Did Bush Lie re WMD? II

This continues from [url=http://tw.forumosa.com/t/did-bush-lie-re-wmd/10689/277

So what? No one seriously says they tried to change the reports they were handed. What the Bush administration is guilty of is [ul]1) [i]dismantling the procedures in place to keep policy-makers from seeing too-raw intelligence,

  1. building ways to get selectively under-vetted rumors to Bush’s ear in the guise of vetted intelligence, or “good data,” and

  2. acting on the bad data.[/i][/ul]
    And you know it.

This is the investigation that was delayed by the Senate Intelligence Committee. It was delayed until after the latest report in order to get the GOP to agree to releasing this first bit now, before the election in November.

Here’s the whole political situation in a nut shell. Bush bet his political future, as well as a significant element of US national security, on waging war on Iraq in order to find and eliminate WMDs in Iraq. He loved making the gamble, he profited politically from making it, and his supporters ascribe to him certain virtues based solely on this bet.

Bush’s argument has always been that this was necessary to limit their use against the US, now or later.

Well, there were no WMDs in Iraq. Bush has lost both bets, and now he doesn’t want to pay the bookie. Instead, he’s trying furiously to convince the US public that to make him pay up would be to hurt American security in the future (and the GOP now).

What else can he say? You bet big, you win big or you lose big, he lost.

Time to pay the political piper.

Many certainly have attempted just that.

[quote=“flike”]What the Bush administration is guilty of is [ul]

  1. [i]dismantling the procedures in place to keep policy-makers from seeing too-raw intelligence,

  2. building ways to get selectively under-vetted rumors to Bush’s ear in the guise of vetted intelligence, or “good data,” and

  3. acting on the bad data.[/i][/ul]
    And you know it. [/quote]

Maybe.

And the democrats and liberal media haven’t played politics with Iraq? This doesn’t bother me much at all.

Not only that. He eliminated the possibility that Saddam could restart his programs or use oil money to procure WMD from somewhere else. A smashing success, I’d say. He also set Iraq on the road to reform, a first step in reforming the entire region. If not yet a success, certainly he put us on the right path. Credit is due for this, IMO.

I Agree.

Indeed. Sounds good to me.

Intelligence failure. And before you start saying that the failure is due to Bush’s policies that you listed above… remember, the intelligence had assessed that Iraq had WMD from long before Bush was elected. So, I don’t buy your argument that Bush is responsible for the poor intelligence.

He doesn’t need to convince me.

Besides, you Bushbashers are way to impatient with the return on Bush’s investment. It will take years for the reforms to really start to make a difference in the Middle East. You guys are, IMO, being entirely disingenuous when you start claiming failure at this early stage.

[quote=“flike”]What else can he say? You bet big, you win big or you lose big, he lost.

Time to pay the political piper.[/quote]

He may well pay the piper. But, that doesn’t mean his gample/investment was a flop. Only time will tell.

Exactly who appointed George Tenent director of the CIA? :whistle:

Exactly who could have had Tenet’s resignatioin in his hat by Inauguration Day 2001, and chose to keep him on? :flog:

Not if they were paying attention. It’s been pretty well reported, how Bush got the bad info. I do agree that, for a while, it was difficult to know what part Bush played in it, but that’s only because we Americans saw him so rarely outside a hermetically sealed, completely-scripted security envelope that we couldn’t get a measure of the man.

For instance, for a long time we Americans just couldn’t understand the quality, the dimensions, of Bush’s idiocy. Of course, now we understand. We know how he thinks, how incurious he is, how short his attention span is, how it could be possible to legally build an intelligence stovepipe, any rumor from Chalabi’s mouth straight to Bush’s ear, and easy it would be to bait him because it would all fit the way he thinks and he’d never question that, or not the parts that would matter in the end.

[quote=“flike”]What the Bush administration is guilty of is [ul]

  1. [i]dismantling the procedures in place to keep policy-makers from seeing too-raw intelligence,

  2. building ways to get selectively under-vetted rumors to Bush’s ear in the guise of vetted intelligence, or “good data,” and

  3. acting on the bad data.[/i][/ul]
    This is the investigation that was delayed by the Senate Intelligence Committee. It was delayed until after the latest report in order to get the GOP to agree to releasing this first bit now, before the election in November.[/quote]

Everybody played politics with Iraq, I agree, it’s PAU. The GOP decided to forego the investigation of how Bush got the intelligence he got until an investigation, this investigation, of the quality of the intelligence he got was finished. They traded the delay for an impartial investigation of the quality in the hope what was discovered would be used to help strengthen US national security.

Of course, now they’ve left themselves open to rumor until November, at the cost of getting their damages capped via a report that could have been issued before then. Actually, I think that Bush actually thought things were going to turn around in Iraq and go so well that everybody would forget about the intellingence failure, that it would become moot in the face of a smashing success.

IMO, had they not been drinking their own Kool-Aid they could have seen that Iraq was going to end up a clusterfuck with Bush at the helm and things could only be improved, not worsened, with the same report they wanted put off. Live and learn, I always say.

or his sons

You must mean “oil for food” money. But I thought Saddam was in the sellin’ business, not the buyin’ business? Actually, according to the new report Iraq wasn’t really in the terror business at all, but I do recognize that you guys count any kind of stickiness as a pure win. (stick anything to Saddam and we win!)

This is basically the same problem I have with Krauthammer. You guys define risk as, like, infinite. There is no way to protect yourself from the kinds of risk you guys like to bandy about. Nuclear armament for Saddam? Not possible in a decade, but according to Cheney, he’s got 'em now!

It’s madness. The left’s paranoia is outweighed only by the far right’s, and unfortunately it’s Gen. Turgidson who’s got his finger on the button.

Smashing Kool-Aid, I’d say.

Credit is due to Bush for giving the Iraqis the opportunity to reform. Of course, he promised to stick around until it was a sure deal. Only after he realized that he really wasn’t that interested in nation-building after all, did he decide to limit the gift.

Like Tom Friedman says, soon we’ll find out whether Iraqis are the way they are because of Saddam, or Saddam was the way he was because of the Iraqis.

Bush is responsible for ensuring that such intelligence, a key national resource in time of war, is handled with due diligence and due care. This did not happen. Someone must be held accountable for this failure. Unless Bush finds someone to credibly blame and fire, it will be him.

And we’ll vote on it in November.

[quote=“The Magnificent Tigerman”]He doesn’t need to convince me.

Besides, you Bushbashers are way to impatient with the return on Bush’s investment. It will take years for the reforms to really start to make a difference in the Middle East. You guys are, IMO, being entirely disingenuous when you start claiming failure at this early stage.[/quote]

How can you say that? Ok, assume Bush was 100% correct in his investment. What I mean is, let’s assume that Bush’s ideas about democracy, as an all-purpose killer of terrorism, a kind of Round-Up that kills 'em at the root, is correct.

If so, then all that remains is world-class execution of policy to do so.

See, this is what I don’t get. Not only did Bush not execute, it was obvious he never had any frickin’ plan! Why? Who knows? Not interested? Short attention span? Delegated? Who knows?

It’s not disingenuous, it’s just simple observation. Even if Bush is right, he’s patently the wrong guy to put in place his one good idea.

[quote=“flike”]What else can he say? You bet big, you win big or you lose big, he lost.

Time to pay the political piper.[/quote]

Agreed, but only someone new can guarantee that return. Bush has proven himself incapable.

If you like business analogies, think of it this way. Bush was the entrepreneur, the guy with a vision, but now we need somebody who can listen to others, can bring in outside financing, who’s smart, who’s a bulldog on policy, who can follow through and execute. We need to hire a CEO!

Ha! Nice one. I can imagine the outrage if he had done so.

Ha! Nice one. I can imagine the outrage if he had done so.

Kinda funny, but weird, IYBF. I think it’s definitely a dead horse yer floggin’.

Actually, please note that 9/11 followed inauguration by about 9 months. The rage you ascribe to me whilst I’m among the klingons wouldn’t be very likely, do you think?

Lots of people not paying attention.

I’ve no doubt that Bush wanted Saddam out. Why wouldn’t he want Saddam out? Saddam being out is a GOOD thing.

However, I have read accounts that indicate that Bush did question intelligence assessments.

It isn’t politics as usual during a war. While Roosevelt had his detractors, they restrained themselves much more than have the democrats and liberal media today. Heck, today we have liberals hoping and “praying” for US failure in Iraq simply so they can get Bush out of the White House. I don’t agree that this is politics as usual.

That doesn’t bother me nearly as much as Bush haters hoping for US failure. I’m not saying that all Bush haters hope for US failure… but it cannot be denied that an inordinate number do and it seems obvious that coverage of the Iraq invasion/occupation is skewed accordingly.

I am hopeful that it will be a smashing success. Its definitely better than what was there previously.

I think your pessimism is in a large part fueled by your dislike of Bush.

Things in Iraq are really not all that bad, relatively speaking. Bush has given Iraq an opportunity to improve. An improved Iraq is good for US security. An improved Iraq is good for the region, which is aslo good for US security.

You can vote against Bush if you want to… and Bush may well be booted this November. But for the life of me, I do not see how Kerry presents a better alternative… he has indicated time and again that he regards the terrorist problem as a legal problem. Sorry, the terrorists regard the problem we pose as a military problem. Clinton believed the same things that Bush believed re Iraq and Saddam… but he didn’t have the balls to treat terrorists and rogue states as a military problem. He had an opportunity to have OBL handed to him by the Sudanese… but Clinton questioned the legality of such a handover. Hell, I’m pretty sure Bush wouldn’t worry about whether accepting OBL from the Pakistanis, for instance, would violate any “international law” conventions.

The Clinton-Kerry way has been tried. It failed. Bush’s way, although there have been setbacks and mistakes, some hardly forgiveable, has yielded much better results. But we gave the clinton-Kerry way approximately 50 years. You guys are unreasonably, IMO, demanding that the Bush way prove successful immediately.

How is that fair?

Not only that. The sanctions regime was crumbling… it could not be maintained indefinitely. If Saddam was not ousted, the sanctions would eventually have been lifted and Saddam, without US or international pressure, would be free to restart his programs or use his oil money to procure WMD. He maintained his programs in a state that they could easily be restarted. Why would he do that?

David Kay’s report indicated that Iraq had maintained many programs in a state that they could easily be restarted when the heat was off.

Of course there is a way to defend against the type of risk that Saddam posed. Oust him. We ousted him. Risk eliminated.

I know you would say that.

I too fault Bush for that. But, come on… Bush is the leader of a democratic nation… and at least half of the nation is screaming to get the troops home NOW! I believe that Bush should lead and not be unduely influenced by what the screaming masses clamour for… but, it seems a bit hypocritical for the Bush bashers to scream for the return of the troops and then to criticize Bush when he agrees to do so. No? And didn’t Kerry and Edwards vote against an $87 billion supplemental funding bill for Iraq and Afghanistan operations?

Yes. But, I believe that the Iraqis will do well. Unfortunately, too many people in the US are more concerned with booting Bush than they are with helping Iraq (despite the obvious fact that helping Iraq will help the US). Sorry if that sounds harsh… but, I believe this to be true.

Well, we will vote in November. But, you cannot tell me that many of the Bush bashers care one way or the other whether Bush is responsible or not. They merely want Bush out. They have been seething since the last election and still they cry that Bush “stole” the election… an absurd assertion that has been proved false and yet they still cling to that ridiculous notion.

I honestly believe that most of the criticism of Bush has been driven by the hatred of Bush by the Bush bashers. This hatred has made it impossible for them to objectively look at the events of 911 and Bush’s response to the same. This hatred has resulted in absurdly high standards for success (in Iraq). This hatred has resulted in a willingness of mush of the press to frame issues in a way that distorts Bush’s policies and plans.

It isn’t all that much different from the hatred some republicans had for Clinton.

What is surprising, IMO, is that so many liberals fail to see the same things in themselves that they criticized in some republicans a short while ago. Clinton killed Foster… Bush caused 911.

Yes, we will.

[quote=“The Magnificent Tigerman”]He doesn’t need to convince me.

Besides, you Bushbashers are way too impatient with the return on Bush’s investment. It will take years for the reforms to really start to make a difference in the Middle East. You guys are, IMO, being entirely disingenuous when you start claiming failure at this early stage.[/quote]

[quote=“flike”]How can you say that? Ok, assume Bush was 100% correct in his investment. What I mean is, let’s assume that Bush’s ideas about democracy, as an all-purpose killer of terrorism, a kind of Round-Up that kills 'em at the root, is correct.

If so, then all that remains is world-class execution of policy to do so.

See, this is what I don’t get. Not only did Bush not execute, it was obvious he never had any frickin’ plan! Why? Who knows? Not interested? Short attention span? Delegated? Who knows?[/quote]

How many mistakes were made by the US during and after WW2?

Did we win WW2? Were we eventually successful in reforming Germany and Japan?

I don’t buy that at all. He’s the only one with the right idea. So, there are problems with implementation… so what? I’d rather have a guy bumbling with the right plan than a guy perfectly executing the wrong plan. That’s what you get with Kerry… a guy who might execute perfectly a terrible plan.

See my remarks above.

Kerry ain’t no CEO… Hell he wants to go back to treating this military problem like a legal matter.

There’s a very good reason lawyers don’t fight wars.

While we cannot prove anything regarding wmds, I personally believe that Saddam had them. Look at the UN reports when asked for information about proven weapons systems or programs or nuclear drawings and blueprints.

The anwers:

Lost
Cannot find
Does not exist
No information available
Secretly destroyed

These are the answers and excuses for almost every program or weapon. What in the world would make anyone trust such a man. Tens of thousands of pages on wmds and their storage and dates and shelves and everything but not ONE sentence on how or where or when they were destroyed. Does that sound plausible to anyone?

Don’t quite understand your point. We agree on the timing of 9/11.

To ditch the Star Trek analysis for a mo, I find some people are attacking Bush just for the sake of it. I mean, you seemed to be suggesting Bush is equally culpable for CIA operational mistakes because he failed to fire Tenet on day 1.

All I was saying is that I fully expect that had he in fact fired Tenet at that time, the accusation would be that he threw a perfectly operational CIA into disarray by firing the head, and therefore was responsible for the confused state of the agency’s intelligence in the months that followed and led up to the Iraq war.

Obviously, I am putting words into your mouth - hey, i even made up a false quote by your ET look-alike.

I think the terms of the debate here seem to be shifting in the face of the commissions findings. From Bush lied… to Bush put pressure on the CIA…, to Bush’s policies were the major reason why the CIA intelligence process malfunctioned the way it did.

BF quite rightly pointed out that these problems with CIA operations started in previous administrations.

Though some of your points on process may be quite right, its hard to pin that exclusively on Bush.

You can always try of course.

Flike thinks we need a CEO, and it is interesting that it was precisely Bush’s supposed “business” skills that were being touted throughout the pre-9/11 period of his presidency. “Our MBA president” was frequently used in reference to Bush, conveniently ignoring the fact that every company he’d been linked to involved big payola from his dad’s friends.

Of course, it’s even more interesting that Tiredman says Kerry “wants to go back to treating this military problem like a legal matter.” It might almost be a relief to have lightsticks go back to their customary lighting functions and to have the United States respected again. However, I don’t think anybody’s ever accused Kerry of shirking his duty in any fight – time and again he went into the heat of battle.

Tiredman is, for once, almost correct to say “there’s a very good reason lawyers don’t fight wars.” If he means that most lawyers graduate from law school a bit old to go to war … or that most JAG lawyers are not on the front lines, he’s right. Now, one could point out that most fleets have lawyers on board, noting that these ships could be in action at any time. One could point to the notable example of William “Wild Bill” Donovan, who received the Medal of Honor in WWI, worked as a lawyer, then re-entered service and created the OSS in WWII. One might also name Charles Whittlesey, a New York corporate lawyer-turned-soldier, who won his Medal of Honor in WWI in the Argonne.

It is noteworthy that many war heroes who survived have gone right on into the legal profession. Following is only a partial list of Medal of Honor recipients who also worked as lawyers:

  • Horatio Collins King
  • Martin Thomas McMahon
  • Daniel Edgar Sickles
  • Nathan Green Gordon
  • Daniel Ken Inouye
  • George

Mango:

What in the world are we supposed to draw from your last post? And hey buddy, isn’t it about time that you answered some of the challenges that have been presented to your “posts” and “evidence.” Tigerman challenged the veracity of the Rumsfeld Cheney quote. I have challenged your claim that port security is not progressing. What are your responses? Where is your proof?

Fred, sorry – I was just agreeing with Tiredman that he might almost be right that “there’s a good reason lawyers don’t fight wars.”

Hey, just curious but has anybody been coming forward with clear recollections of having ever seen Bush complete his military service? Just wondering what breed of chickenhawk we have flying about.

Sorry Mango, but you keep throwing out new assertions but you have never once answered a challenge that has been raised regarding your “evidence” and your “claims.”

What about Tigerman’s point that the Rumsfeld Cheney quote was debunked, proved false.

What about my point that Port Security is going ahead and that the grants you referred to as being cancelled and the initiative you referred to as vetoed have not in any way stopped progress on port security. In fact the grants may have duplicated already existing work that was going on in the private sector or similar funds readily available under the Homeland Security Act.

So we have two of your lies “erased” from your equation but nothing from you to back them up. When are you going to back up your claims? You have not done so to date. When?

Fred, I only had to come up with one Bush lie and came up with several. If the Cheney-Rumsfeld quotation was missing the word “program,” I’m not going to waste time nitpicking to defend it. However, neither you nor Tiredman have come up with any sustainable challenges to the other Bush lies.

You have shown that port security is only just now being embarked upon… nearly three years after 9/11. Looks like despite having both houses of Congress, Bush has completely dropped the ball on getting this moving forward. You’re asking questions about “who is going to pay for this?” as if there is no urgency to port security. By your own admission, Bush is just only now starting to try to cooperate with the necessary parties to get port security moving forward. Sounds like the Republicans just can’t take responsibility for selling out port security to pursue completely unrelated objectives.

Come on, Fred, give us a little intellectual honesty for just a few minutes.

Mango:

Nice try but the cooperation between foreign and domestic ports has been going on since within a few months of 911. Ask any shipping company or port authority about the new measures, iniatives and regulations so sorry you have not proved your point.

Second, do you know how long it takes to budget money and then fund iniatives. Apparently not. In Iraq, after one year, money is finally being distributed. The budget process takes at least a year. So if the port has COMPLETED the process (and it is a major port), that means one year of budgeting, a few months or more of studies and bids and then decisions to whom to award those bids to and then actual work. So I would say if that major port has completed operations, 2.5 years is an incredibly fast turnaround time. Sorry but you lose yet again.

AND why not just post the email link to the site that provided your numerous quotes so that we can better determine where they came from and who made them. We have proved two WRONG, with more digging we could perhaps prove them all wrong. You make assertions and never back them up. You have conceded Rumsfeld Cheney, now you must concede the port security point. How many more will you concede before you admit that you have proved nothing and have no basis to support your views other than your ability to cut and paste from sites that you will not name? Sounds very fishy to me. I think that you assumed no one here would have the knowledge to challenge and prove you wrong on these things. Welcome to the IP forum. This ain’t the open forum so if you cannot prove your point, you may want to go back into the kiddy pool.

Fred, things might move forward like that under the Bush administration, but in past wars the United States has acted much more quickly. You make it sound like it’s acceptable for a president to sit on his ass … but I guess that’s the Republican idea of being “responsible.”

Why on earth should I concede that Bush was full of shit about port security? You haven’t even rebutted me yet – you posted a bunch of stuff about how we were just starting into port security efforts nearly 3 years after 9/11. Sure doesn’t sound like you rebutted that Bush said one thing and went right ahead and did another. You sure like to ask a lot of me without doing any real homework yourself. First things first… demonstrate what a strong record Bush has on port security without offering up a bunch of fudgey information about how meetings are scheduled sometime in the future.

U.S.-based Infinova has comprehensive lines of CCTV-video security-surveillance, fiberoptics, access-control, security-integration and management products. The company successfully established an integrated-security system for a U.S. port.

The port security has been completed. This takes at least a year to budget, six months to a year to award and six months to a year to implement. You do the math. Prove that under previous administrations that the work was done faster. You cannot. You have proved nothing. You do not understand even the basics for budgeting and bidding and awarding of projects. So admit, you do not know what you are talking about.

“A” U.S. port.

Fred, how many ports do you think there are in the United States?? What basis do you have for saying “The port security has been completed.” There are a lot more ports than just the one you mentioned.

Now, it takes a year to budget (for somebody with a “all skools left behind” education it takes that long), six months to a year to award (oh, but we can give Halliburton no-bid contracts for Iraq, right??), and six months to a year to implement.

You do not even understand that the United States has more than one port. So admit, you do not know what you are talking about. A little intellectual honesty, Fred … that’s all we’re asking for here. If the Republicans want to take responsibility for the enormous delays at the expense of American security, that’s fine too – we don’t expect it given their inability to admit any mistakes whatsoever.