There is no question that the WMD was wrong. The intelligence was wrong. Who disputes it? You just choose to believe the worst of all possibilities. That everything that went worng was known and intended. Like some sort of conspiracy theory. I would not elect a president that could only react to information he knew was absolutely 100% correct. I need a leader who can make a difficult decision when everything is not known and being able to weigh the consequences of those choices. Which would be worse, to assume there were no WMD when there really was or to assume there is WMD when there really is not? (no need to answer, I can guess it already) It is the science of knowledge and decisions. Anyone waiting for perfect clairvoyance would be paralyzed to do anything.
Informants are often times shadey characters. Curveball was no exception. The effort we have made over the last few decades to restrict our intelligence agencies from engaging less than scrupulous people has hurt our intelligence gathering, not helped it. But that is what intelligence gathering is. Sifting through data, some of which might conflict, to try to paint an overall picture. The fact that the British, French and Russians were in independent agreement with the administration in their assessment is telling. But feel free to discount it.
It's cheap also a cheap shot to call out a leader for saying victory is certain. Anyone in a contest would make a similar declaration. Whether it be war, a political campaign, or a sport. (Didn't the Stealers declare victory was certain over the Pats. THE LIARS! Oops. I compared war to football! It's a joke.)
I don't see Wolf as a credible source. Anyone more independent?
Existing User Log In
New User Registration
Register for a free account to gain full access to the VGChartz Network and join our thriving community.
