct. Or even > 50% correct for God's sake. But it's not like Bush knew there were no WMD's, > just went off the handle, and then tried to cover up all of the things that > wound up being true. I'm sorry to add another off-topic post to this list, but I can't let this slide. Bush didn't decide to attack Iraq because there was an intelligence flaw. The plans to attack Iraq were in place well before the 2000 election, but they needed an excuse for the invasion. Immediately after Sept 11th, Bush tried to get his terrorism chief to pin it on Saddam Hussein, and didn't want to listen to the fact it was actually al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. The fact that the intelligence was wrong wasn't just bad luck, it was politically motivated. It wasn't an honest mistake, it was deception. Congress fell for it, either blindly, or stupidly. But, you're right, in the end it wasn't Bush's fault, it's Cheney, Rumsfeld, Perle, and all the other PNAC members in the Bush Administration. He's just a figurehead that they can lead to do what they want. The whole group was lying from day 1, implying that Saddam Hussein was somehow connected to the Sept. 11th attacks, presenting biased evidence about WMD, and refusing to let the inspectors actually substantiate their claims, etc. If you honestly believe that the attack on Iraq was never considered before Sept 11th, and that the lack of WMD was an honest mistake, you *really* need to become more informed. Ben