The reason of course, is there's no eveidence whatsoever that Bush or anyone else, including clinton, al gore's boss, knew the intelligence was faulty. As far as the timing of the commissions report, i think it's far more important to find out what, if anything, is wrong with out intelligence system and try and find some way of correcting it. placing it's report after the election should help sheild the commission that it's conclusions will be somehow politically motivated. of course, the democrats will try to argue that this somehow "proves" bush has something to hide, instead of arguing substance and policy differences. there are real differences between Bush and Kerry and how they would treat the war on terro (i'm not sure kerry even acknowledges there is one, or rather should be one), taxes, education, etc. why not discuss them instead? i hear people in here constantly suggesting republicans are trying to avoid substantive policy discussions and are instead bent on character attacks and smear campaigns. shouldn't you hold the democratic party to the same standard?
AAAARRRRGGGHHH!!!! * banging head against the wall* * experiencing strange sense of relief* * banging some more* * neighbours are complaining*
What could be more substantive than discussing one of the most important policy decisions of this Administration? Why wouldn't the Democratic Party make this an issue? If there wasn't so much ambiguity about the reasons we invaded Iraq then it wouldn't come up. You don't here the candidates running on a platform critical of the Afghan War. Why? Because it was clearly justified. If the Iraqi War was as clear cut, they would confine themselves to other issues.
With apologies/thanks to NW: Pre-War Intelligence CLAIM: "I expected to find the weapons [because] I based my decision on the best intelligence possible...The evidence I had was the best possible evidence that he had a weapon." FACT: WHITE HOUSE REPEATEDLY WARNED BY INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY. The Washington Post reported this weekend, "President Bush and his top advisers ignored many of the caveats and qualifiers included in the classified report on Saddam Hussein's weapons." Specifically, the President made unequivocal statements that Iraq "has got chemical weapons" two months after the DIA concluded that there was "no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons." He said, "Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production" three months after the White House received an intelligence report that clearly indicated Department of Energy experts concluded the tubes were not intended to produce uranium enrichment centrifuges. He said, "Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa," three months after "the CIA sent two memos to the White House in October voicing strong doubts about" the claim. CLAIM: "We looked at the intelligence." FACT: WHITE HOUSE IGNORED INTELLIGENCE WARNINGS. Knight Ridder reported that CIA officers "said President Bush ignored warnings" that his WMD case was weak. And Greg Thielmann, the Bush State Department's top intelligence official, "said suspicions were presented as fact, and contrary arguments ignored." Knight Ridder later reported, "Senior diplomatic, intelligence and military officials have charged that Bush and his top aides made assertions about Iraq's banned weapons programs and alleged links to al-Qaeda that weren't supported by credible intelligence, and that they ignored intelligence that didn't support their policies." CLAIM: "The international community thought he had weapons." FACT: INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY TOLD WHITE HOUSE THE OPPOSITE. The IAEA and U.N. both repeatedly told the Administration it had no evidence that Iraq possessed WMD. On 2/15/03, the IAEA said that, "We have to date found no evidence of ongoing prohibited nuclear or nuclear-related activities in Iraq." On 3/7/03 IAEA Director Mohamed ElBaradei said nuclear experts have found "no indication" that Iraq has tried to import high-strength aluminum tubes for centrifuge enrichment of uranium. At the same time, AP reported that "U.N. weapons inspectors have not found any 'smoking guns' in Iraq during their search for weapons WMD." AP also reported, "U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix said his teams have not uncovered any WMD." CLAIM: "I went to Congress with the same intelligence. Congress saw the same intelligence I had, and they looked at exactly what I looked at." FACT: CONGRESS WAS OUTRAGED AT PRESENTATION BY THE WHITE HOUSE. The New Republic reported, "Senators were outraged to find that intelligence info given to them omitted the qualifications and countervailing evidence that had characterized the classified version and played up the claims that strengthened the administration's case for war." According to Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-PA), many House members were only convinced to support the war after the Administration "showed them a photograph of a small, unmanned airplane spraying a liquid in what appeared to be a test for delivering chemical and biological agents," despite the U.S. Air Force telling the Administration it "sharply disputed the notion that Iraq's UAVs were being designed as attack weapons."
ahhh, the theilmann stuff again. don't you think if this were the case Tenet would have mentioned something about it in his CYA speech last week?
Overall source is in the Meet the Press thread..along with the semi-quote of noted Dem shill Pat Buchanan saying that the administration would be wise to abandon the whole premise that the pre-war case for invasion ( WMD/intel, etc.) is still supportable. Specific sources are within the quote.
in anycase, the very fact the admin spent so much time evaluating the intelligence belies the arguement that the invasion was preordained. if they were going to do it anyway, why go through the charade?
A) Huh? You're saying that, on that basis, it's not true? Do you have anything other than that and a fond wish to support that stance? B) Are you ignoring all the other stuff here on that basis? The NIE report? The DIA report? The CIA memos? Etc. etc.
Unless they analyzed the intel to try and justify a preordained invasion. Sam Fisher posted proof that it was discussed priot to 9/11. Lawrence Eagleberger who was pro invasion admittled that a number of officials that he knew of personally were hoping that there would be no diplomatic resolution and actually wanted war with Iraq. That is hugely damning to say that someone hopes for a failure of peaceful negotiations so that wat will be the outcome. Mind you this is coming from a lifelong Republican, who was a member of past Republican administrations and who is in favor of the war. I think it at least is evidence that leans toward a contingent of the President's staff planning ahead of time a war with Iraq, and it appears that the President listened to that group.
Not to mention the numerous pre-war complaints/resignations over the selctive gathering/use of intel as determied by the WH. Or the selective use of evidence quite apparent to anyone who was looking, like quoting (and releasing exerpts) extensively from Saddam Hussein's son-in-law turned intel source about the extent of past Iraqi WMD programs, and leaving out the bit where he says that they had all been pretty much destroyed in 1991 Or the fact that they set up a brand spanking new intel department whose purpose was to find intel of WMDs and 9-11 connections with Iraq, because the admin said the current, usual intel dept's ( CIA, State, etc.) were too soft on Saddam. etc. etc.
you're using the arguement that bush "manipulated" intelligence to get the answer he wanted to "prove" that he knew WMD never existed. if this were the case, where are the democrats screaming for impeachment? i just checked CNN, and their headline is "Stewart Attorney Tests Memory of Key Witness" so i'm guessing that the newshounds just aren't as informed as you?
A) Who ever said enboldened phrase was true? I am saying that the intel was saying, at best, we aren't sure about WMD, but no threat either way, and they said it was saying Sure about WMD, imminent/immediate/grave/nucular threat to the US. B) The rest of your argument is another obvious side-step, so I'll skip it. If you don't want to address the facts head on, I understand.
I haven't read the thread, but this is apparently the Republican strategy and it's weaker than hell. The left raises concerns about anything at all and, instead of answering the charges, the right comes back with the equivalent of "your mean." They have no answer for the various, deeply troubling accusations so instead they focus on the tone of the accuser. Pathetic. There are serious allegations that Bush was determined to go to war on Iraq from the beginning, that he manipulated intelligence and misled the American people to go to war, that he is keeping relevant information in the 9/11 report from the American people and that someone in the White House outed an undercover agent, threatening our national security, out of spite -- all that before the damage he's done to the economy, the deficit, health care, education and the enviornment -- and all they can say back is 'why are you so angry?' Every time they dodge these questions, the American people get angrier. The first Bush tried 'don't worry, be happy.' It didn't work out so well for him. And he had a lot less to defend than his kid does.
This is the case and the democrats have not called for impeachment but have been using this as a campaign issue throughout the primary season. They have called for numerous investigations into the matter in congress etc. Those are have been taken directly as a result of Bush et al. ignoring evidence that was contrary to what they wanted to hear. I've posted a chronology of reports including from the State department, and the U.S. Air Force that directly contradicted the stuff coming from the Whitehouse. Rimrocker posted a list of contradictions, now No Worries posts this. There were also contradictions from the IAEA, almost every single U.S. intel agency etc. I will say I don't know why the press doesn't bring this stuff up when ivestigation 'what went wrong' with the intel. All anyone has to do is look at all of the intel given and it paints the picture that this administration used what would make WMD seem relevant, and disregarded the rest. Actually they even went beyond that, but that's a whole other argument.
Are you serious? The evaluation is otherwise known as cherrypicking. The reason they went through the charade is to convince the U.S. public that an invasion was justified. At some point the blinders have to come off.
