Intelligence Failure? No. Bush* Failure? Yes

[Speed8098]

We're hearing McCain say "The president of the United States, I believe, did not manipulate any kind of information for political gain or otherwise," the Republican senator told reporters on the sidelines of a security conference in Munich, Germany.

Think about that statement for a second.

With no investigation at all, no questions yet posed, McCain makes a statement like that.

The fact is, this idiot in the White House did everything in his power to make this war happen.

If he really wanted to know if there were WMD's in Iraq, he would've worked with the world community and bolstered the inspection process. Intelligence proved there was no "Imminent Danger" from this country that had been under sanctions for 12 years. Not to mention satellites that have been focused there for years, or the daily AWAC runs.
Don't forget the no-fly zones. Unless the pilots flew with blindfolds on, I would think they would see massive convoys moving massive amounts of weapons out of the country to Syria, that the satellites, and the radar planes missed.


No, the intelligence was right.

Bush* was wrong.

[displacedtexan]

1. Repukes are exploiting the time warp.

If they finished every statement re WMD 'related program activities and/or intent' with the words IN 1988, they might be a teeny bit more credible... not enough to invade, mind you, but just credible enough to solicit support more more aggressive inspections and UN repercussions.

The joke in DC has been: we know they had weapons in the 80's; we have the receipts!

McCain stinks!

[Lone_Wolf]

2. I predict

The "investigation" will find that there was an intelligence failure because the intelligence agencies were "underfunded."

In order to make certain that another "mistake" like this will happen again, Chimp will start pushing for more funding for the intelligence agencies.

If the sheeple buy it, it is a double victory for Chimp. It gets Chimp off the hook and gets more funding for the agency.

[mephie]

3. Re: Bush failure

I think it may be more telling to look at exactly what he said. He did not say "The Bush Administration," he said "The President of the United States." A cursory interpretation of this, assuming a statement founded in truth (yes, I understand that's a stretch, but bear with me), indicates a belief that the Administration has done so, but Bush, himself has not.

The way I read that statement, it's essentially saying "No, he didn't personally manipulate it, he demanded 'intelligence' he could use to justify a war, regardless of facts." Which, in the real world, makes him just as guilty.

I don't think he personally skewed intelligence reports. I don't give him that much credit. The only thing he CAN skew, it seems, is the pronunciation of big words.

Just a thought.

[newyawker99]

11. Hi mephie!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Kazak]

15. Beaut of a first post!

Welcome to DU. :)

:toast:

[DoYouEverWonder]

4. How can you have a failure of intelligence

When you don't have any intelligence to begin with?

Bu$h is the most self-centered, narcissistic, self-limited, dullard on the planet whose claim to fame is that he (like his mother) has no curiosity?

How many times did Bu$h remind us that the decision to go to war, was his and his alone? And that he would make that decision based on the best information available to him? Bu$h made the decision, he knew the reasons he was giving to go to war were based on lies, and he didn't care because he was bound and determined to go to war no matter what.

For Bu$h and everyone else, it is time we all faced the truth. Bu$h is a miserable failure.

[rasputin1952]

17. I was going to say...

"Intelligence Failure" & "bush Failure", are synonymous.

Hasn't the RW figured out that this idiot has failed at EVERYTHING he has done, in his entire life! There is no difference here...he is a miserable failure.

O8)

[kentuck]

5. "They report - he decides."

As Wes Clark so eloquently stated in press release 2-6-04.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

6. Call it what it is: The Bush Intelligence Failure

911 was the result of Bush Intelligence Failure. Iraq was the result of Bush Intelligence Failure. The Bush Intelligence Failure is the cause of our national security problems.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

8. The Bush Intelligence Failure let 911 happen

If you supported Bush - you have a lot of explaining to do. Sensitive subject, isn't it?

[DoYouEverWonder]

9. I'm sorry to inform you

but we were right and we are winning.

I still do believe that the truth will win in the end.

[Speed8098]

10. I think that's part of what really bothers me

We have been speaking the truth from day one of this lunacy. If we could see it, why couldn't they?

I too, believe the truth will win in the end. I see the trend starting already. I just hope the momentum continues.

Some people here have said that the October surprise will come in the form of another attack and *'s poll numbers will skyrocket. I think his numbers would become worse than what they are right now.

I don't even think bringing OBL out of deep freeze will help the chimp. the tide has begun to turn and I think their ship is sinking.

I am worried about the rw assaults though, they can be ruthless.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

12. kick

good thread

[Dash]

13. How do you figure that?

How are you coming to the conclusion that this is a Bush failure? You seem to be implying that Bush lied or manipulated the facts, judging by your comments on what McCain said. (Please correct me if I'm wrong here.) While I agree that the information appears to be at least partially wrong, I don't see how this is about Bush being wrong.

Lets look at the facts. Every major world power agreed upon the UN Resolutions. Those resolutions were all about having Saddam give up his WMD's and discontinue his WMD programs as well as stop oppressing his people. Why agree on those resolutions if Saddam didn't have WMDs or capabilities?

Next we know that the intel we got from the US agreed with the rest of the worlds intel. Germany, France, Britain… etc all agreed with the US reports.

Further, the man you have as your avatar, former President Clinton, ordered a bombing campaign based on this same evidence. How are you now saying it’s Bush’s fault? Clinton was absolutely correct in doing what he did, and I would argue he should have taken it further.

Sanctions did not help at all. We know now all they did was kill Iraqi people because Saddam would not use the humanitarian means afforded him (i.e. Food for Oil) to help his people. Rather, he built more palaces.

All reports coming out of Iraq point to ongoing programs and attempts to acquire WMD material. Actually, you mention the no-fly zone. My brother is actually a USAF F-16 pilot who had to patrol the no-fly zone 4 times. All I know is he says he’s glad Saddam is gone and so is the rest of his Squadron. I’ll have to ask if there was any way he would have seen movements like you describe. In actuality though, the footprint for WMD material can be very small. I would agree with you that no “massive stockpiles” could be moved en masse though heh.

[muriel_volestrangler]

14. Yes, Bush and his team lied and manipulated the intelligence

There are documented differences (eg removing the caveats) between the public NIE and the one the administration got to see - see http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=355303 .

The resolution said that Saddam hadn't accounted for his WMD, and so they suspected he still had them (and many now think that even he thought he still had some; but perhaps the last ones had been destroyed by Clinton's strikes). It sent in inspectors to find out; Saddam accepted them, and gave a dossier saying all WMD had been got rid of. The inspectors proved he had no nuclear program, quite quickyl; they wanted more time to investigate the chemical and biological programs. Bush told them to pull out, because he was about to start bombing. That's the difference between Bush and his pack of running poodles, and the more sober world leaders like France and Germany.

Sanctions did help stop the WMD programs - that's exactly what Kay, and Blix, have concluded. They also caused a lot of Iraqi deaths, due to appalling sanitation (not lack of food): the blame for this appears to lie with the US and British governments who obstructed the necessary repairs to the fresh water and sewage systems. Saddam gleefully built his palaces with money from smuggled oil - the food was overseen by the UN.

[Dash]

16. Sorry but

I'm afraid I can't go by that reasoning. The Clinton rationale for bombing strikes was much stronger than the Bush claims yet you seem to agree those were ok.

As for Saddam, I'm not about to accept any "dossier" of his claiming to have destroyed the WMD's he declared to the UN in 1997-8. His job was to provide them and allow inspectors to oversee the destruction. Not supply some document with no proof outside his word. Refer to the South African disarmament and the current moves by Libya for examples of how it should be done.

To call France "sober world leaders" is not something I would get behind either.

I note you feel the sanctions were "appalling". I wonder what you would have done in Bush's place about Iraq? Clearly the sanctions and war are off your list of possible solutions.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

18. do you know what the Office of Special Planning is?

It's a private "intelligence" agency set up by Cheney to provide intelligence on Iraq. CIA people many times - before the invasion - said that the OSP was "cherrypicking" information to make Iraq seem more of a threat than it was. The CIA on numerous occasions made it clear that Iraq was not an imminent or serious threat to the US.

The disinfo coming from Cheney's OSP, along with the CIA warnings of politicized intelligence, along with the fact that the Bush administration was planning to attack Iraq from their first days in office, show that the deception about WMD was deliberate, to get the public behind an invasion.

Frankly, Clinton is irrelevant at this point. By the way, welcome to DU.

[Dash]

20. Ok

By all accounts Tenet is a straight shooter and a good man. Now I don't know this for fact, but it rings true to me. Having said that, it also occurs to me that no really credible, inside sources are saying this information was manipulated. Not Tenet, not Kay, not McCain ( I use McCain because I personally feel like he is a trustworthy individual).

Without some solid evidence, I think these assertions of lying and manipulation are unfounded and wrong. Politicizing this war is distasteful to me seeing as how SO many people... Congress, Foreign countries, Intelligence, Clinton (both B and H), Gore, everyone else in the Clinton cabinet, the UN... all believed Saddam had these weapons. To me it is ridiculous to now say "Wait! You lied!"

"By the way, welcome to DU."

Thanks very much =)

[muriel_volestrangler]

21. I'm not sure Clinton was right to bomb

but at least his action was limited. It didn't kill tens of thousands of Iraqis, or hundreds of Americans supposedly defending their country.

Saddam's dossier shouldn't have been taken at face value; it should have been tested thoroughly by the UN inspectors, who still had lots of unfinished work. They, the experts, did not want Iraq invaded, and had not yet found any proof of WMD in Iraq.

If I were in Bush's place, I would have adjusted the sanctions to allow the basic infrastructure work needed to save lives in Iraq; worked to get the UN inspectors back in there (the one good thing he managed); not lied about the intelligence; concentrated on stopping the spread of WMD by supporting the CIA's work, not blowing the cover of secret operatives in a fit of pique; and continued trying to get Afgahnistan back on its feet, rather than implementing the PNAC's long-desired plan to invade Iraq.

[rasputin1952]

19. A good portion of bush's argument is that ...

he was known to use Chemical weapons. This is true, he used them on the Kurds after his father said we would back the Kurds if they rebelled. They rebelled, they died by the thousands, and his father did, NOTHING!

Perhaps, just perhaps, he used all those chemicals in the 80's, and could not stockpile again. In any case, The UN asked for more time, bush said no. The UN inspectors were not thrown out by Saddam, they were taken out by bush's threats of war. Even bush's own investigators said THERE IS NOTHING!

He lied, my brothers and sisters in uniform are dying for a LIE! At least Clinton's 'lie' didn't kill people.

This is about OIL! It has been for years. Our people are dying so that the oil companies get more profit. You may want top go back to Smedley Butler, MG, USMC retired, two time recipient of the MOH; Google him. Back in 1910 he knew the military was being used for corporate profit, and he eloquently explained the whole thing. The motives have not changed, just the times.

O8)