1
   

Bush accepts responsibility for war "based on faulty intel"

 
 
roverroad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Dec, 2005 07:41 am
mysteryman wrote:
Thats what I said...the COUNTRY (USA)


Fair enough.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Dec, 2005 09:22 am
Could someone please point out exactly where Bush took "responsibility" for the faulty intelligence? As Ron Hutcheson of Knight-Ridder correctly pointed out:
    "It's true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong," Bush admitted - [b]omitting that he and top aides had ignored warnings from midlevel intelligence agents that some of the evidence was suspect[/b] - then quickly added that he has no regrets about his decision to oust Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. "We are in Iraq today because our goal has always been more than the removal of a brutal dictator. It is to leave a free and democratic Iraq in its place." (emphasis added)

Bush didn't take responsibility for the faulty intelligence: he laid it off on the CIA and the other intelligence agencies. According to Bush, it was their fault that the White House had faulty intelligence, when, in fact, it was the administration's fault that it ignored or "fixed" the intelligence that was actually accurate and prefered to rely on evidence that was unsupported, suspect, or contradicted.

It is simply astounding to me that the media almost uniformly reported, without any comment, that Bush accepted responsibility for the faulty intelligence when the evidence of his evasion of that responsibility was so close at hand. After his remark about taking "responsibility," Bush added:
    Given Saddam's history and the lessons of September the 11th, my decision to remove Saddam Hussein was the right decision. Saddam was a threat -- and the American people and the world is better off because he is no longer in power.

But part of the faulty pre-war intelligence was precisely the mistaken fact that Saddam Hussein was a threat. Bush can't say, on the one hand, that he is responsible for the faulty pre-war intel, and then, on the other hand, state that it was a good idea to invade because of more faulty pre-war intel.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Dec, 2005 09:40 am
Quite right, Joe. Bush didn't accept responsibility for the faulty intelligence. He placed blame where it rightfully belonged. He accepted responsibility for the decision to go to Iraq. The media is in the habit of slight distortion to create the headline they want to see. Which is why I believe there were stories out this week with the headline, "Bush takes blame for Iraq war on bad intelligence." He didn't "take the blame." He admitted there was faulty intelligence, and vowed to correct the problem, but maintained -- correctly, I might add -- that the decision to remove Saddam was the right one. You are wrong when you claim Saddam wasn't a threat.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Dec, 2005 09:56 am
You are correct. He only took responsibility for using the intelligence he had and acting on it. Much of this intel was developed in the years prior to GW taking office and the Clinton Admin even supported the removal of the Sadam regime.

It is a difficult position for a Head of State to have intel that seems to put the nation at risk and appears accurate since many other sources of intell hald similiar positions.

Still, GW acted properly if only for the fact that the Saddam regime failed to live up to the terms of surrender from Gulf 1.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Dec, 2005 10:08 am
Ticomaya wrote:
You are wrong when you claim Saddam wasn't a threat.

To whom was Saddam a threat?
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Dec, 2005 10:11 am
joefromchicago wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
You are wrong when you claim Saddam wasn't a threat.

To whom was Saddam a threat?


To the region and the World.

What do you call someone who continually shows no respect for the Terms of Surrender signed by the Iraqi Govt?

I call him a threat.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Dec, 2005 10:13 am
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=24889

Quote:


[on the link, they have links which backs up all the statements]
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Dec, 2005 10:27 am
And, don't forget the secret intelligence group created for the purpose of making intelligence say what they wanted...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/11/wsept11.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/11/ixnewstop.html
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Dec, 2005 10:29 am
joefromchicago wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
You are wrong when you claim Saddam wasn't a threat.

To whom was Saddam a threat?


To many, including the US.

Duelfer Report.
0 Replies
 
ralpheb
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Dec, 2005 10:37 am
Nah, Sadam wasn't a threat to anybody. He was a great leader, never hurt anyone, Was an outstanding Global friend.

Oh wait no he wasn't.
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Dec, 2005 10:42 am
The circular reasoning by Bush (and his supporters here) seems to go like this:

The U.S. cited evidence to justify attacking Iraq, but we now know that the "evidence" was based on flawed intelligence. But Saddam was bad and a danger, so we were right to overthrow him, even though that wasn't the original rationale for the war.

Am I understanding this correctly?
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Dec, 2005 10:46 am
Ticomaya wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
You are wrong when you claim Saddam wasn't a threat.

To whom was Saddam a threat?


To many, including the US.

Duelfer Report.

From the Duelfer Report:
    Saddam never abandoned his intentions to resume a CW effort when sanctions were lifted and conditions were judged favorable

Even if, for argument's sake, we accept that as true, that simply means that Saddam was a threat in the future, and only in the event that sanctions were lifted. Nobody, however, was recommending the lifting of sanctions (not even the French), so if Saddam was any kind of threat in 2003, he was merely a potential threat. Is that the kind of threat that we needed to thwart by means of a preemptive strike?

woiyo wrote:
To the region and the World.

What do you call someone who continually shows no respect for the Terms of Surrender signed by the Iraqi Govt?

I call him a threat.

I call him someone who is in violation of a UN-sponsored treaty and various UN resolutions. But when did the UN give the US responsibility for enforcing UN resolutions?
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Dec, 2005 10:47 am
ralpheb wrote:
Nah, Sadam wasn't a threat to anybody. He was a great leader, never hurt anyone, Was an outstanding Global friend.

Oh wait no he wasn't.

Sure he was our pal. Or are you saying that wasn't Donald Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand in those photographs?
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Dec, 2005 10:54 am
joefromchicago wrote:
ralpheb wrote:
Nah, Sadam wasn't a threat to anybody. He was a great leader, never hurt anyone, Was an outstanding Global friend.

Oh wait no he wasn't.

Sure he was our pal. Or are you saying that wasn't Donald Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand in those photographs?


never allow what you can see with your naked eye to interfere with what your masters command you to see and believe. C'mon Joe, you know that.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Dec, 2005 10:57 am
blueveinedthrobber wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:
ralpheb wrote:
Nah, Sadam wasn't a threat to anybody. He was a great leader, never hurt anyone, Was an outstanding Global friend.

Oh wait no he wasn't.

Sure he was our pal. Or are you saying that wasn't Donald Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand in those photographs?


never allow what you can see with your naked eye to interfere with what your masters command you to see and believe. C'mon Joe, you know that.


There are pictures of Neville Chamberlain shaking hands with Hitler.
Does that mean that Hitler was a friend on England?

There are pictures of Roosevelt shaking hands with Stalin.
Does that mean that Russia remained our friend?

Just because someone is a friend NOW,does not mean that they will remain a friend.
0 Replies
 
ralpheb
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Dec, 2005 11:05 am
Just because one politician shakes another politicians hand doesn't mean they are pals.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Dec, 2005 11:07 am
right. it means they're exactly the same. opportunistic scumbags who care only for broadening their power base and enriching themselves. different flags, same ass holes.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Dec, 2005 11:13 am
D'artagnan wrote:
The circular reasoning by Bush (and his supporters here) seems to go like this:

The U.S. cited evidence to justify attacking Iraq, but we now know that the "evidence" was based on flawed intelligence. But Saddam was bad and a danger, so we were right to overthrow him, even though that wasn't the original rationale for the war.

Am I understanding this correctly?


Basically. But to remind you of all of the original rationale for the war, here is the joint resolution of Congress, Public Law 107-243:

Quote:
Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 107-243);

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;

Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677";

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1)," that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region," and that Congress, "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688";

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to "work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge" posed by Iraq and to "work for the necessary resolutions," while also making clear that "the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable";

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region;

Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq".

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(b) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.

In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS. --

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION. -- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS. -- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS

(a) The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 2 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of Public Law 105-338 (the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998).

(b) To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of Public Law 93-148 (the War Powers Resolution), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

(c) To the extent that the information required by section 3 of Public Law 102-1 is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of Public Law 102-1.



LINK
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Dec, 2005 11:13 am
blueveinedthrobber wrote:
right. it means they're exactly the same. opportunistic scumbags who care only for broadening their power base and enriching themselves. different flags, same ass holes.


You just described most of the human race.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Dec, 2005 11:17 am
joefromchicago wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
You are wrong when you claim Saddam wasn't a threat.

To whom was Saddam a threat?


To many, including the US.

Duelfer Report.

From the Duelfer Report:
    Saddam never abandoned his intentions to resume a CW effort when sanctions were lifted and conditions were judged favorable

Even if, for argument's sake, we accept that as true, that simply means that Saddam was a threat in the future, and only in the event that sanctions were lifted. Nobody, however, was recommending the lifting of sanctions (not even the French), so if Saddam was any kind of threat in 2003, he was merely a potential threat. Is that the kind of threat that we needed to thwart by means of a preemptive strike?


We found that out after we invaded. Was he a threat pre invasion? Certainly. We found out he was perhaps less of an imminent threat post invasion.

And I believe there is still a question lingering about what happened to all of the WMD we knew Saddam had. What became of them?

Is a potential threat one that needs to be thwarted? Hard to say. We have a lot of potential threats in the world. Because we had intelligence that indicated he was more than just a potential threat, we took action. Now we don't have the potential threat to deal with down the road.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/16/2024 at 09:46:56