Page 1 of 6 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 88
  1. #1
    Joined
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    6,596

    Bush administration under fire.

    Well, I didn't expect this to be covered here. So I guess I have to make this thread

    WASHINGTON — A long-delayed Senate report endorsed by Democrats and some Republicans has concluded that President Bush and his aides built the public case for war against Iraq by exaggerating available intelligence and by ignoring disagreements among spy agencies about Iraq’s weapons programs and Saddam Hussein’s links to Al Qaeda.

    The report was released Thursday after years of partisan squabbling, and it marks the close of five years of investigations by the Senate Intelligence Committee into the use, abuse and faulty assessments of intelligence leading up to the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

    That some Bush administration claims about the Iraqi threat turned out to be false is hardly new. But the report, based on a detailed review of public statements by Mr. Bush and other officials, is the most comprehensive effort to date to assess whether policymakers systematically painted a more dire picture about Iraq than was justified by available intelligence.

    The 170-page report accuses Mr. Bush, Vice President •••• Cheney and other top officials of repeatedly overstating the Iraqi threat in the emotional aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks. Its findings were endorsed by all eight committee Democrats and two Republicans, Senators Olympia Snowe of Maine and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska.

    In a statement accompanying the report, Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, the West Virginia Democrat who is chairman of the Intelligence Committee, said: “The president and his advisers undertook a relentless public campaign in the aftermath of the attacks to use the war against Al Qaeda as a justification for overthrowing Saddam Hussein.”

    Dana Perino, the White House spokesman, on Thursday called the report a “selective view,” and said the Bush administration’s public statements were based on the same faulty intelligence given to Congress and endorsed by foreign intelligence services. Senator Christopher S. Bond of Missouri, the committee’s top Republican, called the report a “waste of committee time and resources.”

    The report on the prewar statements about Iraq found that on some key issues — most notably Iraq’s purported nuclear, biological and chemical weapons programs — the public statements from Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney and other senior officials were generally “substantiated” by the best estimates at the time from American intelligence agencies. But the report found that the administration officials’ statements usually did not reflect the intelligences agencies’ uncertainties about the evidence or disputes among them.

    In a separate report, the Intelligence Committee provided new details about a series of clandestine meetings in Rome and Paris between Pentagon officials and Iranian dissidents in 2001 and 2003. The meetings included discussions about possible covert actions to destabilize the government in Tehran, and they were used by the Pentagon officials to glean information about internal rivalries inside of Iran and suspected Iranian “hit” team targeting American troops in Afghanistan.

    The report concludes that Stephen J. Hadley, now the national security adviser, and Paul D. Wolfowitz, the former deputy defense secretary, “acted within their authorities” to dispatch the Pentagon officials to Rome. At the same time, the report criticized the meetings as ill-advised and accused Mr. Hadley and Mr. Wolfowitz of keeping the State Department and intelligence agencies in the dark about the meetings, which it portrayed as part of a rogue intelligence operation.

    The two reports were the final parts of the committee’s so-called “phase two” investigation of prewar intelligence on Iraq and related issues. The first phase of the inquiry, begun in the summer of 2003 and completed in July 2004, identified grave faults in the Central Intelligence Agency’s analysis of the threat posed by Mr. Hussein.

    The report was especially critical of statements by Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney that linked Iraq to Al Qaeda and raised the possibility that Mr. Hussein might supply the terrorist group with weapons of mass destruction. “Representing to the American people that the two had an operational partnership and posed a single, indistinguishable threat was fundamentally misleading and led the nation to war on false premises,” Mr. Rockefeller wrote.

    Mr. Bond and four other Republicans on the committee sharply dissented from the report’s findings and suggested the investigation was a partisan smokescreen to obscure the real story: that Central Intelligence Agency failed the Bush administration by delivering intelligence assessments to policymakers that have since been discredited.

    In a detailed minority report, four of those Republicans accused Democrats of hypocrisy and their own campaign of cherry-picking — namely, refusing to include misleading public statements by such top Democrats as Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Mr. Rockefeller.

    As an example, they pointed to an October 2002 speech by Mr. Rockefeller, who declared to his Senate colleagues that he had arrived at the “inescapable conclusion that the threat posed to America by Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction is so serious that despite the risks, and we should not minimize the risks, we must authorize the president to take the necessary steps to deal with the threat.”

    The report about the Bush administration’s public statements does shed some new detail about the intelligence information available to policymakers as they built a case for war. In September 2002, for instance, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld told the Senate Armed Services Committee that “the Iraq problem cannot be solved by airstrikes alone” because Iraqi chemical and biological weapons were so deeply buried that they could not be penetrated by American bombs.

    Two months later, however, the National Intelligence Council wrote an assessment for Mr. Rumsfeld concluding that the Iraqi underground weapons facilities identified by the intelligence agencies “are vulnerable to conventional, precision-guided, penetrating munitions because they are not deeply buried.”

    On Thursday, Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, a Democratic member of the Intelligence Committee, said Congress was never told about the National Intelligence Council assessment.
    The Committee’s report cites several conclusions in which the Administration’s public statements were NOT supported by the intelligence. They include:

    * Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-Qa’ida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qa’ida with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence.
    * Statements by the President and the Vice President indicating that Saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attacks against the United States were contradicted by available intelligence information.
    * Statements by President Bush and Vice President Cheney regarding the postwar situation in Iraq, in terms of the political, security, and economic, did not reflect the concerns and uncertainties expressed in the intelligence products.
    * Statements by the President and Vice President prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq’s chemical weapons production capability and activities did not reflect the intelligence community’s uncertainties as to whether such production was ongoing.
    * The Secretary of Defense’s statement that the Iraqi government operated underground WMD facilities that were not vulnerable to conventional airstrikes because they were underground and deeply buried was not substantiated by available intelligence information.
    * The Intelligence Community did not confirm that Muhammad Atta met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in 2001 as the Vice President repeatedly claimed.


  2. #2
    Joined
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    6,596

    Re: Bush administration under fire.

    nm

  3. #3
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,288

    Re: Bush administration under fire.

    More like a lame attempt at replay. Show me where the report uses the word "lie". The quick take.. it does not because there is absolutely nothing to support the claim. Now.. put that up against the number of times the phrase "Generally substantiated by intelligence information."
    appears. Then come back and explain where the fire is.

    WaPo: Bush Didn't Lie

    Jay Rockefeller's report says so.

    "In making the case for war, the administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when it was unsubstantiated, contradicted or even nonexistent," he said.

    There's no question that the administration, and particularly Vice President Cheney, spoke with too much certainty at times and failed to anticipate or prepare the American people for the enormous undertaking in Iraq.

    But dive into Rockefeller's report, in search of where exactly President Bush lied about what his intelligence agencies were telling him about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and you may be surprised by what you find.

    On Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates."

    On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president's statements "were substantiated by intelligence information."

    On chemical weapons, then? "Substantiated by intelligence information."

    On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information." Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? "Generally substantiated by available intelligence." Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information."

    As you read through the report, you begin to think maybe you've mistakenly picked up the minority dissent. But, no, this is the Rockefeller indictment. So, you think, the smoking gun must appear in the section on Bush's claims about Saddam Hussein's alleged ties to terrorism.

    But statements regarding Iraq's support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information." Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda "were substantiated by the intelligence assessments," and statements regarding Iraq's contacts with al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information." The report is left to complain about "implications" and statements that "left the impression" that those contacts led to substantive Iraqi cooperation.

    In the report's final section, the committee takes issue with Bush's statements about Saddam Hussein's intentions and what the future might have held. But was that really a question of misrepresenting intelligence, or was it a question of judgment that politicians are expected to make?

    After all, it was not Bush, but Rockefeller, who said in October 2002: "There has been some debate over how 'imminent' a threat Iraq poses. I do believe Iraq poses an imminent threat. I also believe after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. . . . To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can."
    Another good read..

    Harboring al Qaeda
    What the new Senate Intelligence Report says about Saddam's hospitality.


    Thanks for starting the thread though CW. I think you probably now understand why no one posted it up earlier. It was no surprise for repugs and did absolutely nothing to add any creditability to the dimorats rhetoric... quite the opposite in fact.

    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  4. #4
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    Twain Harte, CA
    Posts
    20,457

    Re: Bush administration under fire.

    Is this related to some of the Democrats who want to have a public hearing to grill that McLelland guy about his book?

    Is it related to the Kuccinich deal of late, the impeachment deal?

    Its hard to keep track of these things.

    One thing for sure, its been a full time job for quite a few of our elected folks and their staffs of minions.

    And yeah, the Republicans did the same back in the day... that's my Colmes' comment for the day...

  5. #5
    Joined
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Kern River Valley, CA
    Age
    71
    Posts
    21,684

    Re: Bush administration under fire.

    Heh, the bush administration has been under fire for 9 of the last 8 years…

  6. #6
    Joined
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    6,596

    Re: Bush administration under fire.

    Last edited by Computerwiz; 06-10-2008 at 09:56 PM.

  7. #7
    Joined
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    6,596

    Re: Bush administration under fire.

    Quote Originally Posted by AMDScooter View Post
    More like a lame attempt at replay. Show me where the report uses the word "lie". The quick take.. it does not because there is absolutely nothing to support the claim. Now.. put that up against the number of times the phrase "Generally substantiated by intelligence information."
    appears. Then come back and explain where the fire is.

    WaPo: Bush Didn't Lie



    Another good read..

    Harboring al Qaeda
    What the new Senate Intelligence Report says about Saddam's hospitality.


    Thanks for starting the thread though CW. I think you probably now understand why no one posted it up earlier. It was no surprise for repugs and did absolutely nothing to add any creditability to the dimorats rhetoric... quite the opposite in fact.

    From the NYT quoted above.

    The report on the prewar statements about Iraq found that on some key issues — most notably Iraq’s purported nuclear, biological and chemical weapons programs — the public statements from Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney and other senior officials were generally “substantiated” by the best estimates at the time from American intelligence agencies. But the report found that the administration officials’ statements usually did not reflect the intelligences agencies’ uncertainties about the evidence or disputes among them.

    So while they were generally substantiated, only one version of the story was reported. The intelligence obviously wasn't "irrefutable" and cherry picking went on. Furthermore you did not at all address the claims that were not addressed by intelligence at all.

    Remember. The Saddam - Al Queda linkadge was a huge component of Bush's campaign to deceive the american people into thinking war was necessary.

  8. #8
    Joined
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    6,596

    Re: Bush administration under fire.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutchcedar View Post
    Is this related to some of the Democrats who want to have a public hearing to grill that McLelland guy about his book?

    Is it related to the Kuccinich deal of late, the impeachment deal?

    Its hard to keep track of these things.

    One thing for sure, its been a full time job for quite a few of our elected folks and their staffs of minions.

    And yeah, the Republicans did the same back in the day... that's my Colmes' comment for the day...

    Impeachment resolution presented by Dennis Kucinich.

    #1: Creating a secret propaganda campaign to manufacture a false case for war against Iraq

    #2 Falsely, Systematically, and with Criminal Intent Conflating the Attacks of September 11, 2001, With Misrepresentation of Iraq as a Security Threat as Part of Fraudulent Justification for a War of Aggression

    #3 Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction, to Manufacture a False Case for War

    #4 Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Posed an Imminent Threat to the United States

    #5 Illegally Misspending Funds to Secretly Begin a War of Aggression

    #6 Invading Iraq in Violation of the Requirements of HJRes114

    #7: Invading Iraq without a declaration of war.

    #8: Invading Iraq in violation of the U.N. charter and international law.

    #9: Failing to provide troops with body armor and vehicle armor.

    #10: Falsifying accounts of US troops deaths and injuries for political purposes

    #11: Establishment of permanent military bases in Iraq

    #12: Initiating a war against Iraq for control of that nation’s natural resources.

    #13: Secret task force for directing national energy policy

    #14: Misprision of a felony, misuse and exposure of classified information and cover up (Plame outing)

    #15: Providing immunity from prosecution for criminal conduct for contractors in Iraq

    #16: Reckless misspending and wasted US tax dollar with Iraq contractors

    #17: Illegal detention – detaining indefinitely, and without charge, American citizens and foreign captives (suspension of habeus)

    #18: Torture – secretly authorizing and encouraging use of torture, as matter of official policy

    #19 Rendition

    #20 Imprisoning Children Bush is guilty of impeachable offence arcticle 20, imprisoning children. Has personal and acting through agents has held at least 2,500 children in violation of Geneva convention and the rights of children in armed conflict signed by the US in 2002.

    #21 Misleading Congress about threats from Iran

    #22. HAS ESTABLISHED A BODY OF SECRET LAWS THROUGH THE OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL. THE YOO MEMORANDUM WAS DECLASSIFIED YEARS AFTER IT SERVED AS LAW UNDER THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH.

    #23 Violated Posse Comitatus Act ESTABLISHED PROGRAMS FOR THE USE OF THE MILITARY IN LAW ENFORCEMENT. MUST BE AUTHORIZED BY THE CONSTITUTION OF THE CONGRESS SO THAT THE MILTARY CANNOT BECOME A NATIONAL POLICE FORCE.

    #24 Spying on citizens violating 4th Amendment

    #25 Directing telecoms to collect databases on US citizens.

    #26 Announcing intent to violate laws w/signing statements, and then violating those laws.

    #27 Failing to comply with congressional subpoenas, and instructing others to do so.

    #28 tampering with free and fair election. Corruption with the administration of justice, False allegations of voter fraud in selected districts, immediately preceding elections. Undermining process.

    #29: Conspiracy to violate voting rights act of 1965, Ohio Sec of State 2004-06

    #30: Misleading congress and american people in an attemtp to destroy medicare.

    #31 Katrina and the failures of gross negligence of the administration.

    #32: Misleading congress and the American people. Systematically undermining global climate change. Article 2, Section 3: Personally and through subordinates including the VP, for not protecting property of people vis a vis global climate change thru deception. Failure to ratify Kyoto. Editing reports - 294 edits by a lobbyist to add data which called into question the facts by muddying them. Or diminishing scientific findings.

    #33: Repeatedly ignored and failed to respond to high level intelligence warnings of planned terrorist attacks in U.S. prior to 9/11.
    Clark warned the president in daily briefings of the threat. Clark was unable to conviene a cabinet level position. Tenet met with the president 40 times to warn of threat. Still no meetings of top officials.

    #34: Obstruction into the investigation of 9/11

    #35: endangering the health of 9/11 first responders

  9. #9
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    Twain Harte, CA
    Posts
    20,457

    Re: Bush administration under fire.

    ^^^ Ah, OK. They're different.

    Salvos incoming from three fronts.

  10. #10
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,288

    Re: Bush administration under fire.

    Quote Originally Posted by Computerwiz View Post
    From the NYT quoted above.

    The report on the prewar statements about Iraq found that on some key issues — most notably Iraq’s purported nuclear, biological and chemical weapons programs — the public statements from Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney and other senior officials were generally “substantiated” by the best estimates at the time from American intelligence agencies. But the report found that the administration officials’ statements usually did not reflect the intelligences agencies’ uncertainties about the evidence or disputes among them.

    So while they were generally substantiated, only one version of the story was reported. The intelligence obviously wasn't "irrefutable" and cherry picking went on. Furthermore you did not at all address the claims that were not addressed by intelligence at all.

    Remember. The Saddam - Al Queda linkadge was a huge component of Bush's campaign to deceive the american people into thinking war was necessary.
    Gee.. if only you had some way to prove intent on your unsubstantiated "cherry picking" claims instead of simply implying what you wish were actually true. But alas.. much like every other pointless witch hunt since the war went and got all "unpopular" you have zip.. nada.. zilch.. el nuthing-o.. the big ole goose egg. In short.. the (D)emorats broken "bush lied" record is still skipping at the same spot on the LP after all these years with absolutely nothing new to report. Our tax dollars hard at work... better dust off that trophy.. it looks as if it will be alone for some time to come..



    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  11. #11
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,288

    Re: Bush administration under fire.

    A nice summary of the "Bush lied conspiracy" from those neo-con's over at the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette Northwest Edition..





    The plot thickens

    IN THE EVENT you haven’t noticed it’s a presidential election year. You can tell by the ever growing flurry of conspiracy theories—not just delicious new ones like Barack Obama’s being some kind of Manchurian Candidate for Jihad, Inc., but ones that, even if they’ve grown old and wormy by now, can be pulled off the shelf and re-issued as a brand-new congressional report. Like the 170-page piece of work just out of the Senate Intelligence Committee. The precarious burden of this report is that the evil crew in the White House systematically exaggerated the threat that Saddam Hussein’s regime posed by tilting the intelligence available at the time and overlooking views that didn’t fit in with its lust for war.

    But this report doesn’t even tell the half of it, for the sinister neocon cabal behind the invasion of Iraq was even wider than the Democratic majority of this Senate committee lets on. Here are just some of the dire warnings over the years about those elusive weapons of mass destruction that Saddam Hussein was supposed to be preparing. Innocent Reader might be surprised at their source “We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.” —President Bill Clinton, February 17, 1998.

    “[Saddam Hussein ] has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.” — Madeleine Albright, secretary of state in the Clinton administration, November 10, 1999.

    “We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.” —Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, September 19, 2002. (Senator Levin may now be demanding that President Bush set a timetable for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq, but he can’t fool us. He was clearly part of this pro-war plot. )

    “We know that [Saddam Hussein ] has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.... Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” —Al Gore, a former vice president of the United States who back then could sound remarkably like the current one, on September 23, 2002. Clearly both veeps were in this together.

    “We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” —Senator Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002. Yes, the same Ted Kennedy—may he soon be restored to full health—who would later claim that President Bush and his cronies cooked up the war in Iraq war on his ranch in Texas. But that accusation was probably just to distract us from the senator’s own part in stoking fears of a Saddam Hussein armed with WMD.

    “The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons....” —Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, who would later become one of the more voluble opponents of the war, on October 3, 2002.

    “In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaida members.... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.” —Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, now of New York, on October 10, 2002. Goodness. So many conspirators. That ranch house outside Crawford, Tex., where Ted Kennedy told us the war was hatched, must have been awfully crowded.

    THERE ARE those who portray all these conspirators as just innocent victims of intelligence reports manipulated by the Bush administration and carefully fed to innocents like John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and so many other Washington figures known for their simple naivete. Unfortunately for that theory, one bipartisan investigation after another into the collection and interpretation of pre-war intelligence has found no evidence of such manipulation..

    To quote the Senate Intelligence Committee’s unanimous report back in 2004, “The Committee did not find any evidence that Administration officials attempted to coerce, manipulate, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction capabilities.” The independent Robb-Silberman Committee reached similar conclusions. All these people must have been in on the conspiracy, too. Jay Rockefeller, then the ranking Democratic member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, signed on to the committee’s 2004 report but, almost as soon as it was out, began charging that the Bush administration had coerced, influenced or pressured analysts to reach the conclusions it had wanted. This is the same Jay Rockefeller who, on October 10, 2002, had declared: “There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years....” Naturally the majority report out last week, just in time for the presidential campaign, felt no need to quote Senator Rockefeller’s earlier warning about the growing danger of Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. The gigantic cover-up continues.

    WHAT WE have here is a familiar historical pattern: If a war ends in victory, all the politicians favored it. But if difficulties are encountered, it turns out that many of these same politicians were never for the war in the first place. Or were fooled into supporting it. And what’s more, the war was the result of a deep, dark conspiracy: Franklin D. Roosevelt somehow maneuvered the Japanese into attacking Pearl Harbor; Lyndon Johnson conspired to expand the war in Vietnam; and naturally George W. Bush and his many co-conspirators manipulated the intelligence to get us into this war in Iraq. This presidential campaign is still young, and the conspiracy theories have only begun to flow. To quote that great political philosopher, Bette Davis, “Fasten your seat belts. It’s going to be a bumpy ride.” Having read the same pre-war intelligence reports as the administration, many of these leading Democrats reached the same conclusion as the administration—at the time. Now they tell us the administration was misleading the American people, conveniently overlooking their own, remarkably similar statements back then.

    Surely these members of the loyal opposition were acting in good faith when they warned of the growing danger from Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. The question is whether they are acting in good faith now. And without good faith in debating the course of American policy in perilous times, divided we fall.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  12. #12
    Joined
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    6,596

    Re: Bush administration under fire.

    Quote Originally Posted by AMDScooter View Post
    you have zip.. nada.. zilch.. el nuthing-o.. the big ole goose egg. In short.. the (D)emorats broken "bush lied" record is still skipping at the same spot on the LP after all these years with absolutely nothing new to report.
    Here, I'll put it in red this time. Maybe that way you'll actually address the claims head on rather then swerving and countering points I didn't even make.

    The Committee’s report cites several conclusions in which the Administration’s public statements were NOT supported by the intelligence. They include:

    * Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-Qa’ida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qa’ida with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence.
    * Statements by the President and the Vice President indicating that Saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attacks against the United States were contradicted by available intelligence information.
    * Statements by President Bush and Vice President Cheney regarding the postwar situation in Iraq, in terms of the political, security, and economic, did not reflect the concerns and uncertainties expressed in the intelligence products.
    * Statements by the President and Vice President prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq’s chemical weapons production capability and activities did not reflect the intelligence community’s uncertainties as to whether such production was ongoing.
    * The Secretary of Defense’s statement that the Iraqi government operated underground WMD facilities that were not vulnerable to conventional airstrikes because they were underground and deeply buried was not substantiated by available intelligence information.
    * The Intelligence Community did not confirm that Muhammad Atta met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in 2001 as the Vice President repeatedly claimed.

  13. #13
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    Twain Harte, CA
    Posts
    20,457

    Re: Bush administration under fire.

    ...suggesting that...
    ...indicating that...
    ...did not reflect...
    ...did not reflect...
    ...was not substantiated...
    ...did not confirm...
    Hold the presses. I thought the claim was that Bushy lied.

    I think you understand why people get bored with this stuff, wiz. Each time its put out, the claims are watered down a little more. Its been played so many times and failed that its looking to be more and more pathetic. Now its down to Bushy not reflecting "the intelligence community’s uncertainties" in certain statements he made.

    Lots of words, no matter what color, don't mean much if there's nothing in 'em.

  14. #14
    Joined
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Oregon
    Age
    41
    Posts
    6,498

    Re: Bush administration under fire.

    Man, I really cannot wait for this administration to leave just so we won't even have these discussions any more.

    I don't think many people miss Dubya on either side of the aisle. Well unless Obama wins.

    Myself, being more liberal, am tired of the Bush blame game and am just ready to move onto the next step. My fear is that once the dems get complete power they are going to continue to spend their time whining and complaining about the mess they were left with rather than trying to do something about it. It seems all they are capable of right now....but they also don't hold the executive branch so I'm really hoping things will change.

  15. #15
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,288

    Re: Bush administration under fire.

    Quote Originally Posted by Computerwiz View Post
    Here, I'll put it in red this time. Maybe that way you'll actually address the claims head on rather then swerving and countering points I didn't even make.

    The Committee’s report cites several conclusions in which the Administration’s public statements were NOT supported by the intelligence. They include:

    * Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-Qa’ida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qa’ida with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence.
    * Statements by the President and the Vice President indicating that Saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attacks against the United States were contradicted by available intelligence information.
    * Statements by President Bush and Vice President Cheney regarding the postwar situation in Iraq, in terms of the political, security, and economic, did not reflect the concerns and uncertainties expressed in the intelligence products.
    * Statements by the President and Vice President prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq’s chemical weapons production capability and activities did not reflect the intelligence community’s uncertainties as to whether such production was ongoing.
    * The Secretary of Defense’s statement that the Iraqi government operated underground WMD facilities that were not vulnerable to conventional airstrikes because they were underground and deeply buried was not substantiated by available intelligence information.
    * The Intelligence Community did not confirm that Muhammad Atta met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in 2001 as the Vice President repeatedly claimed.
    AS Dutch reiterated for me.. in a format you might understand better.. you still have zip.. nada.. zilch.. el nuthing-o.. the big ole goose egg.

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackDragon24
    My fear is that once the dems get complete power they are going to continue to spend their time whining and complaining about the mess they were left with rather than trying to do something about it.
    If the last 2 years of the Pelosi/Reid wonder twit congress is any indication you are correct. But let's not lightly haze over the fact that the (D)imorats share responsibility for the "mess" they and the MSM have been hazing GWB for. They simply abandoned their share of the responsibility when the war got "unpopular"... and our "watchdog" media has let them slide on the revisionist history for the most part unchecked. The only solution they have offered is retreat in one form or another. Which any half wit can tell would be disastrous for both Iraq.. the security of the region and the US. Let the MSM and (D)illholes say what they will about GWB.. but at least he has the stones to take full ownership of his and their share of the responsibility. The war I believe we are on the cusp of winning the (D)'s would have abandoned years ago.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •