And the new guy says...

[Gaard]

"But clearly this is not the immediate threat many assumed before the war"

CIA Names New Iraq WMD Inspector

 

[mfs378]

Silly me for assuming that it was an immediate threat. I should have checked with my personal intelligence analysts. Boy, do I feel dumb.

 

[etech]

The absence of weapons stocks "does not mean Saddam did not pose a WMD threat," Duelfer wrote.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: etech

The absence of weapons stocks "does not mean Saddam did not pose a WMD threat," Duelfer wrote.

The key to the invasion's legality is wrapped up in the intelligence. Did The President have grounds to invade based on the exigent circumstance requirement needed justify defensive action necessary to fall under the blessings of Article 51 of the UN Charter. Iraq didn't need to have them but, the President had to believe they did or at least a strong enough suspicion that they did and planned to use them to qualify the exigency.
We are pounding at the wrong door. We need insight into the intel.. and I doubt we'll get it. So the benefit of the doubt must inure to the guy at the helm.. until we can determine there is a nut loose on that helm.. IMO
So far we have some snippits of info that has me with a wrench in hand. But, that is my attitude and for better or worse.. there it is.

 

[Insane3D]

Originally posted by: etech

The absence of weapons stocks "does not mean Saddam did not pose a WMD threat," Duelfer wrote.

Ok, so how did he pose WMD threat if he had none? Please elaborate?

 

[tcsenter]

The key to the invasion's legality is wrapped up in the intelligence. Did The President have grounds to invade based on the exigent circumstance requirement needed justify defensive action necessary to fall under the blessings of Article 51 of the UN Charter. Iraq didn't need to have them but, the President had to believe they did or at least a strong enough suspicion that they did and planned to use them to qualify the exigency. We are pounding at the wrong door. We need insight into the intel..

SILENCE! I demand at once that you cease with this line of principled and apolitical inquiry!

All people need to know is that the Bush Administration, knowing full well there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, to justify a controversial and politically risky invasion, so that when no weapons of mass destruction were found, it would be revealed that Bush lied, handing his political opponents a bombshell to use...umm...wait a minute. Hmm...ok...let me start over.

All people need to know is that Bush lied and invaded a country for oil. Silly things like logic and reason need not enter into this.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

The key to the invasion's legality is wrapped up in the intelligence. Did The President have grounds to invade based on the exigent circumstance requirement needed justify defensive action necessary to fall under the blessings of Article 51 of the UN Charter. Iraq didn't need to have them but, the President had to believe they did or at least a strong enough suspicion that they did and planned to use them to qualify the exigency. We are pounding at the wrong door. We need insight into the intel..

SILENCE! I demand at once that you cease with this line of principled and apolitical inquiry!

All people need to know is that the Bush Administration, knowing full well there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, to justify a controversial and politically risky invasion, so that when no weapons of mass destruction were found, it would be revealed that Bush lied, handing his political opponents a bombshell to use...umm...wait a minute. Hmm...ok...let me start over.

All people need to know is that Bush lied and invaded a country for oil. Silly things like logic and reason need not enter into this.

Maybe they didn't lie, they just fscked up royally!

 

[UltraQuiet]

Maybe they didn't lie, they just fscked up royally!

 

[Gaard]

Of course, we'll never see "Oops, we may have fvcked up."

Instead we get this...

March 2003: Weapons of mass destruction.
June 2003: Weapons of mass destruction programs.
October 2003: Weapons of mass destruction-related programs.
January 2004: Weapons of mass destruction-related program activities.

(stolen from calpundit.com )

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

The key to the invasion's legality is wrapped up in the intelligence. Did The President have grounds to invade based on the exigent circumstance requirement needed justify defensive action necessary to fall under the blessings of Article 51 of the UN Charter. Iraq didn't need to have them but, the President had to believe they did or at least a strong enough suspicion that they did and planned to use them to qualify the exigency. We are pounding at the wrong door. We need insight into the intel..

SILENCE! I demand at once that you cease with this line of principled and apolitical inquiry!

All people need to know is that the Bush Administration, knowing full well there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, to justify a controversial and politically risky invasion, so that when no weapons of mass destruction were found, it would be revealed that Bush lied, handing his political opponents a bombshell to use...umm...wait a minute. Hmm...ok...let me start over.

All people need to know is that Bush lied and invaded a country for oil. Silly things like logic and reason need not enter into this.

Is it "due time" yet?