Question for the "Bush lied" crowd.

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

manowar821

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2007
6,063
0
0
Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
Originally posted by: manowar821
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
I'm a former Bush supporter, before I found out Bush wasnt a conservative, so now that we have that out of the way...

How did you make the leap from "Bush was seriously mistaken" to "Bush lied" about the WMD situation in Iraq? When I look back at the time before the invasion, it seemed almost a general consensus that Saddam had WMD's, so the debate centered around whether it was worth it to go to war, even if he did have WMD's. I think this group think permeated American society from the man on the street, all the way up to the decision makers in government. I remember every day during the run to Baghdad, it seems they would stumble on a new Iraqi outpost with a bunch of barrels, and everyone was thinking that would be the slam dunk that most assumed was coming.

In hindsight, we had good reason to believe Saddam had WMD's, though we didnt have proof at the time of the invasion. After all of Saddam's charades in the 90's, and him getting caught red handed at one point, I think we just always assumed that Saddam was always lying. In the runup to the war, Bush was supporting what was generally a foregone conclusion.

With this groupthink predating the Bush presidency, and most Democrats openly saying that they believed Saddam had WMD's even before Bush came to office, how EXACTLY did you arrive at the conclusion that "Bush lied" instead of "Bush was mistaken"? Save the rhetoric about how stupid and evil Bush is, I'd like specific examples, developments, news stories, etc.
I don't believe "Bush lied" about Saddam having WMDs. EVERYONE believed Saddam had WMDs.

The "lie" was claiming Saddam's WMDs were an imminent threat. What's clear now is that intelligence available to the Administration pre-invasion indicated that Saddam - given the WMDs he was THOUGHT to have - was NOT an imminent threat. But the Bush Administration chose to ignore what the intelligence was saying and painted a dire scenario to justify the invasion.

If you want proof of just how dishonest Bush is, consider that EVEN NOW, Bush tells us how dangerous Saddam was. But given what we know now, that he had no WMDs, how can Bush possibly justify that statement? There's a word for statements like that: lies.

No, not everyone believed that crap. There were some of us who knew that this admin was full of sh1t from the start, before they even DID anything...

So did you beleive Saddam had WMD's when Clinton was in office, or not?

Uh, no. Why in the hell would they simply disappear when the office administration changes?

The facts don't change when the jerks in office do, however, "facts" do change.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: smack Down
In hindsight, we had good reason to believe Saddam had WMD's, though we didnt have proof at the time of the invasion. After all of Saddam's charades in the 90's, and him getting caught red handed at one point, I think we just always assumed that Saddam was always lying. In the runup to the war, Bush was supporting what was generally a foregone conclusion.

Name one reason we had to believe Saddam had WMD other then bush said so?

1. George Tenet, a Dem appointee, was convinced that Saddam had WMD, advised GWB of that, and admits it in his book and on TV recently.

Fern

So, in other words some guy said told bush so?

"Some Guy"?

bwuhahaha. He was HEAD of the CIA at that time. The ONLY person with more "authority" to make that claim was Saddam himself.

As far as getting evidence - the only place you're going to find hard evidence of WMD in Iraq is in Iraq. Given that Saddam was an uncooperative S.O.B. what are you going to do? Invade Iraq to find evidence to justify invading Iraq?.

Being President isn't easy, you gotta make tough calls that have huge ramifications. Sometimes it takes decades to know how they play out and if they were good decisions. Sometimes we never know.

What if GWB had invaded Afganistan prior to 9/11 under the pretense of WMD?

Well no WMD would be found and he'd be judged harshly. Of course, 9/11 wouldn't have occurred but we'd prolly never even know about that.

Fern
 

Mxylplyx

Diamond Member
Mar 21, 2007
4,197
101
106
Originally posted by: manowar821
Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
Originally posted by: manowar821
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
I'm a former Bush supporter, before I found out Bush wasnt a conservative, so now that we have that out of the way...

How did you make the leap from "Bush was seriously mistaken" to "Bush lied" about the WMD situation in Iraq? When I look back at the time before the invasion, it seemed almost a general consensus that Saddam had WMD's, so the debate centered around whether it was worth it to go to war, even if he did have WMD's. I think this group think permeated American society from the man on the street, all the way up to the decision makers in government. I remember every day during the run to Baghdad, it seems they would stumble on a new Iraqi outpost with a bunch of barrels, and everyone was thinking that would be the slam dunk that most assumed was coming.

In hindsight, we had good reason to believe Saddam had WMD's, though we didnt have proof at the time of the invasion. After all of Saddam's charades in the 90's, and him getting caught red handed at one point, I think we just always assumed that Saddam was always lying. In the runup to the war, Bush was supporting what was generally a foregone conclusion.

With this groupthink predating the Bush presidency, and most Democrats openly saying that they believed Saddam had WMD's even before Bush came to office, how EXACTLY did you arrive at the conclusion that "Bush lied" instead of "Bush was mistaken"? Save the rhetoric about how stupid and evil Bush is, I'd like specific examples, developments, news stories, etc.
I don't believe "Bush lied" about Saddam having WMDs. EVERYONE believed Saddam had WMDs.

The "lie" was claiming Saddam's WMDs were an imminent threat. What's clear now is that intelligence available to the Administration pre-invasion indicated that Saddam - given the WMDs he was THOUGHT to have - was NOT an imminent threat. But the Bush Administration chose to ignore what the intelligence was saying and painted a dire scenario to justify the invasion.

If you want proof of just how dishonest Bush is, consider that EVEN NOW, Bush tells us how dangerous Saddam was. But given what we know now, that he had no WMDs, how can Bush possibly justify that statement? There's a word for statements like that: lies.

No, not everyone believed that crap. There were some of us who knew that this admin was full of sh1t from the start, before they even DID anything...

So did you beleive Saddam had WMD's when Clinton was in office, or not?

Uh, no. Why in the hell would they simply disappear when the office administration changes?

The facts don't change when the jerks in office do, however, "facts" do change.

Thats my point. Most politicians believed before Bush even came to office that Saddam had WMD's, based off mostly the same evidence that was available to Bush. Those same politicians that claim Bush duped them conveniently forget what they believed prior to Bush coming to office.
 

Mxylplyx

Diamond Member
Mar 21, 2007
4,197
101
106
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: smack Down
In hindsight, we had good reason to believe Saddam had WMD's, though we didnt have proof at the time of the invasion. After all of Saddam's charades in the 90's, and him getting caught red handed at one point, I think we just always assumed that Saddam was always lying. In the runup to the war, Bush was supporting what was generally a foregone conclusion.

Name one reason we had to believe Saddam had WMD other then bush said so?

1. George Tenet, a Dem appointee, was convinced that Saddam had WMD, advised GWB of that, and admits it in his book and on TV recently.

Fern

So, in other words some guy said told bush so?

"Some Guy"?

bwuhahaha. He was HEAD of the CIA at that time. The ONLY person with more "authority" to make that claim was Saddam himself.

As far as getting evidence - the only place you're going to find hard evidence of WMD in Iraq is in Iraq. Given that Saddam was an uncooperative S.O.B. what are you going to do? Invade Iraq to find evidence to justify invading Iraq?.

Being President isn't easy, you gotta make tough calls that have huge ramifications. Sometimes it takes decades to know how they play out and if they were good decisions. Sometimes we never know.

What if GWB had invaded Afganistan prior to 9/11 under the pretense of WMD?

Well no WMD would be found and he'd be judged harshly. Of course, 9/11 wouldn't have occurred but we'd prolly never even know about that.

Fern

One of the unfortunate things about all of this is that we have lost trust in our nations intelligence agencies, and for good reason. It doesnt matter which party is in office, they have to act on information from the same huge bureaucracy that isnt going to change substantially when a new administration comes into office. Our leaders will now be much more wary of trusting information from the CIA....which could actually be a good thing in some situations.
 

SocialJustice

Banned
May 2, 2007
2
0
0
[/quote] One of the unfortunate things about all of this is that we have lost trust in our nations intelligence agencies, and for good reason. It doesnt matter which party is in office, they have to act on information from the same huge bureaucracy that isnt going to change substantially when a new administration comes into office. Our leaders will now be much more wary of trusting information from the CIA....which could actually be a good thing in some situations. [/quote]

lol
Its Bush that lied and sold this war to us.
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
"Setting a deadline for withdrawal is setting a date for failure...." no? In other words...all we have are our "takes."
True, although the ability to back up our 'takes" determines whether a particular talking point is based on fact or opinion.

Let's take your example as a starting point...from a strategic military perspective, setting an arbitrary withdrawal date conflicts with any notion of victory within the context of the Iraq mission...granted, one could argue that the Iraq mission was doomed to failure from the onset...you could also contend that for Bush to dismiss the deadline solution, he has to offer a counter strategy...or meet the Democrats on a compromising solution.

My take...Bush committed our nation to Iraq without clearly defined military objectives and based on the incorrect assumption that we could successfully stabilize Iraq with a minimal military footprint...the errors made in the weeks following the fall of Bagdad have set the stage for the years that followed. The Democrats on the other hand have chosen the path of political symbolism and typical partisan politics, without offering a viable solution of their own despite the mandate they received from the American people to do just that.
 

Mxylplyx

Diamond Member
Mar 21, 2007
4,197
101
106
Originally posted by: SocialJustice
One of the unfortunate things about all of this is that we have lost trust in our nations intelligence agencies, and for good reason. It doesnt matter which party is in office, they have to act on information from the same huge bureaucracy that isnt going to change substantially when a new administration comes into office. Our leaders will now be much more wary of trusting information from the CIA....which could actually be a good thing in some situations. [/quote]

lol
Its Bush that lied and sold this war to us.[/quote]

What an insightful first post. Yet another person I have to ignore around here.

 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
FEBURARY 24, 2003 ? CIA WARNS WHITE HOUSE ?NO DIRECT EVIDENCE? OF WMD: "A CIA report on proliferation released this week says the intelligence community has no ?direct evidence? that Iraq has succeeded in reconstituting its biological, chemical, nuclear or long-range missile programs in the two years since U.N. weapons inspectors left and U.S. planes bombed Iraqi facilities. ?We do not have any direct evidence that Iraq has used the period since Desert Fox to reconstitute its Weapons of Mass Destruction programs,? said the agency in its semi-annual report on proliferation activities." [NBC News, 2/24/03]

I forgot . . . when did we invade Iraq?

Didn't Bush say as late as early March that no decision had been made to invade and that Iraq could avoid it if they cooperated with the UN and revealed the 'truth' about their WMD?

. . . the U.N. and the International Atomic Energy Agency both repeatedly told the administration there was no evidence Iraq had WMD.

Of course absence of evidence is not evidence of absence . . . then again absent evidence is not the same as 'we know where the weapons are . . . north of Baghdad and around Tikrit'.
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
1
0
Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
Originally posted by: smack Down
In hindsight, we had good reason to believe Saddam had WMD's, though we didnt have proof at the time of the invasion. After all of Saddam's charades in the 90's, and him getting caught red handed at one point, I think we just always assumed that Saddam was always lying. In the runup to the war, Bush was supporting what was generally a foregone conclusion.

Name one reason we had to believe Saddam had WMD other then bush said so?

Because he was caught red handed in the 90's with a chemical weapons program, and he gave us no reason after that fact to trust him?? Oh, and Clinton and Kerry said so too.


Also, several war detractors have said we all thought Saddam had WMD's in this very thread. It was generally assumed by pretty much everyone before the war, and even before Bush took office.

Sorry it isn't the 90 so that isn't evidence that bush had the weapons.

Kerry, and/or Clinton saying something isn't evidence.

Come on this shouldn't be that challenge find one piece of evidence that at the time of the war supported the claim the Iraq had WMD.

I'm not arguing that we had enough evidence, or that it wasnt a hasty rush to war. I'm just trying to analyze the "Bush lied" line that is commonly tossed about. Politicians make hasty decisions all the time. Clinton did it when he bombed the aspirin factory. Bush just did it on a much bigger scale. The scale or outcome should be irrelevant when we are trying to deduce the true intentions of the man.
Did you analyze my response with the 05/01/2007 05:45 PM time stamp?

 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
<- has not read thread

How do we know that Bush lied? Easy...

1. It was already more or less certain that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, and that's what was on the table at the time.
2. After more than a decade of economic sanctions, the Iraqi economy was in shambles, literally incapable of putting together any kind of WMD program.
3. It was obvious that GW had a hard-on for Saddam and was looking for any in excuse to repay the military-industrial complex that put him in office.

I never bought the whole Saddam has WMD nonsense for one second. This entire "war" has been a sham for the military-industrial complex from the start. God forbid we have to close another military base, or let another defense contractor do layoffs, our country was attacked! Worse still would be to go after the ones who actually attacked us too, it seems... we might actually have an end to war!
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: SocialJustice
One of the unfortunate things about all of this is that we have lost trust in our nations intelligence agencies, and for good reason. It doesnt matter which party is in office, they have to act on information from the same huge bureaucracy that isnt going to change substantially when a new administration comes into office. Our leaders will now be much more wary of trusting information from the CIA....which could actually be a good thing in some situations. [/quote]

lol
Its Bush that lied and sold this war to us.[/quote]

WWYBYWB?
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
To conclude that the Bush Administration deliberately lied to push a war in Iraq would also suggest that there was a motive for making such a decision...I have yet to hear a compelling argument as to why Bush, or anyone for that matter, would push for an unnecessary war...and don't give me the tired Halliburton/revenge for daddy/oil theories.
The fact remains that there is overwhelming evidence that BEFORE 9/11 the Bush Administration wanted to invade Iraq. The Project for the New American Century - THE central organization of the Neocons (claiming as members most of the top officials of the Bush Adminstration [Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rove, Scooter Libby, and on and on and on - see Wiki article on PFTNAC]), YEARS before 9/11 STRONGLY advocated invading Iraq. There is absolutely no reason to believe that the neocons didn't view 9/11 as the perfect pretext for justifying the invasion.

THAT is the reason for the invasion. And the fact that Bush, Cheney, and the rest hid their true motive behind the fog of 9/11 can only be called "the big lie."
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: Mxylplyx

One of the unfortunate things about all of this is that we have lost trust in our nations intelligence agencies, and for good reason. It doesnt matter which party is in office, they have to act on information from the same huge bureaucracy that isnt going to change substantially when a new administration comes into office. Our leaders will now be much more wary of trusting information from the CIA....which could actually be a good thing in some situations.

I agree.

The CIA seems a complete mess. They demonstrate incompetence, impotence and appear to be thouroghly politicized. We've lived too long with former, but latter is totally unacceptable and controllable.

They've also developed a nasty habit of speaking out of both sides of their mouth when asked for information.

Everything is a "yes" and a "no". They are hedging so hard and so often it's laughable.

Fern
 

KGB

Diamond Member
May 11, 2000
3,042
0
0
Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
Originally posted by: SocialJustice
One of the unfortunate things about all of this is that we have lost trust in our nations intelligence agencies, and for good reason. It doesnt matter which party is in office, they have to act on information from the same huge bureaucracy that isnt going to change substantially when a new administration comes into office. Our leaders will now be much more wary of trusting information from the CIA....which could actually be a good thing in some situations.

lol
Its Bush that lied and sold this war to us.[/quote]

What an insightful first post. Yet another person I have to ignore around here.

[/quote]


READ & LEARN!

 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: SocialJustice
One of the unfortunate things about all of this is that we have lost trust in our nations intelligence agencies, and for good reason. It doesnt matter which party is in office, they have to act on information from the same huge bureaucracy that isnt going to change substantially when a new administration comes into office. Our leaders will now be much more wary of trusting information from the CIA....which could actually be a good thing in some situations.

lol
Its Bush that lied and sold this war to us.[/quote]

WWYBYWB?[/quote]

Probably GOPHatesUS , I saw where he was banned somewhere in here.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: Mxylplyx

One of the unfortunate things about all of this is that we have lost trust in our nations intelligence agencies, and for good reason. It doesnt matter which party is in office, they have to act on information from the same huge bureaucracy that isnt going to change substantially when a new administration comes into office. Our leaders will now be much more wary of trusting information from the CIA....which could actually be a good thing in some situations.

I agree.

The CIA seems a complete mess. They demonstrate incompetence, impotence and appear to be thouroghly politicized. We've lived too long with former, but latter is totally unacceptable and controllable.

They've also developed a nasty habit of speaking out of both sides of their mouth when asked for information.

Everything is a "yes" and a "no". They are hedging so hard and so often it's laughable.

Fern

FEBURARY 24, 2003 ? CIA WARNS WHITE HOUSE ?NO DIRECT EVIDENCE? OF WMD: "A CIA report on proliferation released this week says the intelligence community has no ?direct evidence? that Iraq has succeeded in reconstituting its biological, chemical, nuclear or long-range missile programs in the two years since U.N. weapons inspectors left and U.S. planes bombed Iraqi facilities. ?We do not have any direct evidence that Iraq has used the period since Desert Fox to reconstitute its Weapons of Mass Destruction programs,? said the agency in its semi-annual report on proliferation activities." [NBC News, 2/24/03]
Hmm, sounds pretty competent.

TIME
In order to defend the credibility of his agency, CIA Director George Tenet took the unusual step of issuing a statement last Friday dismissing suggestions that the CIA politicized its intelligence. "Our role is to call it like we see it, to tell policymakers what we know, what we don't know, what we think and what we base it on. That's the code we live by." Asked to translate, an intelligence official explained that if there was a breakdown on the Bush team, it wasn't at the agency. "There's one issue in terms of collecting and analyzing intelligence," he said. "Another issue is what policymakers do with that information. That's their prerogative."
Hmm, it looks like the output was the CIA was largely correct (absence of evidence) while the politicians largely were not.

Two Bush aides in particular, Rumsfeld and his Pentagon deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, have a long record of questioning the assumptions, methods and conclusions of the CIA.
Hmm, wouldn't the world be a nicer place without those two disasters?!

By last fall, Rumsfeld had grown so impatient with the CIA's equivocal explanations of the Iraq problem that he set up his own mini-CIA at the Pentagon called the Office of Special Plans. It was hatched and designed, as a former U.S. official puts it, to get "the intelligence he wanted."

Several current and former military officers who saw all the relevant data through this spring charge that the Pentagon took the raw data from the CIA and consistently overinterpreted the threat posed by Iraq's stockpiles.
This guy (a Bush insider and war planner) goes on to say they he believes they weren't lying . . . just incompetent.

Another official, an Army intelligence officer, singled out Rumsfeld for massaging the facts. "Rumsfeld was deeply, almost pathologically distorting the intelligence," says the officer.

I don't believe everything from the Bush Junta was a lie. I do buy the argument they suffered from a lot of incompetence, group think, and delusions of grandeur. Great defenders of America's role in the world as an unchallenged hyperpower. But again . . . that doesn't excuse all the statements made by the Bush Regime.

"They came in with a world view, and they looked for things to fit into it," says Lawrence Korb, who served in the Reagan Pentagon and now works at the Council on Foreign Relations. "If you hadn't had 9/11, they would be doing the same things to China."
But it's time to dispatch with laying the lion's share of blame on the intelligence. The absence of evidence (and subsequent behavior of Bushistas - 1/2 Billion spent digging in the desert) means no amount of intelligence likely would have satisfied the people that pushed this war the most.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
One of the unfortunate things about all of this is that we have lost trust in our nations intelligence agencies, and for good reason. It doesnt matter which party is in office, they have to act on information from the same huge bureaucracy that isnt going to change substantially when a new administration comes into office. Our leaders will now be much more wary of trusting information from the CIA....which could actually be a good thing in some situations.
I agree.

The CIA seems a complete mess. They demonstrate incompetence, impotence and appear to be thouroghly politicized. We've lived too long with former, but latter is totally unacceptable and controllable.

They've also developed a nasty habit of speaking out of both sides of their mouth when asked for information.

Everything is a "yes" and a "no". They are hedging so hard and so often it's laughable.

Fern
The CIA makes a nice scapegoat for the Bush administration, but the claim doesn't hold much water. Yes, they made some mistakes, but the fact remains that most of the BushCo claims made to sell the attack were NOT supported by CIA analysis. The Bush administration cherry-picked bits and pieces of CIA intel, discarded all the qualifications and caveats, grossly exaggerated them, and then presented their perverted tales as absolute fact.

More importantly, the bulk of the anti-Iraq "intel" didn't even come from the CIA, as has been pointed out literally dozens of times. When the CIA wouldn't provide sufficiently slanted analysis, Cheney and Rumsfeld set up their own, competing intelligence group in the Pentagon, the Office of Special Plans, to produce the boogeyman stories they needed to sell the war. That's where most of the bogus intel originated ... and that was by design, not incompetence.

In short, the attempt to shift the blame from the Bush administration to the CIA is at best ignorant, and at worst willful deception.

 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
^^ You give too much credit for ignorance. There's been too much material published to-date that reveals CLEAR efforts by the administration to make a case for war instead of trying to figure out what was actually going on in Iraq.

Inadequate intelligence != bad intelligence

If Bush had not blocked the UN/IAEA then a few hundred inspectors and waiting until the early summer would have meant NO Bush War.

The fact that Bushistas continue to say that knowing what they know now . . . the war is STILL justified . . . is proof positive that the problem was with the Regime at 1600 PA and their enablers at The Capitol.
 

Mxylplyx

Diamond Member
Mar 21, 2007
4,197
101
106
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
^^ You give too much credit for ignorance. There's been too much material published to-date that reveals CLEAR efforts by the administration to make a case for war instead of trying to figure out what was actually going on in Iraq.

Inadequate intelligence != bad intelligence

If Bush had not blocked the UN/IAEA then a few hundred inspectors and waiting until the early summer would have meant NO Bush War.

The fact that Bushistas continue to say that knowing what they know now . . . the war is STILL justified . . . is proof positive that the problem was with the Regime at 1600 PA and their enablers at The Capitol.

Bush saying the war was still justified is the only thing Bush can say in his position. When you are president, you cant just go fvck up another country based on faulty, or even manipulated intelligence, and then publicly state it was a mistake while the country is in shambles, and you got 150K troops on the ground there. A leader cant always just go before the public, and tell it like it is. You should know this.
 

XMan

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
12,513
49
91
What if Bush had said something along the lines of, "Iraq is a small threat; Iran will be a large threat down the road. If we take care of Iraq now, we'll be strategically positioned to deal with Iran in the future."

He hasn't said anything along those lines, but anybody with a good grasp of geography should be able to realize that we can attack Iran along two fronts should the need arise.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
^^ You give too much credit for ignorance. There's been too much material published to-date that reveals CLEAR efforts by the administration to make a case for war instead of trying to figure out what was actually going on in Iraq.

Inadequate intelligence != bad intelligence

If Bush had not blocked the UN/IAEA then a few hundred inspectors and waiting until the early summer would have meant NO Bush War.

The fact that Bushistas continue to say that knowing what they know now . . . the war is STILL justified . . . is proof positive that the problem was with the Regime at 1600 PA and their enablers at The Capitol.

Bush saying the war was still justified is the only thing Bush can say in his position. When you are president, you cant just go fvck up another country based on faulty, or even manipulated intelligence, and then publicly state it was a mistake while the country is in shambles, and you got 150K troops on the ground there. A leader cant always just go before the public, and tell it like it is. You should know this.
I strongly disagree. Bush should go before the American public and state that invading Iraq was a mistake. That continuing in Iraq is a mistake. And that our number 1 priority now should be to get our young soldiers out of harms way as fast as possible.

If Bush said that, he'd gain a huge amount of respect. The country would pull together and the feeling of joint purpose would be overwhelming.

But Bush will NEVER say that because he thinks the lives and bodies of a few thousand more Americans isn't worth nearly as much as his ego.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEBURARY 24, 2003 ? CIA WARNS WHITE HOUSE ?NO DIRECT EVIDENCE? OF WMD: "A CIA report on proliferation released this week says the intelligence community has no ?direct evidence? that Iraq has succeeded in reconstituting its biological, chemical, nuclear or long-range missile programs in the two years since U.N. weapons inspectors left and U.S. planes bombed Iraqi facilities. ?We do not have any direct evidence that Iraq has used the period since Desert Fox to reconstitute its Weapons of Mass Destruction programs,? said the agency in its semi-annual report on proliferation activities." [NBC News, 2/24/03]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hmm, sounds pretty competent

Excellent example of my earlier point - They hedge like crazy mofo's.

The head of the CIA is all over national TV saying he was absolutely convinced Saddam had WMD and advised the President & Congress of that.

Yet, out of the other side of their mouths the CIA says no WMD.

They say it both ways so people like you can come along and cherry pick whichever pronouncement they made and claim they were right.

Stop the BS, how many ways and times does the head of the CIA have to say it before some of you pay attention?

Fern
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: XMan
What if Bush had said something along the lines of, "Iraq is a small threat; Iran will be a large threat down the road. If we take care of Iraq now, we'll be strategically positioned to deal with Iran in the future."

He hasn't said anything along those lines, but anybody with a good grasp of geography should be able to realize that we can attack Iran along two fronts should the need arise.

Good point.

Of course if we prematurely withdrawl from Iraq and it results in Iran gaining influence there, we'll have "screwed the pooch" bigtime.

Fern
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEBURARY 24, 2003 ? CIA WARNS WHITE HOUSE ?NO DIRECT EVIDENCE? OF WMD: "A CIA report on proliferation released this week says the intelligence community has no ?direct evidence? that Iraq has succeeded in reconstituting its biological, chemical, nuclear or long-range missile programs in the two years since U.N. weapons inspectors left and U.S. planes bombed Iraqi facilities. ?We do not have any direct evidence that Iraq has used the period since Desert Fox to reconstitute its Weapons of Mass Destruction programs,? said the agency in its semi-annual report on proliferation activities." [NBC News, 2/24/03]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hmm, sounds pretty competent

Excellent example of my earlier point - They hedge like crazy mofo's.

The head of the CIA is all over national TV saying he was absolutely convinced Saddam had WMD and advised the President & Congress of that.

Yet, out of the other side of their mouths the CIA says no WMD.

They say it both ways so people like you can come along and cherry pick whichever pronouncement they made and claim they were right.

Stop the BS, how many ways and times does the head of the CIA have to say it before some of you pay attention?

Fern

So . . . the cumulative report from the intelligence community is a hedge? On the day, that account was published you did NOT see Tenet all over national TV saying he was absolutely convinced Saddam had WMD. I'm tired of the duplicity or idiocy of people that cannot seem to master basic chronology!

Rumsfeld set up his own shop to go through intelligence. Cheney set up his own shop to go through intelligence. Tenet reported to Bush/Congress that Saddam had some WMD. Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld told the public Saddam had STOCKPILES of WMD, fully reconstituted biological, chemical, nuclear weapons programs, unmanned aerial vehicles, mobile biochem weapon labs, the ability to launch WMD within 45 minutes (technically that's Blair), and collaborations with terrorists that suggest Saddam would use these weapons not only on his neighbors but possibly the USA.

Are you really that dense that you cannot comprehend that what Tenet is saying today (and the CIA in 2003) is not comparable to what Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice were peddling?
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: Mxylplyx

-snip-

-snip-
The CIA makes a nice scapegoat for the Bush administration, but the claim doesn't hold much water. Yes, they made some mistakes, but the fact remains that most of the BushCo claims made to sell the attack were NOT supported by CIA analysis. The Bush administration cherry-picked bits and pieces of CIA intel, discarded all the qualifications and caveats, grossly exaggerated them, and then presented their perverted tales as absolute fact.

More importantly, the bulk of the anti-Iraq "intel" didn't even come from the CIA, as has been pointed out literally dozens of times. When the CIA wouldn't provide sufficiently slanted analysis, Cheney and Rumsfeld set up their own, competing intelligence group in the Pentagon, the Office of Special Plans, to produce the boogeyman stories they needed to sell the war. That's where most of the bogus intel originated ... and that was by design, not incompetence.

In short, the attempt to shift the blame from the Bush administration to the CIA is at best ignorant, and at worst willful deception.


They are not being scapegoated. To say that is utter BS. I'm calling them on THIER own d@mn mistakes and short comings. To claim they don't have performance problems "is at best ignorant, and at worst willful deception".

Their preformance has been abysmal and it should recognized and dealt with. I'll admit part of the problem rests with ill conceived changes etc made by past Presidents & Congress.

But they've sucked for a long time. I don't know how old you are, but if you were around back in the Gorbachev (sp?) days of the USSR you would know how badly they screwed up overestimating the strength and potential threat of the USSR etc.

Let's not even mention how the detection & prevention of what occured on 9/11 is their responsibility.

It's been years since we've gotten a straight answer out of them, and longer since a correct one.

Ferbn