Let me ask you this then, can you honestly say for a fact that they were? Personally, I see this as mere politics. Democrats and Republicans attacking each others. The only people that have the answers is Central Intelligence. It appears from this report that even if they did, they still came to the same conclusions as before.
No, I can't state it for a fact, but let me restate something that I just heard Sen. Feinstein say. Whenever there were conflicting opinions about Iraq's possession of weapons,
the CIA's opinion was what was used by the White House - and these opinions, even though erroneous and based on scant information, always reinforced GWB's case. True, the CIA is the top foreign intelligence agency in the US. But the conflicting opinions included military and FBI info that was overlooked. If there was conflicting intelligence about WMDs, why weren't we made aware of it? And why wasn't Congress aware of it (perhaps some were, but from the information we get from the report, the majority weren't)?
This doesn't hold any water. The fact is, Saddam is not any ordinary man. He killed thousand of his people before we even went in.
If we go by your statement though. The same has happened with the US Death Penalty. A few men have been put to death, even though we realized they were innocent later on.
You know.. we aren't perfect. No matter how much we try to have accurate info, sometimes it escapes us!
First of all, Saddam's tyranny was not our supposed reason for going in. We went in because we were told that Iraq had WMDs and that they were a threat to national security. Saddam's actions are irrelevant to the discussion, because we are talking about the perceived threat to the US, not whether the Iraqis are better off or not (which, again, is debatable).
Yes, of course men have been put to death when innocent. Does that make it right? Of course not, I believe that it is better to let a guilty man go free than to punish an innocent. The law of the United States agrees with me on this, in spirit. I believe the same priniciple should apply to war. Your very statements above are practically an admission that we made a mistake in invading Iraq. If that is so, how can the war be justified? You may call it a 'justifiable mistake', but I say that any president who makes a mistake that leads us to war and causes thousands of innocent people to die should not be in office. Do you really want to reelect a man who says 'Whoops! I screwed up' (of course, he
won't say that, nor admit to any mistakes whatsoever), when the cost of screwing up is so very high?
edit- oh, and just FYI, I wasn't making a parallel to Saddam, but to the war itself.
What is so ludicrous about this? Japan has a culture different than ours. The only thing I see from this is that the middle east are centuries apart from us.smile.gif
Heh, as for this poll. I'll believe it when the country is stable, when the population realize once and for all that Saddam is not returning to power, and when people can freely express their views without fearing for their lifes.
Well, as Curtis stated, there is a massive differene in the outcome of the war that will affcet people's attitudes. But, I believe more importantly, you can't compare a third-world Muslim country with an heavily industrialized Buddhist/Shinto or Christian one. Although Saddam was a secular leader, these people are not only used to religious leaders controlling the political scene, they also favor it. And of the religious leaders themselves, many are power hungry, and they fight with each other. This is not a situation that leads to stability. Additionally, of course, you have the influence of the terrorists as well as neighbor states, which wasn't a factor in Germany or Japan either.
As for your second statement, people don't fear for their lives now. They realize that Saddam is not returning to power, although I have heard statements to the effect that some don't think it's fair for him to be on trial now (I don't agree with that, but I don't live there, either). They can freely express their views; there haven't been any bombings targeting normal people talking about politics - only Coalition forces, provisional government officials, and other political figures have been attacked. Do you really think people are so in fear that they won't respond to an anonymous opinion poll? I think that's stretching it a bit. It's true that such polls may not be as statistically accurate as they could be because of the telephone situation and so forth, but I still think it says something.
edit - one more thing. We'll find out about whether Bush pressured the CIA, or at least get more information about it, when the second investigation occurs. Personally, I believe that his doing so would be grounds for impeachment. Unfortunately, by the time the investigation occurs, it may be too late.
