Apparently G.W. really doesn't know the difference between 'absolutely has' and 'could aquire'

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Shanti
I am so sick of this crap.
Show me one time where Bush or anyone in the Bush administration said they knew for sure that Saddam had WMD.
Show me one time where they said they had proof.
Apparently you all don't know the difference between "evidence suggesting" and proof.
Apparently you all don't know the difference between "we believe" and "we know".

For the last time, everybody thought he had them, including the french and the germans. It wasn't just us.
Nobody said they knew for certain.

Do you guys have so little to argue your position that you have to just start making stuff up?

First we want to hear "I was wrong."
Then we want to hear "Sorry for accusing you all of making this stuff up."

Oh well, though we all know Shanti won't be saying these things at least we can rest easy knowing that he came away from this thread learning something knew.

Of course, due to his lack of an acceptable response, we all learned something about Shanti, too.

 

[Pepsei]

Originally posted by: Shanti
I humbly accept my ownage.
Apparently I missed all of these quotes.
And yes, some of them do indeed imply being certain.
Maybe it is my conservatively biased selective hearing that led me not to pay attention to these statements.
What has stuck in my mind, and what I was thinking about at the time of my obviously ill-advised rant, is the many times I heard Colin Powell state the case for the war without using words like proof.

I remember him repeatedly making the case for war in this way:

1. We know he had wmd's before.
2. He was required to prove their destruction.
3. He has not done so.

To me, regardless of whether they have said in the past that they "knew" he had weapons, the above 3 points alone justify the invasion.

You got guts, and I respect you for accepting your ownage.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: Shanti
I am so sick of this crap.
Show me one time where Bush or anyone in the Bush administration said they knew for sure that Saddam had WMD.
Show me one time where they said they had proof.
Apparently you all don't know the difference between "evidence suggesting" and proof.
Apparently you all don't know the difference between "we believe" and "we know".

For the last time, everybody thought he had them, including the french and the germans. It wasn't just us.
Nobody said they knew for certain.

Do you guys have so little to argue your position that you have to just start making stuff up?

First we want to hear "I was wrong."
Then we want to hear "Sorry for accusing you all of making this stuff up."

Oh well, though we all know Shanti won't be saying these things at least we can rest easy knowing that he came away from this thread learning something knew.

Of course, due to his lack of an acceptable response, we all learned something about Shanti, too.

You're one to talk, Mr. 2+1=!3. Like I said, let's keep this thread civil. He's been owned and recognizes it. Move along, nothing to see here.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Shanti

Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Weak...so very very weak. He got owned and won't even admit it.

You suck at the emoticons. Let me help you.
A wink generally implies joking or sarcasm.
Okay.

Or of course you could always edit your post to say you were just kidding around. Right?

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Shanti
Maybe it is my conservatively biased selective hearing that led me not to pay attention to these statements.

Yes, that happens a lot around here. Nice of you to fess up though You'd never see certain other users around here admit they were wrong. You know who you are!

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: Shanti
I humbly accept my ownage.
Apparently I missed all of these quotes.
And yes, some of them do indeed imply being certain.
Maybe it is my conservatively biased selective hearing that led me not to pay attention to these statements.
What has stuck in my mind, and what I was thinking about at the time of my obviously ill-advised rant, is the many times I heard Colin Powell state the case for the war without using words like proof.

I remember him repeatedly making the case for war in this way:

1. We know he had wmd's before.
2. He was required to prove their destruction.
3. He has not done so.

To me, regardless of whether they have said in the past that they "knew" he had weapons, the above 3 points alone justify the invasion.

There was plenty of justification for this war. Though I'm still not convinced war was the best way to handle the situation, that's not the point here. The point is that Bush had many arguments to justify this war, but he instead chose to mislead, fear-monger, and exploit the trajedy of 9/11 to do it. And judging by his attitude tonight he apparently has no compunction in doing so.

I don't think he chose to mislead at all.
The fact that other governments made similar statements and also believed Saddam had WMD based on their intelligence makes it hard for me to believe that this was some kind of conspiracy put on by Bush. If it was, it was one hell of a conspiracy to get so many people to go along with it. If he was wrong in believing that Saddam had WMD, I still believe that he was only believing what he was told and that he was not "lying". It is not as if this came out of nowhere. I mean it was well-documented and agreed upon by the other UN members that Saddam did have large stockpiles of chemical weapons following the first gulf war. The only question was whether or not he had destroyed them. And the rest of the UN agreed with us that he had repeatedly violated resolutions and had made clear attempts to deceive the UN inspectors. Whether or not Bush was wrong, I certainly don't think it's a big stretch to be convinced in your heart that someone who is doing everything in their power to hide the truth, may in fact have something to hide.

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: Shanti

Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Weak...so very very weak. He got owned and won't even admit it.

You suck at the emoticons. Let me help you.
A wink generally implies joking or sarcasm.
Okay.

Or of course you could always edit your post to say you were just kidding around. Right?

No, I couldn't. You will notice that when you edit a post, it will then show the time that it was edited at the bottom of the post. If it doesn't say "Edited: ...." then it has not been edited.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Pepsei

Originally posted by: Shanti
I humbly accept my ownage.
Apparently I missed all of these quotes.
And yes, some of them do indeed imply being certain.
Maybe it is my conservatively biased selective hearing that led me not to pay attention to these statements.
What has stuck in my mind, and what I was thinking about at the time of my obviously ill-advised rant, is the many times I heard Colin Powell state the case for the war without using words like proof.

I remember him repeatedly making the case for war in this way:

1. We know he had wmd's before.
2. He was required to prove their destruction.
3. He has not done so.

To me, regardless of whether they have said in the past that they "knew" he had weapons, the above 3 points alone justify the invasion.

You got guts, and I respect you for accepting your ownage.

I agree. I thought he did a decent job of accepting his mistake. He certainly did better than some of the robo-denials other Bush supporters have attempted when cornered with facts. But I won't mention any names, no Sir. I'd be a total cad if I did that. I'm not that kinda GUY.




Edit: after seeing Shanti's post below, let me amend this to say I have never seen anyone here acknowledge a mistake as openly and enthusiastically. Kudos. We can all learn from him.

 

[alchemize]

Bowfinger: What's the difference between a Robo-denial, and a Robo-accusation?

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: Shanti
I am so sick of this crap.
Show me one time where Bush or anyone in the Bush administration said they knew for sure that Saddam had WMD.
Show me one time where they said they had proof.
Apparently you all don't know the difference between "evidence suggesting" and proof.
Apparently you all don't know the difference between "we believe" and "we know".

For the last time, everybody thought he had them, including the french and the germans. It wasn't just us.
Nobody said they knew for certain.

Do you guys have so little to argue your position that you have to just start making stuff up?

First we want to hear "I was wrong."
Then we want to hear "Sorry for accusing you all of making this stuff up."

Oh well, though we all know Shanti won't be saying these things at least we can rest easy knowing that he came away from this thread learning something knew.

Of course, due to his lack of an acceptable response, we all learned something about Shanti, too.

Get a life dude. What would you want for an "acceptable response"?
I admitted that I was owned, I said I missed those quotes, I said that they do indeed show certainty in their statements, I even admitted my conservative bias and selective hearing.

The only reason I went on to talk about Powell's statements is to convey what I had been thinking about when I made my initial post.

What more do you want?
If I change my registration to democrat would you then forgive my sins?

I WAS WRONG WHEN I SAID NOBODY IN THE ADMINISTRATION CLAIMED TO HAVE PROOF AND KNOW FOR CERTAIN THAT SADDAM HAD WMD.
I will not apologize for accusing you of making things up, because although I WAS WRONG in this case, I have seen many of the liberals on this board say many things that are untrue.

The difference is that i am still here admitting that i was wrong and you were right. When any conservative provides links and quotes that clearly show the falsehood of one of the liberal statements, the post is simply ignored as if it was never posted.

Here:
I WAS WRONG
I WAS WRONG
I WAS WRONG
I WAS WRONG
I WAS WRONG
I WAS WRONG
I WAS WRONG
I WAS WRONG
I WAS WRONG
I WAS WRONG
I WAS WRONG
I WAS WRONG
I WAS WRONG
I WAS WRONG
I WAS WRONG
I WAS WRONG
I WAS WRONG
I WAS WRONG
I WAS WRONG
I WAS WRONG
I WAS WRONG
I WAS WRONG
I WAS WRONG
I WAS WRONG

Feel better now?

 

[onelove]

tick-tock - those weapons are hard to find.

It would seem that if the intel about the command to use chemical weapons in defense of Baghdad were true, said chemical weapons would have been closer at hand. Could US intel have overestimated Iraq's threat? I think this is an organizational issue that goes beyond Bush administration being liars or morons (they're neither - they just appear so at times) (nuke-u-ler). Check http://www.cia.gov/csi/books/watchingthebear/intro.htm for info from the CIA - Gasthof's article treats the overestimation of Soviet forces in the 1980s (I think he's sort of famous for that).

peace all & lets take it easy on each other - remember that most of america is still in a haze about the reasons for the war - my relatives strongly support it, but are hard pressed to say why it was necessary.

EDIT: Garthoff, not Gasthof

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Bowfinger: What's the difference between a Robo-denial, and a Robo-accusation?

Four letters. What's that have to do with this thread?

(Lighten up, Francis. The "robo" prefix is from a specific older thread and I'm not the one who coined it. It precipitated a fairly friendly sparring session. In other words, it's an inside joke.)

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: Shanti

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: Shanti
I humbly accept my ownage.
Apparently I missed all of these quotes.
And yes, some of them do indeed imply being certain.
Maybe it is my conservatively biased selective hearing that led me not to pay attention to these statements.
What has stuck in my mind, and what I was thinking about at the time of my obviously ill-advised rant, is the many times I heard Colin Powell state the case for the war without using words like proof.

I remember him repeatedly making the case for war in this way:

1. We know he had wmd's before.
2. He was required to prove their destruction.
3. He has not done so.

To me, regardless of whether they have said in the past that they "knew" he had weapons, the above 3 points alone justify the invasion.

There was plenty of justification for this war. Though I'm still not convinced war was the best way to handle the situation, that's not the point here. The point is that Bush had many arguments to justify this war, but he instead chose to mislead, fear-monger, and exploit the trajedy of 9/11 to do it. And judging by his attitude tonight he apparently has no compunction in doing so.

I don't think he chose to mislead at all.
The fact that other governments made similar statements and also believed Saddam had WMD based on their intelligence makes it hard for me to believe that this was some kind of conspiracy put on by Bush. If it was, it was one hell of a conspiracy to get so many people to go along with it. If he was wrong in believing that Saddam had WMD, I still believe that he was only believing what he was told and that he was not "lying". It is not as if this came out of nowhere. I mean it was well-documented and agreed upon by the other UN members that Saddam did have large stockpiles of chemical weapons following the first gulf war. The only question was whether or not he had destroyed them. And the rest of the UN agreed with us that he had repeatedly violated resolutions and had made clear attempts to deceive the UN inspectors. Whether or not Bush was wrong, I certainly don't think it's a big stretch to be convinced in your heart that someone who is doing everything in their power to hide the truth, may in fact have something to hide.

At best he still chose to present 'probably's and 'possibly's as 'absolutely's in justifying this war. That's choosing to mislead any way you cut it.

 

[onelove]

Originally posted by: jahawkin
"Look, I made the right decision. Just shut up with your questioning."

haha - that is sort of how he likes to answer

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Wow it's like a parade in here....or maybe a public stoning...I can't decide which.

Yea for the libbies!!!

CkG

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: Shanti

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: Shanti
I humbly accept my ownage.
Apparently I missed all of these quotes.
And yes, some of them do indeed imply being certain.
Maybe it is my conservatively biased selective hearing that led me not to pay attention to these statements.
What has stuck in my mind, and what I was thinking about at the time of my obviously ill-advised rant, is the many times I heard Colin Powell state the case for the war without using words like proof.

I remember him repeatedly making the case for war in this way:

1. We know he had wmd's before.
2. He was required to prove their destruction.
3. He has not done so.

To me, regardless of whether they have said in the past that they "knew" he had weapons, the above 3 points alone justify the invasion.

There was plenty of justification for this war. Though I'm still not convinced war was the best way to handle the situation, that's not the point here. The point is that Bush had many arguments to justify this war, but he instead chose to mislead, fear-monger, and exploit the trajedy of 9/11 to do it. And judging by his attitude tonight he apparently has no compunction in doing so.

I don't think he chose to mislead at all.
The fact that other governments made similar statements and also believed Saddam had WMD based on their intelligence makes it hard for me to believe that this was some kind of conspiracy put on by Bush. If it was, it was one hell of a conspiracy to get so many people to go along with it. If he was wrong in believing that Saddam had WMD, I still believe that he was only believing what he was told and that he was not "lying". It is not as if this came out of nowhere. I mean it was well-documented and agreed upon by the other UN members that Saddam did have large stockpiles of chemical weapons following the first gulf war. The only question was whether or not he had destroyed them. And the rest of the UN agreed with us that he had repeatedly violated resolutions and had made clear attempts to deceive the UN inspectors. Whether or not Bush was wrong, I certainly don't think it's a big stretch to be convinced in your heart that someone who is doing everything in their power to hide the truth, may in fact have something to hide.

At best he still chose to present 'probably's and 'possibly's as 'absolutely's in justifying this war. That's choosing to mislead any way you cut it.

That is the nature of intel. The worlds was wrong about Iraq.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: Shanti

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: Shanti
I humbly accept my ownage.
Apparently I missed all of these quotes.
And yes, some of them do indeed imply being certain.
Maybe it is my conservatively biased selective hearing that led me not to pay attention to these statements.
What has stuck in my mind, and what I was thinking about at the time of my obviously ill-advised rant, is the many times I heard Colin Powell state the case for the war without using words like proof.

I remember him repeatedly making the case for war in this way:

1. We know he had wmd's before.
2. He was required to prove their destruction.
3. He has not done so.

To me, regardless of whether they have said in the past that they "knew" he had weapons, the above 3 points alone justify the invasion.

There was plenty of justification for this war. Though I'm still not convinced war was the best way to handle the situation, that's not the point here. The point is that Bush had many arguments to justify this war, but he instead chose to mislead, fear-monger, and exploit the trajedy of 9/11 to do it. And judging by his attitude tonight he apparently has no compunction in doing so.

I don't think he chose to mislead at all.
The fact that other governments made similar statements and also believed Saddam had WMD based on their intelligence makes it hard for me to believe that this was some kind of conspiracy put on by Bush. If it was, it was one hell of a conspiracy to get so many people to go along with it. If he was wrong in believing that Saddam had WMD, I still believe that he was only believing what he was told and that he was not "lying". It is not as if this came out of nowhere. I mean it was well-documented and agreed upon by the other UN members that Saddam did have large stockpiles of chemical weapons following the first gulf war. The only question was whether or not he had destroyed them. And the rest of the UN agreed with us that he had repeatedly violated resolutions and had made clear attempts to deceive the UN inspectors. Whether or not Bush was wrong, I certainly don't think it's a big stretch to be convinced in your heart that someone who is doing everything in their power to hide the truth, may in fact have something to hide.

At best he still chose to present 'probably's and 'possibly's as 'absolutely's in justifying this war. That's choosing to mislead any way you cut it.

That is the nature of intel. The worlds was wrong about Iraq.

So uncertaintity is the nature of intel, is it? Being leaders of the free world and all, wouldn't that mean Bush & Co. knew that while they were spouting off their absolutes about WMD and Al Queda? I did not hear such absolutes coming from the rest of the world.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: Shanti

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: Shanti
I humbly accept my ownage.
Apparently I missed all of these quotes.
And yes, some of them do indeed imply being certain.
Maybe it is my conservatively biased selective hearing that led me not to pay attention to these statements.
What has stuck in my mind, and what I was thinking about at the time of my obviously ill-advised rant, is the many times I heard Colin Powell state the case for the war without using words like proof.

I remember him repeatedly making the case for war in this way:

1. We know he had wmd's before.
2. He was required to prove their destruction.
3. He has not done so.

To me, regardless of whether they have said in the past that they "knew" he had weapons, the above 3 points alone justify the invasion.

There was plenty of justification for this war. Though I'm still not convinced war was the best way to handle the situation, that's not the point here. The point is that Bush had many arguments to justify this war, but he instead chose to mislead, fear-monger, and exploit the trajedy of 9/11 to do it. And judging by his attitude tonight he apparently has no compunction in doing so.

I don't think he chose to mislead at all.
The fact that other governments made similar statements and also believed Saddam had WMD based on their intelligence makes it hard for me to believe that this was some kind of conspiracy put on by Bush. If it was, it was one hell of a conspiracy to get so many people to go along with it. If he was wrong in believing that Saddam had WMD, I still believe that he was only believing what he was told and that he was not "lying". It is not as if this came out of nowhere. I mean it was well-documented and agreed upon by the other UN members that Saddam did have large stockpiles of chemical weapons following the first gulf war. The only question was whether or not he had destroyed them. And the rest of the UN agreed with us that he had repeatedly violated resolutions and had made clear attempts to deceive the UN inspectors. Whether or not Bush was wrong, I certainly don't think it's a big stretch to be convinced in your heart that someone who is doing everything in their power to hide the truth, may in fact have something to hide.

At best he still chose to present 'probably's and 'possibly's as 'absolutely's in justifying this war. That's choosing to mislead any way you cut it.

That is the nature of intel. The worlds was wrong about Iraq.

most of the intel used to make the case for war came from the US, UK and Israel

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: Shanti

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: Shanti
I humbly accept my ownage.
Apparently I missed all of these quotes.
And yes, some of them do indeed imply being certain.
Maybe it is my conservatively biased selective hearing that led me not to pay attention to these statements.
What has stuck in my mind, and what I was thinking about at the time of my obviously ill-advised rant, is the many times I heard Colin Powell state the case for the war without using words like proof.

I remember him repeatedly making the case for war in this way:

1. We know he had wmd's before.
2. He was required to prove their destruction.
3. He has not done so.

To me, regardless of whether they have said in the past that they "knew" he had weapons, the above 3 points alone justify the invasion.

There was plenty of justification for this war. Though I'm still not convinced war was the best way to handle the situation, that's not the point here. The point is that Bush had many arguments to justify this war, but he instead chose to mislead, fear-monger, and exploit the trajedy of 9/11 to do it. And judging by his attitude tonight he apparently has no compunction in doing so.

I don't think he chose to mislead at all.
The fact that other governments made similar statements and also believed Saddam had WMD based on their intelligence makes it hard for me to believe that this was some kind of conspiracy put on by Bush. If it was, it was one hell of a conspiracy to get so many people to go along with it. If he was wrong in believing that Saddam had WMD, I still believe that he was only believing what he was told and that he was not "lying". It is not as if this came out of nowhere. I mean it was well-documented and agreed upon by the other UN members that Saddam did have large stockpiles of chemical weapons following the first gulf war. The only question was whether or not he had destroyed them. And the rest of the UN agreed with us that he had repeatedly violated resolutions and had made clear attempts to deceive the UN inspectors. Whether or not Bush was wrong, I certainly don't think it's a big stretch to be convinced in your heart that someone who is doing everything in their power to hide the truth, may in fact have something to hide.

At best he still chose to present 'probably's and 'possibly's as 'absolutely's in justifying this war. That's choosing to mislead any way you cut it.

That is the nature of intel. The worlds was wrong about Iraq.

So uncertaintity is the nature of intel, is it? Being leaders of the free world and all, wouldn't that mean Bush & Co. knew that while they were spouting off their absolutes about WMD and Al Queda? I did not hear such absolutes coming from the rest of the world.

The numbers that Bush quoted about weapons stocks(size of mustard gas, athrax,..) came from the UN. Germany had firm intel on iraq having small pox. Al Queda camps were found in Iraq.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: Shanti

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: Shanti
I humbly accept my ownage.
Apparently I missed all of these quotes.
And yes, some of them do indeed imply being certain.
Maybe it is my conservatively biased selective hearing that led me not to pay attention to these statements.
What has stuck in my mind, and what I was thinking about at the time of my obviously ill-advised rant, is the many times I heard Colin Powell state the case for the war without using words like proof.

I remember him repeatedly making the case for war in this way:

1. We know he had wmd's before.
2. He was required to prove their destruction.
3. He has not done so.

To me, regardless of whether they have said in the past that they "knew" he had weapons, the above 3 points alone justify the invasion.

There was plenty of justification for this war. Though I'm still not convinced war was the best way to handle the situation, that's not the point here. The point is that Bush had many arguments to justify this war, but he instead chose to mislead, fear-monger, and exploit the trajedy of 9/11 to do it. And judging by his attitude tonight he apparently has no compunction in doing so.

I don't think he chose to mislead at all.
The fact that other governments made similar statements and also believed Saddam had WMD based on their intelligence makes it hard for me to believe that this was some kind of conspiracy put on by Bush. If it was, it was one hell of a conspiracy to get so many people to go along with it. If he was wrong in believing that Saddam had WMD, I still believe that he was only believing what he was told and that he was not "lying". It is not as if this came out of nowhere. I mean it was well-documented and agreed upon by the other UN members that Saddam did have large stockpiles of chemical weapons following the first gulf war. The only question was whether or not he had destroyed them. And the rest of the UN agreed with us that he had repeatedly violated resolutions and had made clear attempts to deceive the UN inspectors. Whether or not Bush was wrong, I certainly don't think it's a big stretch to be convinced in your heart that someone who is doing everything in their power to hide the truth, may in fact have something to hide.

At best he still chose to present 'probably's and 'possibly's as 'absolutely's in justifying this war. That's choosing to mislead any way you cut it.

That is the nature of intel. The worlds was wrong about Iraq.

most of the intel used to make the case for war came from the US, UK and Israel

bzzzz, but thanks for playing.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: charrison
The numbers that Bush quoted about weapons stocks(size of mustard gas, athrax,..) came from the UN. Germany had firm intel on iraq having small pox. Al Queda camps were found in Iraq.

Those were outdated numbers, not recent. Camps where found in kurdish regions of Iraq, which saddam had little to no control over

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: charrison
bzzzz, but thanks for playing.

and your point?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: charrison
bzzzz, but thanks for playing.

and your point?

Intel came from other countries other than the US, UK, and Isreal.

 

[LongCoolMother]

0w|\|@g3!!!!

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: Shanti
I humbly accept my ownage.
Apparently I missed all of these quotes.
And yes, some of them do indeed imply being certain.
Maybe it is my conservatively biased selective hearing that led me not to pay attention to these statements.
What has stuck in my mind, and what I was thinking about at the time of my obviously ill-advised rant, is the many times I heard Colin Powell state the case for the war without using words like proof.

I remember him repeatedly making the case for war in this way:

1. We know he had wmd's before.
2. He was required to prove their destruction.
3. He has not done so.

To me, regardless of whether they have said in the past that they "knew" he had weapons, the above 3 points alone justify the invasion.

The problem was always #3. He was in the process of doing that, in fact I remember Blix giving him a B (or something similar) on cooperation.

The situation was like this:
Liberal extremists said "give the inspectors more time" because they wanted to use that as a way to stop the war outright.
Moderates said "Give the inspectors more time" because we saw that saddam may or may not have WMDs and there was no real hurry (unlike what Bush wanted you to think).

In the end Bush and co knowingly lied (No, I don't think the CIA are that inept) and used the UN to make themselves look like they were doing something most americans wanted, when in fact the decision to go to war was made only shortly after they started talking about Iraq (if you doubt my last statement, imagine the US stopping their march in say...Feburary. Impossible, yes?)