Whitehouse blames War on Bad Intelligence

[dmcowen674]

2-7-2004 White House can't blame war on bad intelligence

To use bad intelligence as the reason for not finding WMD in Iraq is an insult to to the intelligence of mankind.

The U2 spy plane could take a picture of a license plate on a car, and this plane was built during Eisenhower's administration. This was long before all the spy satellites that gathered information on Russia for decades and, of course, the latest secret technologies.

If our intelligence is as bad as George Bush claims, we don't know what anybody is doing, what they have or has had. If this were true, the United States would be in a very dangerous situation and a total overhaul would be needed in the intelligence community.

The administration has not mentioned this as a problem and does not seem concerned. It either is not telling the truth and using this as an excuse, or is knowingly putting the citizens of this country in unnecessary danger. Either case is a serious breakdown of responsibility for a President of the United States.

Terry Gilbreath

Suwanee

 

[nutxo]

umm,

That's not news. It's a letter to the editor.

 

[Zephyr106]

But a valid point anyway. To create a war a nation "should" have impeccible intelligence demonstrating the need for hostilities. This of course when overt hostilities are absent, like the situation predating Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Zephyr

 

[conehead433]

Well we know that no one in the White House has demonstrated anything remotely similar to intelligence, so maybe we could blame the War on the lack of Intelligence.

 

[Mday]

LOL at the obvious joke LOL

sorry to butt in.

--

This downward spiral in intelligence can be blamed on Republicans.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Yes it was the use of bad inteligence from within the Whitehouse
by those listening to what they wanted to hear, that led to the war.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Yes it was the use of bad inteligence from within the Whitehouse
by those listening to what they wanted to hear, that led to the war.

Keep in mind that Congress had the same info as Bush and they approved the preemptive invasion of Iraq

 

[CaptnKirk]

The Whitehouse selected that data that was presented to Congress, and had mined it for support of a specific agenda.
Same thing with the intelligence provided to the world community, we supplied over 90% of all data -
and the rest of the world didn't buy the line - even with the other 10% of data from other intelligence sources added.
Maybe that data proved our data false or questioned the validity of the previos data, whatever,

That's a cop out, they presented only that information that supported a foregone conclusion.
THen they tried to strrong-arm the world and mock those who failed to fall in line with their program.
Even went so far as to punish those who hadn't rolled over and played dead for the Bush Agenda.

It's been shown pretty conclusively that Saddams Government had complied with the disarmament requirements,
as there has been nothing found of consequence. Bush refused to let the UN inspectors stay and look for more,
and rejected the data from the UN inspectors that said thet the disamament had actually taken place,
The Iraqi Government had many times in the year leading up to the invasion tried to open a dialogue with
the Bush Administration, and the Bushies - in an attempt to show the world 'We're Right and You're Wrong'
went ahead and launched the invasion in the hopes of cathing them holding the weapons that they no longer had,

All I see is a paranoid who fears the world. It's Them agoinst US ! - be very afraid.

 

[chess9]

CaptK:

But, the problem is the Congress did not exercise its oversight responsibility. They simply bought into the whole program without asking some tough questions. They should have had a lot of the CIA's intelligence in the appendix in the rear of the NIE. They didn't read it. Kerry, Edwards, et al were too lazy to do their jobs. This is where Dean is dead right about the Washington culture. They start doing things by rote, by formula, and quit thinking creatively about problems. When we lost Paul Wellstone we lost one of the best creative intellects in Congress. If he were alive this debate would have been even livelier.

-Robert

 

[CaptnKirk]

Chess9 -

Wasn't that about the time that the entire Republican Party was in Lock-Step sopport of Bush,
and was mocking the Patriotism of anyone who dared question the President's Decision ?
Were they not ready to bring the Wrath of God in the form of the Patriot Act down upon all sinners ?

 

[chess9]

Well, yeah, it was a tough time politically. A lot of guys just didn't want to sound soft on terrorism. But again, this is what integrity is about. One thing I like about Joe Lieberman, he stuck to his guns. He's wrong, but I admire him for his courage in the face of the Democratic Party's base's opposition to the war.

Bush will hang Kerry up to dry for voting for the resolution. That is Red's point I believe. He will make him squirm like Dean did.

I just hope the Wisconsin voters start to pull back from Kerry. I'd like to see a win there for Dean. Kerry may be a bit too liberal for my tastes anyway. God knows what he'd do with the budget....

-Robert

 

[CaptnKirk]

So Bush is going to embarass Kerry for agreeing with Bush ?

"You're either with us or against us !"
"and if you're with us you're really against us, because you went along with what I wanted"

Double-speak only takes you so far.

 

[chess9]

Well, Kerry's explanations about why he voted for the resolution have been very weak. He is trying to have it both ways. How can he be an effective critic of Bush's Iraq policy when he gave him a blank check? Kerry needs to do a very good job of explaining why Bush shouldn't have gone to war as he did. The resolution did NOT say Bush was to exhaust all attempts to work with the U.N. first. Kerry is saying he would have worked harder with the U.N. and gone slower. So what? The resolution gave Bush blanket authority. Kerry's got his butt in a sling, IMHO.

-Robert

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
The Whitehouse selected that data that was presented to Congress, and had mined it for support of a specific agenda.
Same thing with the intelligence provided to the world community, we supplied over 90% of all data -
and the rest of the world didn't buy the line - even with the other 10% of data from other intelligence sources added.
Maybe that data proved our data false or questioned the validity of the previos data, whatever,

That's a cop out, they presented only that information that supported a foregone conclusion.
THen they tried to strrong-arm the world and mock those who failed to fall in line with their program.
Even went so far as to punish those who hadn't rolled over and played dead for the Bush Agenda.

It's been shown pretty conclusively that Saddams Government had complied with the disarmament requirements,
as there has been nothing found of consequence. Bush refused to let the UN inspectors stay and look for more,
and rejected the data from the UN inspectors that said thet the disamament had actually taken place,
The Iraqi Government had many times in the year leading up to the invasion tried to open a dialogue with
the Bush Administration, and the Bushies - in an attempt to show the world 'We're Right and You're Wrong'
went ahead and launched the invasion in the hopes of cathing them holding the weapons that they no longer had,

All I see is a paranoid who fears the world. It's Them agoinst US ! - be very afraid.

We are each and everyone of us responsible for this war. We, the American people did nothing to stop it. We are a nation of cowards who don't care what our leaders do to make us feel save. We are a people who lack morals and character. That's why we stick lables like those on our worst parties.