American Intelligence?

Dennis Putnam dap1 at MINDSPRING.COM
Tue Jul 1 22:03:37 MDT 2003

Hash: SHA1

At 10:45 PM 7/1/2003, you wrote:

>I'm not swallowing anything - not the party line, either.  And I never
>swallowed Bush's spoken reason for invading Iraq.

That must mean you don't belive Saddam was supporting terrorists, had WMDs
in spite of using them to kill thousands of Kurds and using them against US
troops during Desert Storm or was committing atrocities far worse then the
justifications for invading Kosovo.

>I believe Saddam had weapons of mass destruction - I never argued
>otherwise.  I did for a long while (though I changed my mind) argue the
>wisdom of invading Iraq.  And even more than the wisdom of same, I
>questioned the given motive.  I did not believe then, and I do not believe
>now that George Bush invaded Iraq because of the threat of weapons of mass

That would be correct and Bush said same. That was only one of several
reasons. Its the Bush haters that are trying to skew the debate.

>Saddam was an evil tyrant.  I'm glad he is out of power.  I hope he is gone
>forever.  On that grounds, the invasion was a success.  However, that does
>not absolve George Bush and the Administration for acting under false

It doesn't have to since there were no false pretenses.

>Am I a Bush basher?  I don't think so.  I voted for him.  But my biggest
>reason for voting for him was to get rid of Clinton and to keep Gore from
>power.  Gore as president would be a disaster for which I have no
>description.  I never believed that Mr. Bush was ever really qualified to
>hold the office.  I still don't.  But I still don't think that makes me a
>Bush basher.  I even sometimes find myself defending the guy - and that is
>quite often very difficult.

It does if you condemn his actions on the baseless nonsense being spewed by
the liberals and international media.

>I also never stated that there are/were no weapons of mass destruction.  If
>you're going to blast me, at least be accurate.  What I did, was question
>the accuracy of information supposedly provided by our Intelligence
>agencies.  Even during the invasion itself, they reported that
>chemical/biological weapons attacks on our troops were imminent.  That
>proved (thankfully) to be inaccurate.  So where did they get that
>information?  Was it real, or was it hype?  I hope for the former.  I
>believe the latter.  You yourself, in the build up to the invasion, cited
>American Intelligence as having far more accurate information than the
>previous inspectors and the UN.  I don't see where they had anything other
>than what you cite here that we already knew!  Maybe that will
>change.  Maybe we'll find this huge stash of weapons, and then Mr. Bush can
>parade down Fifth Ave shouting "I told you so!"

You did indeed question their existence in your initial post. The existence
is unarguable.

>You also cited that after September 11, intelligence revealed that Saddam
>was far more likely now to use these weapons than he was before.  In fact,
>that was the party line for buying into his plan.  Where did they get that
>information?  My point is that Mr. Bush spoke to invading Iraq based on all
>of this intelligence that we had about these weapons, but it appears we had
>nothing more than what we already knew.  Again, just to be clear, I am not
>questioning that the weapons exist, I question only the reports of
>intelligence and the pretense on which we invaded.\

I did not say that at all and yes we did. We have a complete lack of any
evidence that Saddam has compleed with the UN resolution.

>I am torn on this one as to whether or not the end justifies the means.  I
>really hope he was honest with us.

There is no question that Saddam had to go. There is no ends or means to
justify. Particularity given the historic success of the invasion.

Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <>
Comment: Be sure to use my most recent key -  created 6/16/03


More information about the Rushtalk mailing list