We've debunked one Intelligence talking point, here's another.

We have debunked the Talking Point that Congress "saw the same intelligence".

What about the Talking Point that "everybody" in the world thought Saddam had WMD.

Here's the Truth:
~
...Russia was not convinced by either the September 24, 2002 British dossier or the October 4, 2002 CIA report. Lacking sufficient evidence, Russia dismissed the claims as a part of a "propaganda furor." Specifically targeting the CIA report, Putin said, "Fears are one thing, hard facts are another." He goes on to say, "Russia does not have in its possession any trustworthy data that supports the existence of nuclear weapons or any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and we have not received any such information from our partners yet. This fact has also been supported by the information sent by the CIA to the US Congress."
~
French intelligence services did not come up with the same alarming assessment of Iraq and WMD as did the Britain and the United States. "According to secret agents at the DGSE, Saddam's Iraq does not represent any kind of nuclear threat at this time…It contradicts the CIA's analysis…"5 French spies said that the Iraqi nuclear threat claimed by the United States was a "phony threat."
~
After Secretary of State Colin Powell's speech on February 5, 2003 to the United Nations Security Council, the focus of discussion among U.S. allies changed. France, Russia, and Germany did not find Powell's "evidence" strong enough to support the U.S.'s stance on the Iraqi threat.
http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iraq/usallieswmd.html

Further, even British Intelligence did not agree with the US intelligence and cite French and Russian intelligence:
~
TONY Blair disregarded the advice of his own intelligence agencies and chose instead to believe 'selective and defective' information from a highly politicised Pentagon unit set up by US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld to validate war against Saddam Hussein by proving that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
~
British intelligence sources have told the Sunday Herald that they were 'absolutely sceptical' about plans to invade Iraq over WMD. The same sources accept that France and Russia had the best intelligence on what was going on inside Saddam's regime and were telling both the UK and USA that 'there was effectively no real evidence of a WMD programme' in Iraq.
http://www.sundayherald.com/34305

So, the "rest of the world" DISAGREED with the assertion that Saddam had WMD - they DID NOT agree.

This is from Hardball last week...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9969037

"MATTHEWS: What came first do you believe, Senator? Their desire to go to war or the way they looked at the evidence?

LEVIN: I think basically they decided immediately after 9/11 to go after Saddam. They began to—look there was plenty of evidence that Saddam had nuclear weapons, by the way. That is not in dispute. There is plenty of evidence of that."


That is not in dispute? There is plenty of evidence of that? WTF!

people will believe it's the truth."

nt

Chretien continually asked "Where is the proof?" and, because no proof was given, Canada refused to join the 'coalition'.

they are so defective that we should have no trouble having the whole lot of them institutionalized.

The whole reason for "freedom fries" and a thousand-and-one lame email jokes about the French and the Germans and renewed distrust of the Russians was that they did NOT believe the Iraq lies (WMD, links to al Qaeda, involvement in 9-11--NONE of it).

These repuke assholes have ZERO regard for the truth and lie convulsively, like other people gag when crap is being forced down their throats.

No, Clinton had DIFFERENT intelligence which said that Saddam was building WMD in 1998, and Clinton DESTROYED them:
~
CLINTON: Good evening.

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

Of course, Republicans criticized him for it:
~

Prominent among the skeptics: Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Mississippi) and House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas).

"I cannot support this military action in the Persian Gulf at this time," Lott said in a statement. "Both the timing and the policy are subject to question."
~
"The suspicion some people have about the president's motives in this attack is itself <b>a powerful argument for impeachment</b>," Armey said in a statement. <b>"After months of lies, the president has given millions of people around the world reason to doubt that he has sent Americans into battle for the right reasons."</b>
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/congresstional.react.02/

nt

He is the head of IAEA, and if you google him + WMD + Iraq, you will see that he emphatically stated that Iraq had no WMD. He recently won the Nobel Peace Prize, I believe. So, I'd think he speaks from a position of authority. Also, check my spelling on his name.

As well, Scott Ritter, the chief UN weapons inspector in Iraq during the 90s was also pretty emphatic in stating that Iraq had no WMD. He would also be in a position to know.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=mohammed+el+baradei+wmd+iraq&btnG=Search

And here is elBaradei's official statement:
To date we have found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons programme in Iraq.
http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Statements/2003/ebsp2003n008.shtml#Anchor-Iraq

And here's some info on Scott Ritter:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=scott+ritter+wmd+iraq&btnG=Search

Thanks for the tip!
:toast: