This could go in the blood thread as well... ___________ Editorials Question Bush's Role in 'Cooking' Up a War By Greg Mitchell Published: January 28, 2004 Updated at 10:45 AM EST NEW YORKIn the wake of the latest revelations from weapons inspector David Kay, many of the largest U.S. newspapers are belatedly pressing the Bush administration for an explanation of how it could have gotten the question of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq so wrong in the march to war last year. A growing number are raising the possibility that Bush and his team may have "cooked" the intelligence to support their case for war. An E&P survey of the top 20 newspapers by circulation found that as of Wednesday, 13 had run editorials on Kay's resignation as chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq last Friday, and his statement that no WMDs exist in Iraq, and likely did not exist in Iraq during the U.S. run-up to war. Nearly all of those papers blamed intelligence failures for the miscalculation and called for a full probe. But eight of the 13 -- most of which supported the war -- also raised the issue of White House deceit and its possibly blind pursuit of intelligence that fit its plan for war. Among them was The Dallas Morning News (Click for QuikCap), in Bush's home state, which had supported the war, but now declared: "We feel deceived -- by the CIA, which overestimated the threat, and by the White House, which probably stretched the bad estimates to build a case for war." If Bush had found other strategic or humanitarian reasons for the war, "he should have argued the case on that basis," the editorial said. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution (Click for QuikCap) also stated that while intelligence was faulty, "the evidence also seems overwhelming that the Bush administration pushed existing evidence well beyond its breaking point, exaggerating threats and claiming specific knowledge of Iraqi WMD where in reality no such knowledge existed." The paper also came down hard on the administration for linking Saddam Hussein directly to al Qaeda -- which was in opposition to intelligence reports. The Los Angeles Times refused to place the blame mainly on the intelligence agencies, observing that "the administration was not a passive consumer of intelligence. The CIA's own Iraq analysts contended last June that the administration pressured them to create worst-case scenarios." While backing a full CIA probe, the L.A. Times added, "Any investigation ... will also have to take in to account the administration's agenda." Indeed, Vice President Dick Cheney continued to make "bogus claims" about WMDs in Iraq over the weekend despite Kay's findings, the editorial noted. The Detroit Free Press asked, "Was the administration misled, or did it twist what it was told to justify taking down Hussein? A full accounting is due." Newsday of Melville, N.Y., said the latest revelation "raises troubling questions about the Bush administration's use of ambiguous or flawed intelligence findings to buttress its case" for the war. The Oregonian of Portland stated that, "it's fair to wonder ... whether the White House processed the intelligence information professionally." The Boston Globe editorial said, in part: "President Bush should acknowledge two harsh truths: that the intelligence was completely wrong and that administration hawks tried to politicize intelligence." Oddly, while fully condemning the intelligence scandal, two of the most liberal papers -- The New York Times and San Francisco Chronicle -- did not strongly raise the specter of White House deceit. The Times hinted at this, however, by suggesting that Cheney's continuing false arguments revealed the "rigid thinking" based on "preconceived notions" that "helped propel us into an invasion." The Philadelphia Inquirer simply declared that Kay's conclusion "destroys the remaining credibility of this administration's argument for an immediate, pre-emptive war." Only two the 13 papers that ran editorials expressed little concern that the Kay findings undercut their support for the war: The New York Post and New York Daily News. The Post warned readers not to "be taken in by all the hot air following David Kay's statements."
Didn't somebody post a thread with an article about the "show stoppers," people in the pentagon who prevented plans from the Clinton administration from ever being inacted?
but Bush did act...and it wasn't of the "lob a $2m missle at a $10 tent and hit some camel in the butt" type either.
After the fact. You can't criticize Clinton for not acting before the fact and then give Bush a pass for doing what you accuse Clinton of doing.
actually, that's exactly what Franchise is trying to say, that Clinton is blameless since he told Bush about the threat. i'm merely pointing out the absurdity of this argument. I do not blame Clinton for 9/11, although i do think could've dealt more forcefully with the gathering threat from radical islam. he 8 years to do so, bush had 8 months. the fact is, clinton passed the buck, because he couldn't make the hard decisions. absent 9/11, do i think bush would've done something? probably not, it would've taken some osrt of provacation on his watch, which didn't arrive until 9/11. would clinton have responded as forcefully as bush to 9/11? we'll never know, but his history suggests he wouldn't have. it took the gimlet-eyed realists, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Wolfowoitz, and Bush himself to really follow through. i think clinton would've gotten distracted somewhere else, but it's just my opinion. let me repeat, for emphasis, i do not blame 9/11 on clinton, but trying to blame it on bush without blaming it on clinton as well is just idiotic.
a.) We know how Clinton was going to respond, it was the plan which was carried out by the Bushies in Afghanistan - if you actually read the responses, the Bushies were going to implement Clarke's plan but it took them almost a year to make a decision. It took them to September 4 to finally meet about something they were told about from day one. b.) Bush didn't reply very forcefully to 9/11, he let Osama get away to Pakistan for over two years and counting c.) almost everything else you stated is speculation you are touting as fact.
I think it's a given that any recent President would have gone after AL-Q in Afghanistan. And talking about Clinton getting distracted! I daresay that everyone except Bush would have pursued OBL and finished the job in Afghanistan without being distracted by Iraq.
really??? two wars? [quotealmost everything else you stated is speculation you are touting as fact.[/QUOTE] please note in my post where i said "it's my opinion." hard to see where i'm touting that as fact...
A.) Why are you double posting this? B.) Why are you changing the subject? C.) If this is true, it was wrong. How does that justify the war on Iraq? D.) How does one ship oil to a church? Didn't Italy support the war? How do we know they only selectively listed prominent opponents and not supporters of the war? E.) How does it justify the Bushies negligence in protecting America from terrorists?
It was saved in my copy and paste, it was an accident...I corrected it within 30 seconds....and lastly. TAKE A FRICKEN CHILL PILL !!!! DD
i suppose it was a vain hope we could have a sensible discussion about intelligence failures across many agencies, countries, and administrations, but who was I kidding! this is bbs.bushlied.net!
Please re-read my posts. I said that Clinton should have gone ahead and left and Bush with a war. I also said that neither Bush nor Clinton knew that by not acting the result would be 9/11. I put both in the same boat. I didn't say that Clinton was blameless. But there is a difference between the two. Clinton did spend more to fight terrorism than any other president before him. And Clinton did come up with the plans to combat Osama and Al Qaeda to begin with. So in that he did do more than Bush did. It obviously wasn't enough, though. As for Clinton's priority being pardons, that has nothing to do with defense spending and defense priorities. Bush's missle defense shield has everything to do with that.
