Bush to Order Investigation of Iraqi Intelligence Failures

[Crossbow]

Well now, there is nothing quite like saying 'the dog ate my homework', but here it is.

Bush wanted this war but he needed his intelligence agencies to provide the data to justify it so that Congress would agree to fund it. Thus, the intelligence people behaved in the typical fashion by rolling over and providing their boss with reports that he would want to see. But now Bush is finally getting around to admitting that those that those multitude of bold and forceful pre-war claims about Iraq having WMDs, being an imminent threat, supporting the 9/11 terrorists, and so on may have been wrong after all.

Oh well, at least he was not under oath when he made those claims!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5449-2004Feb2.html
Bush to Consult Kay Before Iraq Probe

WASHINGTON - President Bush said he will order an independent investigation into intelligence failures in Iraq but will first consult with former chief weapons inspector David Kay.

...

Kay threw the administration's rationale for war in Iraq in doubt with his determination that Saddam did not have the weapons of mass destruction that the United States had insisted he possessed.

...

David Albright, a former weapons inspector, told The Associated Press he feared the administration might try to use the commission as a way to delay judgments about the intelligence community and the administration's use of the information it receives.

"The bottom line for them (the Bush administration) is to delay the day of reckoning about their use of the weapons of mass destruction information," Albright said.

"David Kay can blame the CIA and say, `Oh, I made all these comments based on what I heard from the intelligence community.' President Bush can't do that. He's the boss."

[fishbob]

The right wing wacko radio commentators are spinning hard now. I heard variants of "Clinton cut intelligence spending, so it is Clinton's fault that Bush got bad information" on more than one show.

Wacko radio are also talking about David Kay as if he was somehow independent from the Bush administration. Kay's current opinion that there weren't really WMDs is spun up as a surprise to Bush.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by fishbob
The right wing wacko radio commentators are spinning hard now. I heard variants of "Clinton cut intelligence spending, so it is Clinton's fault that Bush got bad information" on more than one show.


So, for example, despite the fact that the intel agencies cautioned Bush about claiming that Saddam tried to buy uranium from Nigeria, instead of backing off and saying, "Hmmm, maybe we should wait to make sure this is right?" they went ahead and found a way that was technically correct (so the CIA could approve it) but still conveyed the same message. But this is an intelligence issue, right?

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by fishbob
The right wing wacko radio commentators are spinning hard now. I heard variants of "Clinton cut intelligence spending, so it is Clinton's fault that Bush got bad information" on more than one show.


What the commentators fail to mention is that Clinton, unlike Bush, didn't act on dodgy intelligence.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


What the commentators fail to mention is that Clinton, unlike Bush, didn't act on dodgy intelligence.

Except the part where he bombed the places where according to the same intelligence the weapons were.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Except the part where he bombed the places where according to the same intelligence the weapons were.

Slight difference in scale, but a point nonetheless. How sad is it, then, that Bush acted on the intelligence that was the product of his hated, immoral predecessor?

[Samus]

I'm curious to see what a Bush-appointed commission will actually produce, and more importantly, when they will produce it. A few months after he wins re-election?

If you assume it'll take about a month for this commission to really kick in to high gear, and six months for a thorough investigation and analysis, that puts their initial reporting time within two months of the general election, with perhaps more details emerging in another month or two.

I somehow doubt that Bush would allow a commission under his command to 1. publish data indicating the administration was at fault, not the IC, and 2. to publish this data anywhere near election time.

I thought I read somewhere a while back that the intelligence Bush spoke of in his 2003 state of the union address was indeed valid, but it was several years old and that more recent intelligence had come to other conclusions. In other words, at the time of collection and analysis, it was solid, but had since been OBE.

Although Bush is ultimately to blame for indiscretions within his own ranks, one has to wonder if he told the IC to produce intelligence to support his desires, or if it was some other top official that wanted to make things look good, or if it really was an IC mishap. Time will tell, I suppose.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


Slight difference in scale, but a point nonetheless. How sad is it, then, that Bush acted on the intelligence that was the product of his hated, immoral predecessor?

I don't think it's Clinton or Bush's fault. To blame one, the other or both is wrong. This is intelligence failure that is massive in scale. Remember, US was not the only one that claimed Iraq had WMD weapons and/or material. UN, France, UK, Italy, Germany and even Russia alluded to them many times before.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


Slight difference in scale, but a point nonetheless. How sad is it, then, that Bush acted on the intelligence that was the product of his hated, immoral predecessor?

Of course, the attack ordered by Clinton came as a result of complaints from the international weapons inspectors about the impeded access they were facing. OTOH, the recent inspectors, while noting that not everything was perfect, asked for additional time.

Had weapons inspectors complained that they were having lots of problems gaining access, it might have been halfway comparable. Of course, that is if Bush ordered strikes against strategic command and control centers as opposed to a full scale invasion.

So, to summarize:

1) Clinton ordered limited attacks against strategic targets in response to international weapons inspector complaints about hindered access, while
2) Bush ordered a full scale invasion to topple the regime despite the fact that weapons inspectors asked for more time to continue their work.

Yeah, those are almost similar.

[Zep]

I am seriously doubting that Bush can even spell "IC", let alone "intelligence" or "community". I still contend that it was a layer of his administration team just below him that futzed the reporting of fair and current data and spun it into the requisite fantasies suitable to convince Congress to fund stuff they wanted (and, it seems, had planned years ago anyway).

Bush is, to me anyway, a genuine and all-too-obvious sock-puppet.

[Hexxenhammer]

Originally posted by Commander Cool
I'm curious to see what a Bush-appointed commission will actually produce, and more importantly, when they will produce it. A few months after he wins re-election? Yup. I heard on NPR that they're shooting for results to be published in 2005. Plenty after the fact. For the whole campaign he can talk about how he has a commission looking into it.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


Yeah, those are almost similar.
Quick question: Are you on balance glad that Bush did what has been done? If not, your suggestion would have been??


Originally posted by Zep

Bush is, to me anyway, a genuine and all-too-obvious sock-puppet.
As you, to me anyway, are babbling idiot regarding your assessment of our current administration.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by hammegk

As you, to me anyway, are babbling idiot regarding your assessment of our current administration.

Awww... Did the nasty axowotw make fun of oo pwesident? There, there... :rub:

[hammegk]

I admit he may be in closer touch with reality than you.

I only wonder what has happened to you lot; Australians I've been acquainted with didn't tell me you bunch still at home are clueless wankers -- and they didn't seem to be.

[demon]

Ah, the poodle is going to annouce an inquiry too! How predictable...woof woof!

Paul O'Neill has been telling anyone who'll listen that the Bushies came into office with a plan to oust Saddam. With this in mind, surely a key question is when did Blair commit the UK to war? It was probably in Spring of 2002 at the latest - if so, what was the intelligence assessment available then?

The reality, of course, is that Blair's decision to support Bush had as little to do with WMD as did Bush's decision to attack Iraq. Paul Wolfowitz has spoken of WMD being chosen as the causus belli for "bureaucratic" reasons - it was the one thing everyone could agree on. And, of course, it was the only reason likely to get UN backing.

Both the US and the UK took the decision to go war and then sought to build an intelligence case as an after thought.

It is remarkable that the whole mass media panoply cannot find anyone to put it so simply.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by hammegk
I admit he may be in closer touch with reality than you.

I only wonder what has happened to you lot; Australians I've been acquainted with didn't tell me you bunch still at home are clueless wankers -- and they didn't seem to be.

They are probably trying to avoid the subject because they don't want the conversation to accidentally spill over into what a clueless wanker you are.

[Zep]

Originally posted by hammegk
As you, to me anyway, are babbling idiot regarding your assessment of our current administration. Water off an axolotl's back, my friend.

Thing is, I'm hardly Robinson Crusoe in this regard. Your "vaunted" presidential administration enjoys an unpopularity level outside the USA unmatched in living memory, the reasons for which have been stated time and again by some of us here. And yet you still seem to refuse to see the incredibly blatant cynicism of the presidential minders and spinners with exercises such as this rigged "investigation". I said some time ago that it is lucky that the rest of the world can't vote for the US presidency. Georgie-boy and his faceless few wouldn't know what hit them if we did...

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


They are probably trying to avoid the subject because they don't want the conversation to accidentally spill over into what a clueless wanker you are.

Nah. Good try though.


Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

Your "vaunted" presidential administration enjoys an unpopularity level outside the USA unmatched in living memory...
Yeah. Thank goodness we finally have an administration that worries first about the USA. Thoughts from backwater never-weres never-will-bes are at best laughable; babble on.

Have you started to convert to Islam yet? There are a bunch of 'em close to you, and they aren't as pleasant as we are.

[Ladewig]

The folks investigating the Valerie Plum-CIA leak don't seem to be doing much these days, maybe they could be on the "independent" IC team.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by hammegk

Yeah. Thank goodness we finally have an administration that worries first about the USA.

Well, apparently not...

Bush's popularity plummets as Kerry extends lead (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/02/01/1075570288628.html)

If the current administration really did worry first about the USA, you'd expect their popularity to be a touch higher, wouldn't you?

[BTox]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


What the commentators fail to mention is that Clinton, unlike Bush, didn't act on dodgy intelligence.

And of course, you fail to mention that Clinton, unlike Bush, did not seriously act at all on any of these issues, hence the problems we now have to deal with.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Zep

Thing is, I'm hardly Robinson Crusoe in this regard. Your "vaunted" presidential administration enjoys an unpopularity level outside the USA unmatched in living memory, the reasons for which have been stated time and again by some of us here. And yet you still seem to refuse to see the incredibly blatant cynicism of the presidential minders and spinners with exercises such as this rigged "investigation". I said some time ago that it is lucky that the rest of the world can't vote for the US presidency. Georgie-boy and his faceless few wouldn't know what hit them if we did...

What a tired, old argument. And as irrelevant as ever. Whatever floats your boat, I suppose...

[DavidJames]

The right wing wacko radio commentators are spinning hard now. I heard variants of "Clinton cut intelligence spending, so it is Clinton's fault that Bush got bad information" on more than one show.
Clinton, unlike Bush, did not seriously act at all on any of these issues, hence the problems we now have to deal with
Not all of them are on the radio

[Zep]

Originally posted by BTox
Zep: Thing is, I'm hardly Robinson Crusoe in this regard. ...What a tired, old argument. And as irrelevant as ever. Whatever floats your boat, I suppose... Why is this tired and old? Why is this irrelevant? Just because I'm not an American? Because I'm not American AND I'm pointing out what we see as a problem? The people outside a burning house usually have a better view of the problem than the people on the inside.

Whatever sinks your boat, I suppose...

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by BTox


And of course, you fail to mention that Clinton, unlike Bush, did not seriously act at all on any of these issues, hence the problems we now have to deal with.

BTox- The "B" Stands for "Bullsh!t!" (http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.htm)

[BTox]

Originally posted by Zep
Why is this tired and old? Why is this irrelevant? Just because I'm not an American? Because I'm not American AND I'm pointing out what we see as a problem?

See - you've answered your own question. Very good!

[BTox]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


BTox- The "B" Stands for "Bullsh!t!" (http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.htm)

Snopes to the rescue! School kids should be able to find better sources than that... tsk tsk...

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by BTox


Snopes to the rescue! School kids should be able to find better sources than that... tsk tsk...

However dodgy the source may be (and you haven't pointed out any specific criticisms), it outshines yours in one notable regard: at least people can see it.

[Zep]

Originally posted by BTox

See - you've answered your own question. Very good! Do you treat all your slaves this well?

[fishbob]

I don't think it's Clinton or Bush's fault. To blame one, the other or both is wrong. This is intelligence failure that is massive in scale. Remember, US was not the only one that claimed Iraq had WMD weapons and/or material. UN, France, UK, Italy, Germany and even Russia alluded to them many times before. I don't see the issue as an intelligence failure. Intelligence agencies collected data. Intelligence analysts evaluated the data and presented some kind of reports to the administration.

Administration officials decided which information to attach signifance to. Previous discussions about the Niger Uranium indicate what kind of "cherry picking" was going on with the intel.

Point of interest. Today on NPR - an interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski (Carter Sec of Defense). Asked about intelligence in Iraq - Brezezinski said that UK and the US, probably Russia and Israel, and maybe France were probably the only countries with any kind of active intelligence gathering in Iraq. The other intelligence agencies around the world were given info by the US. His point was that each of these countries had strong political motives that might have resulted in skewed intel reports.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by BTox


And of course, you fail to mention that Clinton, unlike Bush, did not seriously act at all on any of these issues, hence the problems we now have to deal with.

What problems? Saddam was sitting in his palace playing with himself, no WMD in hand, none in the works. He wasn't a threat to anything but good taste in moustaches.

Sounds like Clinton's approach had worked great.

The problems we have to deal with now ALL result from the fact that Bush invaded them.

[Samus]

pgwenthold: The problems we have to deal with now ALL result from the fact that Bush invaded them. I assume you mean just the problems with nation building in Iraq, yes? After all, there were terrorist attacks on the U.S. or its interests abroad long before we invaded Iraq.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Commander Cool
I assume you mean just the problems with nation building in Iraq, yes? After all, there were terrorist attacks on the U.S. or its interests abroad long before we invaded Iraq.

Noted. I am referring to the problems with/in Iraq.

[Crossbow]

Wow! Even Tony Blair is feeling the pressure and he has agreed to find out how Iraqi WMD claims exaggerated.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5964-2004Feb2.html

Blair Agrees to Probe of Claims About Iraqi Weapons

LONDON, Feb. 2 -- Prime Minister Tony Blair responded to growing pressure Monday by announcing that he would launch an independent inquiry into why British intelligence overestimated the threat of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq before the war last year.

...

"No doubt there will be lots of blame-shifting," said Garth Whitty, a former British weapons inspector. "The politicians will try to shift it to the intelligence chiefs, and the intelligence chiefs to their political masters. The reality is everyone probably acted in good faith, but perhaps they were too quick to accept what they wanted to hear."

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


Well, apparently not...

Bush's popularity plummets as Kerry extends lead (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/02/01/1075570288628.html)

If the current administration really did worry first about the USA, you'd expect their popularity to be a touch higher, wouldn't you?

I think this has more to do with the fact that the Democratic primaries are all over the news, along with several Democratic candidate debates that have been on. The Democrats have had more air time lately. Those numbers will change between now and November.

[Hexxenhammer]

Originally posted by fishbob
[BPoint of interest. Today on NPR - an interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski (Carter Sec of Defense). Asked about intelligence in Iraq - Brezezinski said that UK and the US, probably Russia and Israel, and maybe France were probably the only countries with any kind of active intelligence gathering in Iraq. The other intelligence agencies around the world were given info by the US. His point was that each of these countries had strong political motives that might have resulted in skewed intel reports. [/B]I found this very interesting. This statement was an answer to a question about the Bush administration saying that they weren't the only ones who thought Iraq has WMDs, that the whole world did. Brzezski was basically saying that with the exception of the countries above, the whole world thought Iraq had WMD's because the US told them so. And the British and Iraelis had a vested interest in agreeing with the US. So we're left with maybe Russia, and maybe France knowing what was up in Iraq. And they were both against the invasion. Hmm...

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by hammegk

Quick question: Are you on balance glad that Bush did what has been done? If not, your suggestion would have been??

...

Even though this question was not asked to me, I would like to answer all the same.

No! I am not glad that Bush did what he did.

My suggestion was (check my pre-war posts if you doubt it) is that Iraq be carefully watched and keep plenty of forces nearby in case they are needed to defend other areas in case he tries to annex more land as he did with Kuwait.

Doing so would have been far less costly in terms of money, credibility, and lives than we have spent in persuing the war.

[Samus]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/02/03/MNG9V4NNC51.DTL
Panel to decide focus of its intelligence probe

Washington -- White House officials said Monday that the commission being created to investigate intelligence shortcomings will decide for itself if it will examine a highly charged political issue: whether President Bush and other senior administration officials exaggerated the evidence that Iraq possessed large stockpiles of illicit weapons.
...
Speaking to reporters, Bush sidestepped a question about whether Americans deserved answers before the presidential election in November to questions about the yawning gap between prewar allegations that Iraq possessed stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and the later failure of U.S. inspectors to discover any such weapons.

"I don't know all the facts," Bush said. "What we don't know yet is what we thought and what the Iraqi Survey Group has found, and we want to look at that." hmmm, interesting. Sounds like a panel appointed by Bush might not even publish preliminary findings before the election. I like the quote "What we don't know yet is what we thought..."; out of context, it's pretty funny.

[Samus]

hammegk: Quick question: Are you on balance glad that Bush did what has been done? If not, your suggestion would have been?? This is an interesting question, and like Crossbow, I'll provide some thought even though it was not directed at me (in other words, I'm sticking my nose in other people's business) :)

On balance, I am pleased that Heussein is no longer in power. However, I am not pleased that he was deposed by a U.S. invasion. I think he posed a small enough threat to us, and that we had no moral high ground to stand on to remove him from power. His was an unsavory regime, but no more than PRC, North Korea, Iran, or other nations that are generally a thorn in the side of the U.S.

As an alternative, I would have allowed weapons inspectors to continue their duties, while focusing mainly on the daunting task of rooting out terrorist cells. I would provide incentive, in the form of funds, training and trade, to other middle eastern nations to cooperate with us in destroying non-state actors that are the real terrorist threat to this and other nations.

I would submit that some regimes may harbor terrorists, or at least turn the other cheek, because they have no incentive to do otherwise. I would have given them that incentive, but not in the form of a military invasion. Courting more allies in this fight is much more effective than unilateral "with us or against us" policy. I wouldn't require that states do whatever we say, as long as they can prove they support our cause (curbing terrorism).

Of course, terrorism will never end, and I think it is foolish to think so. However, we could do things that would lessen the chances of terrorist attacks not only by improving "homeland security" (whatever you take that to mean), but also in improving international relations and making less people hate us.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
I found this very interesting. This statement was an answer to a question about the Bush administration saying that they weren't the only ones who thought Iraq has WMDs, that the whole world did. Brzezski was basically saying that with the exception of the countries above, the whole world thought Iraq had WMD's because the US told them so. And the British and Iraelis had a vested interest in agreeing with the US. So we're left with maybe Russia, and maybe France knowing what was up in Iraq. And they were both against the invasion. Hmm...

France and Russia also believed Iraq to have WMDs. But they were also doing a LOT of business with Iraq. And they were both against the invasion. Hmm...

[Hexxenhammer]

Originally posted by Luke T.


France and Russia also believed Iraq to have WMDs. But they were also doing a LOT of business with Iraq. And they were both against the invasion. Hmm... Did they? I think that's up in the air. Maybe they had no intelligence and were just going along with what the US said, or they had intelligence that was just as bad, or they had different intelligence, but knew it wasn't complete. It would have been political suicide to not agree with the assumption that Iraq had weapons. Even if they thought otherwise, they might have gone along with the idea because they knew they might be wrong.

[King of the Americas]

...the President orders an investigation commission who's findings we won't get until AFTER his next election...

---

That tells me everything I need to know.

Shouldn't we have those results BEFORE the election, so that we can USE them to decide how good a job this adminmistration has done an interpreting intelligence???

[Crossbow]

Even Colin Powell is voicing doubts about the war.

Go figure!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6995-2004Feb2.html
Powell Says New Data May Have Affected War Decision

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said yesterday that he does not know whether he would have recommended an invasion of Iraq if he had been told it had no stockpiles of banned weapons, even as he offered a broad defense of the Bush administration's decision to go to war.

...

Thus, with U.N. inspectors absent from Iraq for four years, "I think the assumption to make and the assumption we came to, based on what the intelligence community gave to us, was that there were stockpiles present."

...

Once again, he is clearly showing that there was not any firm data that showed Iraq had WMDs (in spite of the numerous and forceful claims by Bush and others that Saddam did have WMDs), but the lack of data did not stop them from assuming that Iraq did have WMDs.

[Ion]

Originally posted by Luke T.

France and Russia also believed Iraq to have WMDs...
Where did you get that?

I kept the newspaper from February 5, 2003, when Powell made Bush's case for war against Iraq, in U.N..

France, Czech Republic, Germany and Sweden were pointing out then that Powell's claims were technically incorrect and that war is not the next step.

Bush was saying that he had more data that he cannot reveal because of protecting his sources and that war is the next step.

Today, it appears that:

.) Bush had nothing more to reveal, he was relying on the incorrect data that France, Czech Republic, Germany and Sweden exposed February 5, 2003 in U.N.;

.) the Bush's incorrect data that France, Czech Republic, Germany and Sweden exposed, it turns out is made of Bush lies -like the Niger link to Iraq in nuclear that was reported to Bush as being a forgery, like a meeting between terrorist Atta and an Iraqi that allegedly took place in the Czech Republic but the Czech Republic disproved it on the spot and ever since, and many more of this kind-.

You are playing some revisionist history here, eh, Luke and Bush?

O'Neill is charging Bush with having made his mind in 2001 about attacking Iraq, and from me observing Bush's lies since February 2003 in U.N. I think it is right to say that no matter the C.I.A. information about Iraq, Bush was set to attack Iraq because of his oil and hegemony reasons.

[Solitaire]

Originally posted by fishbob
The right wing wacko radio commentators are spinning hard now.
I heard variants of "Clinton cut intelligence spending, so it is Clinton's
fault that Bush got bad information" on more than one show.

George Bush - victim of intelligence. :p

[Ion]

Originally posted by Synchronicity

George Bush - victim of intelligence. :p
For three years now Bush is always victim of something that he 'inherits' from others:

Bush, the professional victim.

[fishbob]

...the President orders an investigation commission who's findings we won't get until AFTER his next election... I want to know what I didn't know and when I didn't know it.
Shades of Richard Nixon.

[Crossbow]

Oh gee whiz! This stuff is just getting better and better.

Now the CIA is saying that they never said Iraq was an imminet threat, although President Bush sure called Iraq an imminet threat.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15287-2004Feb5.html

Tenet: Analysts Never Claimed Imminent Threat Before War

WASHINGTON -- In his first public defense of prewar intelligence, CIA Director George Tenet said Thursday that U.S. analysts had never claimed Iraq was an imminent threat, the main argument used by President Bush for going to war.

...

Tenet outlined the sources of the CIA's prewar estimates, saying they were based on years of U.N. weapons inspections. Once the inspectors left in the late 1990s, it was based mostly on informants -- some he acknowledged as suspect -- and on technical intelligence.

...

Two sources with high-level access to Saddam's regime told the CIA in the fall of 2002, shortly before the war, that production of biological and chemical weapons was ongoing, Tenet said.

...

Tenet agreed with Kay's comments that the United States didn't have enough human spies in Iraq and acknowledged that the CIA had not penetrated Saddam's inner circle. But he said it is strong elsewhere and "a blanket indictment of our human intelligence around the world is dead wrong."

...

[Bottle or the Gun]

Originally posted by Zep
I am seriously doubting that Bush can even spell "IC", let alone "intelligence" or "community". I still contend that it was a layer of his administration team just below him that futzed the reporting of fair and current data and spun it into the requisite fantasies suitable to convince Congress to fund stuff they wanted (and, it seems, had planned years ago anyway).

Bush is, to me anyway, a genuine and all-too-obvious sock-puppet.

Don't forget that Bush Sr was in charge of the CIA when this started, and Jr is wrapping up loose ends.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Crossbow
Oh gee whiz! This stuff is just getting better and better.

Now the CIA is saying that they never said Iraq was an imminet threat, although President Bush sure called Iraq an imminet threat.



So what? Bush put together a coalition to enforce UNSCR 1441. This coalition gave Saddam's government many chances to meet the requirements of 1441. He did not. (We won't even go into the 16 seperate UNSCR's that he ignored since 1991)

Saddam headed a state which was a confirmed sponsor of terrorism. A tyrant who abused and murdered his own people. (Sometimes even gassing them in the thousands....with what? Those WMD's that don't exist!....News Flash! 10,000 dead Kurds and Iranians were faking it!) :rolleyes:

Look, a good deed has been done, and done well. It is my fervent hope that the Dems lock onto this issue and attempt to use it against GWB.

Why? Because it ends up begging the question: What would the Dems have done? A: Nothing. So instead of arguing about the justification of this, or what the CIA knew about that, we'd be knuckling under to a tyrant along with the UN et al. So we'd have not only a Saddam continuing to foster terrorism and murder...he'd be a Saddam emboldened by his victory over the US/UN/etc.... Not a situation to give any American the warm fuzzies.

Bolstered by their pro-Gay Marriage, pro-Saddam, anti-WOT stance I'm sure the Dems will just sail into office! :rolleyes: Most Americans aren't stupid. They know a threat there has been eliminated, perhaps it was a lesser threat than had been advertised, but still a threat.

-z

[Samus]

rikzilla: Most Americans aren't stupid. They know a threat there has been eliminated, perhaps it was a lesser threat than had been advertised, but still a threat. Perhaps, but he ignored the more imminent threat (viz. al Qaeda and other known terrorist networks) to depose Hussein. In my opinion, he had his priorities mixed up. Not that I'm going to run off and vote for a Democrat (I live in NY, it doesn't make a lick of difference anyway), but I'm hardly impressed with Bush's performance on the matter.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by rikzilla


So what? Bush put together a coalition to enforce UNSCR 1441. This coalition gave Saddam's government many chances to meet the requirements of 1441. He did not. (We won't even go into the 16 seperate UNSCR's that he ignored since 1991)

Saddam headed a state which was a confirmed sponsor of terrorism. A tyrant who abused and murdered his own people. (Sometimes even gassing them in the thousands....with what? Those WMD's that don't exist!....News Flash! 10,000 dead Kurds and Iranians were faking it!) :rolleyes:
[/b][/quote]

If this was all such a noble cause, then why did Bush lie about the motives for going to war? Why not tell the truth? Too hard?


Look, a good deed has been done, and done well. It is my fervent hope that the Dems lock onto this issue and attempt to use it against GWB.

Why? Because it ends up begging the question: What would the Dems have done? A: Nothing. So instead of arguing about the justification of this, or what the CIA knew about that, we'd be knuckling under to a tyrant along with the UN et al. So we'd have not only a Saddam continuing to foster terrorism and murder...he'd be a Saddam emboldened by his victory over the US/UN/etc.... Not a situation to give any American the warm fuzzies.
I'm sure the thought of Saddam coming after America kept many people awake at night. Talk about the Darkness in the East.


Bolstered by their pro-Gay Marriage, pro-Saddam, anti-WOT stance I'm sure the Dems will just sail into office! :rolleyes: Most Americans aren't stupid. They know a threat there has been eliminated, perhaps it was a lesser threat than had been advertised, but still a threat.

-z

"Pro-Saddam"? Aren't you tired of trotting out that strawman?

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by rikzilla
...
Bolstered by their pro-Gay Marriage, pro-Saddam, anti-WOT stance I'm sure the Dems will just sail into office! :rolleyes: Most Americans aren't stupid. They know a threat there has been eliminated, perhaps it was a lesser threat than had been advertised, but still a threat.

-z

Hey Shemp, please have your sock-puppet take his medications, eat his food, do his exercises, and get some rest.

[fishbob]

So what? Bush put together a coalition to enforce UNSCR 1441. This coalition gave Saddam's government many chances to meet the requirements of 1441. He did not. (We won't even go into the 16 seperate UNSCR's that he ignored since 1991)

Saddam headed a state which was a confirmed sponsor of terrorism. A tyrant who abused and murdered his own people. (Sometimes even gassing them in the thousands....with what? Those WMD's that don't exist!....News Flash! 10,000 dead Kurds and Iranians were faking it!)
1st statement: Bush told the US voters and the world that we were invading Iraq to prevent Saddam from using WMDs, to prevent us all from being nuked. His stated purpose was to save us all from the terror of the WMDs. Enforcing 1441 would have gotten no support from most US voters and the Bush admin knew it, and Rik should know it.

2nd statement:10,000 dead Kurds and Iranians before 1991. 12 years before our invasion of Iraq. Ancient history, and not supportable justification for an invasion.

[subgenius]

McCain appointed to the investigation:
"McCain is a maverick who opposed Bush for the Republican presidential nomination in 2000 and is known for speaking his mind and taking on the administration. He broke party ranks to insist that Bush needed to have an independent commission look into prewar intelligence.

He would lend a streak of independence to a commission that Democrats doubted would be non-partisan since its nine members are being picked by Bush rather than by Congress.

Republican sources said McCain was offered the post by the White House on Thursday and accepted."

http://news.myway.com/top/article/id/250047|top|02-05-2004::19:28|reuters.html

Surprisingly good move. (Of course the "McCain vote" could affect the next election being comprised of independent swing voters)
I've got all the respect in the world for McCain, anyone got any reason why I shouldn't (Not to derail the thread)?