As I've unequivocally proven, both high level Dems and Reps were all for the ousting of Hussein who routinely ignored UN sanctions and policies.
1) You haven't proven what you claimed. While I am certain some dems were for removing Hussein, not all dems felt that way, and many quotes used to suggest certain dems were for the war are simple quote mines.
2) Assuming you made your case, I don't know what that is supposed to mean for me or anything I have said. So alot of people on both sides of the aisle were in error. I am neither a dem nor republican. Anyone making the argument for war was in error.
3) Lots of nations ignore UN sanctions and policies. The question is whether they pose a threat. The Bush administration had at its beginning stated how nonthreatening Iraq was, due to its degraded military status. Nothing changed regarding that fact, not even 9/11 could have changed that.
Maybe the NSA and CIA need to step up and take some flack for their handling of evidence.
I agree, however the Department of State's intelligence org was also part of research and their estimates were right on. So were international intelligence estimates. Their arguments were overrun by the CIA. I would note however that the CIA did NOT argue for and invasion of Iraq, and had suggested openly that that was more likely to trigger his use of, or the spread of WMD material, than not invading.
As a final note on this point, Bush awarded Tenet for his failures with this nation's highest award. Its sort of hard to step up to the plate and admit errors, when none are allowed to exist by presidential commendation.
I can't help but point out the irony. Certain individuals claim that Iraq has nothing to do with Al Qaeda but Afghanistan does. Afghanistan is a fairly stable country.
You seem to have missed the real irony here. Until we invaded Iraq, it was a stable nation and had nothing to do with AQ, and so would not have been a concern on that point. All we'd have to be worrying about is Afghanistan (and AQ elements anywhere BUT Iraq).
Yes, at this point Iraq has something to do with AQ, but only because we totally screwed up and invaded the nation. But it didn't have to be that way.
They say he plays both sides. I don't know. I know that he's caught numerous Taliban and AQ officials, moreso than any other Muslim nation, bar none.
Musharaf helped the Taliban grow to power in Afghanistan and I believe was the only world leader to acknowledge their status as gov't of Afghanistan. His rounding them up now gives no indication of where his ultimate loyalties or capabilities lie.
I might also add that he did not punish a pakistani national caught proliferating the exact WMD tech whose POTENTIAL for leakage the US said was grounds for invading Iraq.
Musharaf is not the only one who is playing both sides of something.
Edited by holmes, : not to note
holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)
™ Version 4.2