Reply #15: Well, they screwed up, royally. It's embarrassing to them. [View All]

[Brotherjohn]

They are as responsible as Bush. They didn't hold his feet to the fire 2-3 years ago when there were OBVIOUS questions to be asked.

Questions like:
"But Mr. Bush, you keep insisting he has acquired aluminum tubes for uranium enrichment, yet the IAEA has inspected these tubes and has concluded that they are NOT. A number of other independent experts, including our own best experts in the DOE, agree with them. How can you keep saying this is what they are for? Furthermore, how can your National Security Adviser say that this is their 'only' use?"
(I'm pretty sure the NIE was released before the war showing the DOE's dissenting conclusion)

Mr. Bush, after months of the documents being witheld from them by the CIA, the IAEA has upon receiving them concluded within hours that the documents citing Iraq's alleged uranium deal with Niger to be unequivocal forgeries. How could you, having access to these documents for months, have made the claim you made in the State of the Union address? Were you lying or was it simply incompetence?"

"Mr. Bush, both your Vice President and your Secretary of State have cited Saddam's son-in-law (Hussein Kamel) as saying that Iraq has stockpiles of WMDs. Yet in that very same testimony, he stated that all of these stockpiles were destroyed in 1991. How can they use part of his testimony to allege that Iraq has WMDs, while ignoring another part of the very same testimony that says these weapons are now destroyed? Isn't that 'fixing the facts and intelligence' to support your case for war?"