retired_autumn

Tbf, I agree with that. But they don't appear to have tried to verify his account, which they could've attempted.

retired_autumn

OK. :thup:

retired_arifmaredia

this is pretty important isn't it, its pretty sad how so many people died and are still dying because of a lie, and someone who's willing to tell that lie got to be in charge of america. i always just thought it was just genuinely bad intelligence and the american governments over eagerness.

so was this all about oil then? is bush looking to line his/his business partners pockets or trying to make sure america stays prosperous in the future?

will america ever jump headlong into a war like this again? they can't be too happy with how this one turned out

btw, those questions are aimed at da5ve, if he don't mind, not the rest of you because i think he'll attempt to educate me, whereas most of otf will come up with a sarcastic/useless response, or take the **** that i believed them in the first place

retired_the gizmo

Tbf, I agree with that. But they don't appear to have tried to verify his account, which they could've attempted. </BLOCKQUOTE>

"But the CIA officers working on the Sabri case kept collecting information. "We checked on everything he told us." French intelligence eavesdropped on his telephone conversations and shared them with the CIA. These taps "validated" Sabri's claims, according to one of the CIA officers. The officers brought this material to the attention of the newly formed Iraqi Operations Group within the CIA. But those in charge of the IOG were on a mission to prove that Saddam did have WMD and would not give credit to anything that came from the French. "They kept saying the French were trying to undermine the war," said one of the CIA officers. "

retired_ks reddy

versus this guy? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curveball_(informant)

when only one of the two had information that was checking out every single time?

we were taking saddam's son-in-law's word as gospel. why not this guy? </BLOCKQUOTE>

I wouldn't have trusted either. My decision would've been based on stuff like this.

retired_ks reddy

Oh, and the son in law had defected, the foreign minister hadn't.

Fitness Matt

Makes you long for the days of the Soviet Union keeping the US in check and not getting away with all kinds of crap.

retired_kris10nicole

I didn't realise he'd left in disgrace. I was aware we'd not heard of him for a while, but i hadn't heard why he'd left.

retired_ks reddy

See: Vietnam.

retired_the gizmo

if you can't tell a believable lie, you'll never make it in politics, much less become president.

it was never "all about the oil". that is truly the most mindless of the mindless catchphrases both sides threw at each other in the run-up to the war. there are a number of business opportunity to be made when you install a friendly government, not to mention the revenge factor and the neo-con zeal in implanting a "beacon of democracy". it was a win-win-win for him and his people.

yes. and so will england. and so will other countries for their own reasons. whip up fear and belligerent nationalism and it'll happen 100 more times. mobs don't think.