Why has GWB not been sectioned?

[Wyrm]

--nevermind the White House's and false linkage of Iraq with 9-11 on top of it all.

Which was disputed at the time Bush and Co. were beating their war drums because Al Queda and other islamic fundamentalist terrorist organizations would directly challenge Saddam's rule (being once sponsored by the US and Iraq being a secular state under Saddam), and no dictator tolerates that!

[KHL]

WMDs, for example. Were you unaware there was evidence against WMDs in Iraq, which the Bush Administration ignored in peddling the war? This demonstrates the disconnect the Administration's judgment shared with reality, which in turn implies the reason of WMDs is irrational.

And, of course, you pulled those reasons out of your ass; let's see some actual reasons the Bush Administration gave, you imbecilic troll.

There was also plenty of "evidence" (flawed or not)for the presence of WMDs in Iraq. Bush rationalized that the only way to know for sure was to go in and take Saddam out. Blair apparently agreed with him and Blair had his own sources of information from which to draw.

How convenient you ing clown, that you seem to forget that the primary dispute in the international community wasn't whether Saddam had WMDs or WMD capabilities. The dispute was on how to deal with him. To come in after the fact knowing what we know now and say that the decision to go in was irrational because it turned it the intelligence was wrong is blatant dishonesty.

Observing you, I see that, like every other liar/idiot who's tried defending this war and its rationale on this board, you just ignore the inconvenient fact that the "intelligence" was under serious dispute at the time Bush and co. were beating the war drums if not being actually exploded as false even while at the time Bush and co. were beating the war drums. That war was not the necessary resort in any case does indeed make the decision to go in anyway irrational; doubly so since the case for Saddan's alleged vast WMD arsenal was dubious at best even at the time Bush and co. were beating the war drums --nevermind the White House's and false linkage of Iraq with 9-11 on top of it all. To keep trying to argue otherwise in the face of the facts is the blatant dishonesty here.

Please provide evidence that the intelligence was under "Serious" dispute at the time the decision to invade was made. I'm not saying you are wrong, but I'd just like to see something to back this up.

Disputed or not however, I don't think you'll be able to find a credible psychiatrist who would agree with your assessment that invading was "irrational".

[SirNitram]

Please provide evidence that the intelligence was under "Serious" dispute at the time the decision to invade was made. I'm not saying you are wrong, but I'd just like to see something to back this up.

You may have heard of this guy, Wilson? Completely discredited the Niger yellowcake story? The Administration exposed his wife as a CIA operative? Has caused the indictment of a White House official, for the first time in over a hundred years?

Or are you just that fucking dumb? That's just one of it; did you watch nothing but Right Wing propaganda in the leadup?

[KHL]

Please provide evidence that the intelligence was under "Serious" dispute at the time the decision to invade was made. I'm not saying you are wrong, but I'd just like to see something to back this up.

You may have heard of this guy, Wilson? Completely discredited the Niger yellowcake story? The Administration exposed his wife as a CIA operative? Has caused the indictment of a White House official, for the first time in over a hundred years?

Or are you just that fucking dumb? That's just one of it; did you watch nothing but Right Wing propaganda in the leadup?

YAWN

Got anything else?

[SirNitram]

Please provide evidence that the intelligence was under "Serious" dispute at the time the decision to invade was made. I'm not saying you are wrong, but I'd just like to see something to back this up.

You may have heard of this guy, Wilson? Completely discredited the Niger yellowcake story? The Administration exposed his wife as a CIA operative? Has caused the indictment of a White House official, for the first time in over a hundred years?

Or are you just that fucking dumb? That's just one of it; did you watch nothing but Right Wing propaganda in the leadup?

YAWN

Got anything else?

I could mock your pathetic idea of a source a bit, because really, that's a load of shit. The Niger claim was shown to be bullshit, but those showing it were given a witchhunt, not a clear hearing.

[weemadando]

Wow fucknuts. That's an impressive argument right there. Pity you didn't make it. Anyhow - the gist of it is true. What Bush said at that time was "misrepresented" by the media. But what the rest of his staff and colleagues said certainly wasn't. Stop dodging the true issue.

As for intelligence failures - would you like me to dig up the Hansards of the debates in the Australian parliament over troop commitments where large holes in the intelligence were repeatedly pointed out?

How about the fact that no WMDs were:
a) Found.
b) Used.
c) FUCKING FOUND.

Where do you go with the mass of evidence from within the CIA and US military that they KNEW that there was no terrorist threat in Iraq and felt that the entire venture was a dangerous side-tracking of resources from the hunt for AQ remnants in Afghanistan.

How do you respond to the repeated findings in other nations parliaments that the original cassus belli (WMDs) was fabricated?

Make your counter-point to the continuing INCREASE in insurgent operations as time passes.

What about the fact that the occupation is so NEGLIGIBLE that the US forces have to launch massive offensives to RE-TAKE border towns, which SHOULD have been secured and held anyway?

How do you explain the continued degeneration of the Iraqi political process complete with nerfing of the constitution to ensure passage and continual neglect of numerous parties and ethnic groups.

[Darth Wong]

I agree with the thread title: sectioning GWB would be far more satisfying than merely sanctioning him.