Well... found that it was nonsense, that is. I'm shocked, who could have seen this coming?<br><br>I wonder if conservatives will finally believe it when they hear republican senators like Pat Roberts say, "Today, we know these assessments were wrong, and as our inquiry will show, they were also unreasonable and largely unsupported by the available intelligence.". <br><br>Roberts was the chairman, the vice chairman, John Rockefeller says, ``Tragically, the intelligence failure set forth in this report will affect our national security for generations to come,'' Mr. Rockefeller said. ``Our credibility is diminished. Our standing in the world has never been lower. We have fostered a deep hatred of Americans in the Muslim world, and that will grow. As a direct consequence, our nation is more vulnerable today than ever before.''<br><br>Ahhhh... someday when ALL the information comes out, the dealings of the last few years are going to redefine the word "scandal".<br><br>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p> Roberts was the chairman, the vice chairman, John Rockefeller says, ``Tragically, the intelligence failure set forth in this report will affect our national security for generations to come,'' Mr. Rockefeller said. ``Our credibility is diminished. Our standing in the world has never been lower. We have fostered a deep hatred of Americans in the Muslim world, and that will grow. As a direct consequence, our nation is more vulnerable today than ever before.'' <p><hr></blockquote><p> Next time we want to go invade another nation I think we should ask French President Jacques Chirac what he thinks. And we should take his advice.<br><br>What I don't understand is that the CIA also said exactly what is being reported now. That if we invade we will be less safe for generations to come. Why is the CIA getting the brown end of the stick on this? I think they got plenty of it right but we are skipping over those reports just like Bush did.<br><br><br>

<br><br>

Not a bad cartoon. If we did that there would 1002 fewer coalition forces dead and buried as well as 5,394 U.S. troops maimed. We would also have a far safer world for Americans.<br> Bush should have listened to France.<br><br><br><br>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Why is the CIA getting the brown end of the stick on this?<p><hr></blockquote><p>I can think of a few reasons, but nothing that hasn't been said before.<br><br><br><br><br>

I don't know about listening to France, there were plenty of terrorist experts here in the U.S., even within the administration, that they could have listened to. The U.S. government's reigning terrorist expert (Clarke) would have been a good start.<br><br>One thing about the cartoon that is certainly correct is that Robin/Edwards/awesome hair guy has the right idea. Let's get Osama Bin Laden. Since he was never in Iraq it seems like a weird place for all our military to go.<br><br>

And "getting" Osama would accomplish exactly what? This is not a war on "Osama" it's a war on terrorism. Getting Osama doesn't make us safer.<br><br>We didn't go into Afganistan trying to "get" Osama we went in to get the terrorists (defined as Al Quada and their Taliban protectors). Getting Osama would be an extra bonus and may be a primary mission but it wasn't the only mission.<br><br>Iraq was invaded for many reason one of which was to remove the next great sancturary for terrorists. I know many disagree with that assesment, so be it. You are not going to convince me it was wrong to go into Iraq and I'm not going to convince you it was a proper strategic move that will, in the long run, increase US security.<br><br>Dean Davis<br><br>-----<br>"They are possibly the dumbest people on the planet" -- Michael Moore on his fellow US citizens

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>You are not going to convince me it was wrong to go into Iraq and I'm not going to convince you it was a proper strategic move that will, in the long run, increase US security.<p><hr></blockquote><p>you should leave space for yourself to change your opinion if you're presented with strong enough facts. it's not wise to stick to your opinion whatever happens.<br><br>for the real reasons on why the US invaded Iraq read the last issue of National Geographic. it has an excellent detailed article about Oil. it clearly explains the reasons behind the war on Iraq, although it's not mentioning it directly. and this magazine is not paid by the democrats (at least i don't think so). it's plain economics and science. it's a great read!<br><br>

Yes, I know you feel that it was right to go to war and suffer all the casualties to get Saddam. I don't agree with you, I believe what Rockefeller said, that this will hurt US security rather than increase it. <br><br>So big surprise, we don't agree , but what I think is important is that the majority of the American people would never have supported this effort if they had known the truth about the WMD when the war was proposed. If it turns out that there is proof that the administration intentionally started this war on false pretenses it sounds like treason to me.<br><br>Let me ask you a question and its not loaded in any way. Do you still believe that the Iraq invasion has been a success to this point?<br><br>

I agree. Not to mention that if some one had crashed a plane in the center of Paris, they would most certainly been singing a different toon. And why would we choose to have our national security decisions made by a country who have had their butts kicked in every conflict they have ever been involved in. Hell we had to eject invaders of thier country twice in the last 100 years. <br><br>Something else to keep in mind is that just because no WMD has been found doesn't mean it never was there. Even the UN claimed that there was a discrepancey between what they knew was there, and what the inspectors found during the 90's. Saddam has a history of shipping his weapons of war to other countries, when things don't go his way. If Saddam was so clean why did he fight the inspectors so hard? Libia did, and now they are reaping the benefit. I firmly believe where there's smoke there's fire. Iraq didn't fight the UN so hard for no reason at all. Saddam could have stopped this years ago but he chose not to. He openly supported terrorist activities in Isreal, and was involved with Al queada in various forms since the early 90's. He attempted to assasinate an ex president of our country. He shot at UN aircraft on almost a daily basis for 12 years. He publicly stated he wanted to destroy the US, and we had a warning from the Russians that he was planning an attack. Even if you take the WMD out of the equation he was still a threat. If you loose 3000 civilians in a sneak attack you must take all threats seriously. Sitting on your hands and hoping it will just go away is not good policy. Clinton proved that with Al Queada and the French proved that with Hitler when they tried to kiss is ass, and he overran thier country.<br><br><br>Salus populi suprema lex<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Boothby4 on 07/09/04 03:09 PM (server time).</EM></FONT></P>