posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 09:40 AM
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
Oh, don't get me wrong, we're on the same side for this at this point. Iraq was wrong, unfounded and generally criminal in my opinion. We, the
public, couldn't know it then. Not beyond guess and suspicion many had based on past lies...but there is no excuse for not realizing we were fed a
line of crap by now.
My only question here is the BBC's motives and depth on a thing like this. If we want to say 'Why didn't they tell us about these two', then to be
fair and objective about this, we need ALL the intelligence reports from sources considered half way reliable for at least a year prior to invasion
day. How many said weapons were there...how many said they weren't? That's critical context to a story like this and without it? Cherry picking two
intel sources out of what was likely an ocean of flowing intelligence at the time is a little cheap.
^^This is why I've come to dislike Government and MSM alike.... Government screws us then MSM comes in to muddy everything up and throw blame around
like it's a carnival game.
Bush made comments after 9/11 but before 2003 ..some quoted in Woordward's book "Hubris", that show Bush fully intended to invade Iraq and remove
Saddam LONG before troops went over the border and made it happen. Long before Hans Blix did his best to make things worse..not better. (If he got any
more wishy washy about his crap reports, they'd have been good for little more than housebreaking puppies.) Bush's blame in playing out family
grudges that started in 1990 are well known at this point..his blame isn't in question for that, in my mind.
The PROBLEM is...when people like the BBC start throwing accusations around like this for exactly HOW and WHY the war happened...they slime far more
than Bush. There is a whole chain of people from Intelligence to State to the Pentagon that were involved in collecting and evaluating the
intelligence. I'd love hearing about these two sources in LARGER context ...but to focus even passingly on them as some incredible discovery is
disingenuous and typical MSM overblow, in my humble opinion.
When the BBC starts digging into what really matters....and that'll put them at risk of more than just crappy ratings...I'll respect them again.
Maybe. They jump for the low hanging fruit as a habit though and leave the whole tree as if they hadn't seen it was there.