9/11 Panel Said to Have Avoided Iraq

[Thanatoast]

WASHINGTON - The Sept. 11 commission's report didn't include the war in Iraq (news - web sites) because Congress didn't want it included and the commission couldn't have agreed on a report if it had been, the panel's vice chairman said Sunday.

[...]

"You have to make very pragmatic decisions, and I think Tom and I made those decisions. And one of them was to keep focus like a laser beam, if you would, on 9/11, and the events that immediately flow from that," he said.um, like the war in iraq? biggest cop out i've seen since the government shut down in the mid-90's. the republicans know they would been screwed if they had talked about it.

from yahoo (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040725/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/sept_11_no_iraq_2)

[mischief]

Logical conclusion:

If Iraq had any bearing on 9-11 they would have mentioned it. Therefore Iraq must not have been relevant to 9-11.

The commission was to analyze the breakdowns leading to, and the structure of the organizations that orchestrated the 9-11 attack. Their mandate was NOT to critique dubyaw's performance so far in his "War on Terrorism".

The interesting thing for me is that the Bush Administration made so many inferences that Iraq had some connection to 9-11 that there's actually some significant complaint that the Comission "missed" the "Iraqi Connection".

Just serves to show how easily misled and unwilling to think critically Americans really are. Sad. Dangerous. Ominous.

[Thanatoast]

Just serves to show how easily misled and unwilling to think critically Americans really are. Sad. Dangerous. Ominous.The quote reads: "9/11 and the events that immediately flow from that." If it said 9/11 and the events that lead up to it, you may have had a point. As it is, The interesting thing for me is that the Bush Administration made so many inferences that Iraq had some connection to 9-11 actually makes my case for me.

[toontra]

If it said 9/11 and the events that lead up to it, you may have had a point. As it is, actually makes my case for me.

That's right. Seems to me they can't have it both ways. Bush, Rumsfeld, Powell crapped on endlessly about the links between the two, sos much so that (as I last heard) that they had fooled/confused 50% of US citizens into thinking that Iraq was partly responsible for 9/11, and used that "support" to enable the invasion.

These two are simply indivisible, and they were made that way by Bush himself - to now clinicaly separate them when it suits the purpose in hand is disingenuous to say the least.

[mischief]

The quote reads: "9/11 and the events that immediately flow from that." If it said 9/11 and the events that lead up to it, you may have had a point. As it is, actually makes my case for me.

Erm.... Not quite. 9-11 never had anything to do with Iraq. Iraq never had anything to do with 9-11. The events that flowed immediately from 9-11 do not include in any analytical discourse, the inferrences made by Bush.

I suppose you could argue that the war in Iraq flowed from 911. There's one important stipulation missing: The war wasn't an immediate consequence... it was a (how-many-degrees-of-seperation?) tenuous and inferred consequence. It did not occur as a direct consequence of the investigations and intelligence gathering following 911. You may as well ask why Kevin Bacon wasn't mentioned.

[Thanatoast]

Erm.... Not quite. 9-11 never had anything to do with Iraq. Iraq never had anything to do with 9-11.Some of us have known (or suspected) this from the beginning. However, Bush tried to draw a straight line from 9-11 to Saddam Hussein and Iraq. We were led to war partly on the basis of his alleged ties to al-Qeada and connection to 9-11. Therefore, the Iraq war flowed from those events.

I guess a different way to phrase it would be, if 9-11 hadn't happened, would Iraq have been invaded? If not, then there is a causal relationship.

[mischief]

I guess a different way to phrase it would be, if 9-11 hadn't happened, would Iraq have been invaded? If not, then there is a causal relationship.


It is my belief that Bush would have found an excuse, potentially the same excuse (Secret WMD's). War, specifically RISK style war was unavoidable with this administration. Dubyaw seems to use the same sort of scary Manifest Destiny approach that was present in Nixon, Theodore Roosevelt, and to a lesser extent Reagan.

[skunk]

Dubyaw seems to use the same sort of scary Manifest Destiny approach that was present in Nixon, Theodore Roosevelt, and to a lesser extent Reagan.
Isn't it an occupational hazard of the job? Anyone who reaches that position WITHOUT trying to change the world is a real waste of space. Does the opportunity get any better? We all NEED someone with real vision in the WH.

[mischief]

Isn't it an occupational hazard of the job? Anyone who reaches that position WITHOUT trying to change the world is a real waste of space. Does the opportunity get any better? We all NEED someone with real vision in the WH.

The Vatican had a vision too when it decided to begin a centuries-long Genocide against non-Catholics in Europe.

Certain groups in Africa have had clear visions recently of pure ethnicity.

OBL and his Ilk have a clear vision of a Jihad that will wipe Western Civilization from the world and leave us all in beards and bourkas.

You should reach that position through a genuine LOYALTY TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

The position of President of The United States of America does not bear the mandate of reshaping the world in some arbitrary fashion. It bears the mandate of Serving the Poeple of the United States of America, Upholding the Constitution and Protecting the Rights and Principals in that document as written for that people.

The SECONDARY mandate of that position is to work through diplomacy to serve the best long term interests of the American People and the American Economy.

The TIRTIARY duty is as Commander and Chief of the US Millitary in providing National and International context when deployment of said Millitary is neccesary.

[skunk]

Yes, unfortunately some visionariess are less desirable than others. :(

[Colirio]

President Bush has never mentioned that there was any connection between September 11th and Saddam Hussein.

The only connection that the President has claimed is between Saddam and Al Quaeda, NOT Saddam to September 11th. See the difference? If you have reliable information to the contrary I would really like to hear/read it.


The War in Iraq has most certainly changed as a result of September 11th. I say "changed" rather initiated because we have been dropping bombs on Iraq and shooting at each other over there since the first Gulf War. (Even President Clinton bombed an aspirin factory in Iraq by mistake due to faulty intelligence.) The war with Iraq hasn't stopped since the first Gulf War. Saddam had agreed to provide EVIDENCE of getting rid of the WMD he possessed as part of his peace agreement with the UN. He never did, so, the US along with the UN has been passing resolutions and threats and dropping bombs and exchanging fire for the last 12 years as a result.

President Bush ordering an official military campaign to oust Saddam is what changed as result of September 11th when our security policies in this country changed due to those events.

[zimv20]

(Even President Clinton bombed an aspirin factory in Iraq by mistake due to faulty intelligence.)
speaking of faulty intelligence...

[Colirio]

Yeah, I never quite understood why President Bush didn't change out those guys when they had obviously goofed so many times before with the previous administration. Looks like that decision is coming back to haunt him...

[blackfox]

President Bush has never mentioned that there was any connection between September 11th and Saddam Hussein.

The only connection that the President has claimed is between Saddam and Al Quaeda, NOT Saddam to September 11th. See the difference? If you have reliable information to the contrary I would really like to hear/read it.

Colirio, although I believe you are technically correct in your first statement (as I have not been able to peruse all of the Administration's statements), Bush hasimplied a connection between the two, by the constant reference to 9/11 when speaking about Iraq, especially in 2003 in the period leading up to and beginning the War in Iraq.

At the time, polls showed that almost 70% of the US public believed that Saddam/Iraq was involved with the 9/11 attack and a sizeable minority beleived some of the highjackers were Iraqi.

There is a relationship between my two paragraphs, I believe...

[Colirio]

Well, I tend to think that the news media itself was probably responsible for those misconceptions more than the administration was.

As I pointed out, there was a need to keep bringing up the issue of September 11th when going to war with Iraq because it was due to September 11th's policy changes that caused us to finally make the decision to oust the regime in Iraq. Had September 11th not happened, my personal guess is that things would have gone differently with the war in Iraq. (Nobody can do anything but speculate of course.)

President Clinton had showed a resolve in wanting to push the issue of Saddam in more of a diplomatic way. (Even against the urging of many senatros INCLUDING John Kerry, Tom Daschle, and others.) President Bush also showed this same resolve when he entered office to resolve this in a diplomatic way. But, after September 11th happened, he couldn't afford to take that chance anymore. Imagine if the US intelligence, British Intelligence, and UN intelligence had been CORRECT! :eek: President Bush had no reason to doubt its validity at that point in time and neither did Congress who also voted to go to war with Iraq. Can you imagine the repurcussions if the intelligence had been correct and President Bush hadn't acted on it?

[zimv20]

President Bush had no reason to doubt its validity at that point in time and neither did Congress who also voted to go to war with Iraq. Can you imagine the repurcussions if the intelligence had been correct and President Bush hadn't acted on it?
you're in need of some facts about how the bush administration came up w/ its intelligence. seymour hersh wrote about it, one such column can be found here (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?031027fa_fact).

[Colirio]

Well, one of the FACTS is that our intelligence committee found the same things that British intelligence had found. So, even IF the Bush administration had skewed the intelligence, the fact that British intelligence was reporting the same thing would have led President Bush to believe he was still in the right.

The truth is that none of us know whether or not the Bush administration pushed for intelligence to be reported a certain way. It has been one person's word against another person's word. But, one FACT is that the 9/11 Commission found that the Bush administration did NOT push for intelligence in that arena, so, why would you automatically assume that he did in this one? His past record shows differently.

Is it possible that President Bush pushed the intelligence officials to report their findings a certain way? Yes. Is it possible that he didn't? Yes. So, all we can really look to for a decision is his past records. Since the 9/11 Commission reported that he did not, there is no reason to assume he did until proven guilty.

[blackfox]

colirio,
As there may never be any "clear-cut" facts about the events leading up to the war (motives, intelligence-gathering information, duplicity) or an abject refusal for some to accept compelling, yet not ultimately definitive information pointing towards a certain conclusion.

Personally, As I have formed a judgement about the "character" of the current Administration, pieced together slowly from a variety of news stories, leaks, discussions of events from those in a position to know, and the actions/reactions of this Administration to certain challenges, I have come to believe that their motives were not entirely on the up-and-up.

I cannot prove this, of course, as the Administration left no "smoking-gun". It is an article of "faith", as are many opinions in Politics. This, along with the fact that I feel the Administration in power should admit and accept mistakes made under it's watch (even if not entirely their fault), as a characteristic of leadership, means I will be voting for Kerry in Nov.

[zimv20]

Well, one of the FACTS is that our intelligence committee found the same things that British intelligence had found. So, even IF the Bush administration had skewed the intelligence, the fact that British intelligence was reporting the same thing would have led President Bush to believe he was still in the right.

so you'd rather jump on one word i wrote -- facts -- than read the article and actually get more information into your head. nice.

[Colirio]

Well, that is certainly your right to believe that way! :D

My purpose in discussing this wasn't to change yours or anyone else's opinion on the matter, it's simply to show the other side of the coin. I think that many things are blamed on this administration that are simply not factual. That doesn't mean that they are innocent as the blue sky and that they haven't made mistakes. I don't even agree with all of their policies and I am obviously very conservative.

The main point that I was trying to make is that I DO feel that the administration was honestly doing what they felt was best in these scenarios. Nor do I feel that a proper case has been made to the contrary. You obviously do and I think it's great that you want what is best for your country. :)


EDIT: Whoa Zim! Why are you attacking me and getting upset? How do you know that I haven't read your article? It had many interesting things in it but I also found many things that I simply didn't feel are true. There are just as many articles that I could post that say the contrary.

But honestly man, I really have no interest in debating points with you if you would rather just attack each other and make assumptions about each other. I prefer to discuss rather than attack and I would more than happily discuss things with you in the future if you would agree to that as well. :)

[pseudobrit]

(Even President Clinton bombed an aspirin factory in Iraq by mistake due to faulty intelligence.)

Fact check: Sudan

How many US troops were committed to this mistake? How much money?
How much grief did Clinton get from the Republicans for it?

So Clinton was an asshole because he bombed a phamaceutical plant due to ****ty intel, but Bush is totally justified to commit our entire military and billions of dollars to Iraq based on even ****tier intel?
Gotta love the double standards and lack of perspective the GOP can have.

You're right about Bush never coming out and saying Iraq and 9/11 were directly related. But he and his staff made a deliberate and careful effort to word their statements in such a way that a large percentage of Americans believed that they were. People believed Bush was an honest man and they took him at his word.

Now we've learn that he's only honest enough to never have to own up to his deceptions, because he never technically lied. It stinks much worse than the whole "definition of is is" thing that had the GOP drooling.

[Colirio]

Again, gentlemen, can't we remain civil in our discussions here, please? :)

I wasn't attacking President Clinton for his mistake nor have I insinuated that President Bush is squeaky clean in this matter.

I simply used that example in the context of making a point that the war has been going on for many years, not in an attack against President Clinton. I believe that you should reread my post in its entirety and you would understand.

[Bobcat37]

I simply used that example in the context of making a point that the war has been going on for many years, not in an attack against President Clinton. I believe that you should reread my post in its entirety and you would understand.

If they even think you have attacked one of their Gods, repercussion quickly follows... I'm learning this quickly. However, Republicans are fair game, hehehe ;)

[zimv20]

It had many interesting things in it but I also found many things that I simply didn't feel are true.
so mr hersh is wrong? please point out where. and keep in mind this is the same man who uncovered the My Lai massacre and the Abu Ghraib abuses.

[pseudobrit]

I wasn't referring to you, I was referring to the RNC and the GOP spin machine whose effects seemed to be surfacing in your post. Sorry if I came off as directing my statement at you.

[Bobcat37]

so mr hersh is wrong? please point out where. and keep in mind this is the same man who uncovered the My Lai massacre and the Abu Ghraib abuses.

OMG

*copy and paste alarm*

Like... instead of just telling us to go read Mr. Hesh's article, why don't you tell us what YOUR opinions are based on what he said? My copy and paste alarm is blaring here...

(FYI, I'm just messin with you a zim, I still can't get over the silly copy and paste discussion we had yesterday ;))

[pseudobrit]

If they even think you have attacked one of their Gods, repercussion quickly follows... I'm learning this quickly. However, Republicans are fair game, hehehe ;)

What are you talking about? Do you not agree that the GOP has held Bush to a lesser standard by far than Clinton?

Clinton caught hell whenever he used the military, even for using cruise missiles against Osama bin Laden and in Sudan. Even for stopping genocide.

Is it not surprising that when Bush commits virtaully the entirety US military force to Iraq for totally invalid reasons, he's vigorously defended by the same people?

[pseudobrit]

OMG

*copy and paste alarm*

Like... instead of just telling us to go read Mr. Hesh's article, why don't you tell us what YOUR opinions are based on what he said? My copy and paste alarm is blaring here...

(FYI, I'm just messin with you a zim, I still can't get over the silly copy and paste discussion we had yesterday ;))

zim linked to an article. An article filled with facts. He didn't copy/paste anything.

[Colirio]

so mr hersh is wrong? please point out where. and keep in mind this is the same man who uncovered the My Lai massacre and the Abu Ghraib abuses.

There were several places that I felt there were discrepencies. One of which was near the beginning when he quotes Kenneth Pollack as saying that the administration "dismantle the existing filtering process that for fifty years had been preventing the policymakers from getting bad information."

In the very next paragraph he quotes him again in saying, "They were forcing the intelligence community to defend its good information and good analysis so aggressively that the intelligence analysts didn’t have the time or the energy to go after the bad information."

How is making them defend their intelligence information something that causes bad information to leak through? Isn't that what people are saying is that we HAD BAD INTELLIGENCE in this whole case? Wouldn't have forcing the intelligence agencies to defend their intelligence be a GOOD thing when it came to this war in Iraq? Am I mistaken in saying that this was the whole point that we are arguing?


I don't have time to go through the rest this evening, but, suffice it to say that there were several things in the article that stuck out to me as not being true. Doesn't mean that they aren't true, it just means that I didn't believe them.

[Bobcat37]

What are you talking about? Do you not agree that the GOP has held Bush to a lesser standard by far than Clinton?

Oh please Pseudo, you're obviously an intelligent person.... do you not agree that the Dems held Clinton to a lesser standard than they are Bush?

It's called Politics, both sides do it, welcome :)

As for the copy and paste thing, first off I was joking. Secondly, I don't see what the difference is.... he could have just copy and pasted that giant article to these boards and said "here is what I believe", but instead he linked us to it and said "here is what I believe". Same difference.

[pseudobrit]

Oh please Pseudo, you're obviously an intelligent person.... do you not agree that the Dems held Clinton to a lesser standard than they are Bush?

It's called Politics, both sides do it, welcome :)

CLINTON

I held Clinton to the same standard. I was disgusted and felt personally betrayed after learning as he stood before the cameras and said "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" he was lying to me. He was technically telling the truth, and was very careful in his statement's wording. However, I trusted his blunt and straightforward denial carried no "technical" (gotcha!) strings. I defended him to friends and coworkers and he made a fool of all of those who beleived him and trusted him.

I felt the ridicule he was subjected to and the stain on his legacy was punishment enough for:

a) cheating on his wife
b) lying to the American people

Oh, and no one died.

instead he got:

c) impeached

BUSH

Bush used his speeches and his staff to carefully construct a case against Iraq. He could look into the cameras and say things that weren't true, but were technically not lies, either. Most Americans trusted these blunt and straightforward accusations carried no "technical" (gotcha!) strings (I did not). Were I a Republican, I would feel especially and personally betrayed by this deception. I would feel used, because I placed my trust in a man who showed no respect for that trust.

So far, he has recieved no reprimand except for the wide and nearly unanimous international disapproval.

I feel he hasn't been punished enough for:

a) causing the deaths of well over 10,000 people, inlcuding 1,000 Americans.

b) lying to the American people

instead, he gets:

c) re-elected?

he could have just copy and pasted that giant article to these boards and said "here is what I believe", but instead he linked us to it and said "here is what I believe". Same difference.

No, you had a choice to click the link. That's the difference. I've already read it, so didn't need to see it again; his post didn't waste my time.

[Bobcat37]

instead, he gets:

c) re-elected?

We can only hope ;)

By the way, at least a majority of the senate (including John Kery) didn't vote to approve Clinton's lying before he did it, unlike with Bush and the Iraq war! (btw, don't twist my statement, I'm not saying Bush lied, you know what I mean, lol...)

No, you had a choice to click the link. That's the difference. I've already read it, so didn't need to see it again; his post didn't waste my time.

Ah ok, so there is ONE difference... but it's still a slight one.

[pseudobrit]

We can only hope ;)

By the way, at least a majority of the senate (including John Kery) didn't vote to approve Clinton's lying before he did it, unlike with Bush and the Iraq war! (btw, don't twist my statement, I'm not saying Bush lied, you know what I mean, lol...)

Still a cop-out by Bush. He used bully pulpit and a Republican majority coupled with his "technically not lies" lies to further remove culpability from his own hide. It's also why he sent Colin Powell to the UN floor to make that ridiculous presentation. It's also why he's given the fewest press conferences of any modern President.

If Clinton had gotten Congressional approval to lie (while technically not lying) to the American people, would he be less guilty of lying?

but it's still a slight one.

zim stated his opinion, then provided the link with facts to back it up. Textbook example of proper form.

[blackfox]

We can only hope ;)

By the way, at least a majority of the senate (including John Kery) didn't vote to approve Clinton's lying before he did it, unlike with Bush and the Iraq war! (btw, don't twist my statement, I'm not saying Bush lied, you know what I mean, lol...)

Now there is two ways to look at the lies of Clinton and those of Bush.

One way, is on principle. That they both misled the American Public and abused the trust of their Office. In this way, I find both equally guilty.

The other way involves the addition of the elements of context and effects of those actions.

For Clinton, who's Presidency was actually quite a success on substantive issues (to Conservatives too, I might add), enjoyed a high popularity rate and then made a poor choice. He cheated on his wife and when exposed he maneuvered around the truth in such a way as to mislead the Public, demean himself and the Office of President, his wife, and abuse the Nation's trust. There did not need to be a vote on the validity of his statements regarding the issue, as it was not a relevant issue to necessitate a vote in Congress. Besides, an impeachment vote is fairly analgous if you insist on a comparison. Clinton probably caused damage to his reputation, that of his wife and of the Democratic Party. No - one was hurt, the world was no different. The French probably approved.

For Bush, who's Presidency began with controversy, who had declining approval ratings up till 9/11 also made a poor choice when he chose to maneuver the truth in such a way to mislead the Public, divide the Nation and fundamentally alter the character of America's Foreign Policy. He to abused the Nation's trust. There was indeed a vote on his decision to go to war, but it was a vote in a republican-controlled Congress, in a fearful nation who believed what the Administration had told them. The effects of this have included a costly occupation, 1000 american deaths, an alienation of our traditional allies, a galvanization of Islamic resistance, and an increased number of terrorists to combat. The costs of the War, both in manpower and dollars have also crippled our Nations' flexibility ion dealing with other important issues, from adequate Funding of Homeland Security, to the plight of States with budget deficits, the over-extension of the military making us unable to respond to potential new threats abroad, and a Federal Budget Deficit among others...

The point being Bush misleading us (although perhaps not entirely intentional) has exacted a much larger real cost to America and Americans than Clinton's indiscretions and subsequent misdirections...

[zimv20]

i'm going to use the hersh october 2003 article (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?031027fa_fact) to dispute your claim that, about iraq intelligence:
President Bush had no reason to doubt its validity at that point in time

your argument, from what i understand, is that bush got his intel from the CIA and was a slave to its accuracy. let's see how mr hersh's research compares to that view.

first, the adminstration, before 9/11, put in motion its own intelligence gathering apparatus.

In interviews with present and former intelligence officials, I was told that some senior Administration people, soon after coming to power, had bypassed the government’s customary procedures for vetting intelligence.


the problem w/ intelligence, of course, is that it's never in black and white. i can only imagine how difficult analysis must be, and how much practice and experience count. is it fair, then, to assume a newly created analysis unit will be effective out of the gate?

A retired C.I.A. officer described for me some of the questions that would normally arise in vetting: “Does dramatic information turned up by an overseas spy square with his access, or does it exceed his plausible reach? How does the agent behave? Is he on time for meetings?” The vetting process is especially important when one is dealing with foreign-agent reports—sensitive intelligence that can trigger profound policy decisions. In theory, no request for action should be taken directly to higher authorities—a process known as “stovepiping”—without the information on which it is based having been subjected to rigorous scrutiny.


it is this stovepiping that mr hersh finds troublesome. rather than submit each bit of intelligence to disinterested scrutiny, the "juicier bits" (which we know now chalabi had a hand in creating specificially for wolfowitz and those of his mindset) were passed directly to the administration and, i fear, not scrutinized.

Greg Thielmann, after being turned away from Bolton’s office, worked with the INR staff on a major review of Iraq’s progress in developing W.M.D.s. The review, presented to Secretary of State Powell in December, 2001, echoed the earlier I.A.E.A. findings. According to Thielmann, “It basically said that there is no persuasive evidence that the Iraqi nuclear program is being reconstituted.”

The defectors, however, had an audience prepared to believe the worst. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld had long complained about the limits of American intelligence. In the late nineteen-nineties, for example, he had chaired a commission on ballistic-missile programs that criticized the unwillingness of intelligence analysts “to make estimates that extended beyond the hard evidence they had in hand.” After he became Secretary of Defense, a separate intelligence unit was set up in the Pentagon’s policy office, under the control of William Luti, a senior aide to Feith. This office, which circumvented the usual procedures of vetting and transparency, stovepiped many of its findings to the highest-ranking officials.


but the administration went further, keeping this intelligence close to its chest. not only did they favor it, it seems they didn't want the CIA to get a look at it to potentially dismiss it.

As the campaign against Iraq intensified, a former aide to Cheney told me, the Vice-President’s office, run by his chief of staff, Lewis (Scooter) Libby, became increasingly secretive when it came to intelligence about Iraq’s W.M.D.s. As with Wolfowitz and Bolton, there was a reluctance to let the military and civilian analysts on the staff vet intelligence.

“It was an unbelievably closed and small group,” the former aide told me. Intelligence procedures were far more open during the Clinton Administration, he said, and professional staff members had been far more involved in assessing and evaluating the most sensitive data. “There’s so much intelligence out there that it’s easy to pick and choose your case,” the former aide told me. “It opens things up to cherry-picking.” (“Some reporting is sufficiently sensitive that it is restricted only to the very top officials of the government—as it should be,” Cathie Martin said. And any restrictions, she added, emanate from C.I.A. security requirements.)


when the CIA looked at the iraqi nuclear threat, it was divided. again, the WH grabbed only what it wanted. i have to wonder if it was this WH version of the perceived nuclear threat that Congress heard. and, at this point, did the WH actually press the CIA to do its bidding?

The C.I.A. assessment reflected both deep divisions within the agency and the position of its director, George Tenet, which was far from secure. (The agency had been sharply criticized, after all, for failing to provide any effective warning of the September 11th attacks.) In the view of many C.I.A. analysts and operatives, the director was too eager to endear himself to the Administration hawks and improve his standing with the President and the Vice-President. Senior C.I.A. analysts dealing with Iraq were constantly being urged by the Vice-President’s office to provide worst-case assessments on Iraqi weapons issues. “They got pounded on, day after day,” one senior Bush Administration official told me, and received no consistent backup from Tenet and his senior staff. “Pretty soon you say ‘**** it.’” And they began to provide the intelligence that was wanted.


i had always suspected that bush had, before even being sworn in, made up his mind to go to war w/ iraq. that makes his administration's less than disinterested analysis of intelligence quite suspect, imo. and mr hersh adds some evidence to my suspicions:

By early March, 2002, a former White House official told me, it was understood by many in the White House tha the President had decided, in his own mind, to go to war. The undeclared decision had a devastating impact on th continuing struggle against terrorism. The Bush Administration took many intelligence operations that had bee aimed at Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups around the world and redirected them to the Persian Gulf. Linguists an special operatives were abruptly reassigned, and several ongoing anti-terrorism intelligence programs were curtailed.


of course, the administration now had to make its case. it had already made up its mind, it was looking for the intelligence to convince Congress, the american people and the UNSC that an invasion was not only necessary, but urgent. enter chalabi...

Chalabi’s defector reports were now flowing from the Pentagon directly to the Vice-President’s office, and then on to the President, with little prior evaluation by intelligence professionals. When INR analysts did get a look at the reports, they were troubled by what they found. “They’d pick apart a report and find out that the source had been wrong before, or had no access to the information provided,” Greg Thielmann told me. “There was considerable skepticism throughout the intelligence community about the reliability of Chalabi’s sources, but the defector reports were coming all the time. Knock one down and another comes along. Meanwhile, the garbage was being shoved straight to the President.”

A routine settled in: the Pentagon’s defector reports, classified “secret,” would be funnelled to newspapers, but subsequent C.I.A. and INR analyses of the reports—invariably scathing but also classified—would remain secret.

“It became a personality issue,” a Pentagon consultant said of the Bush Administration’s handling of intelligence. “My fact is better than your fact. The whole thing is a failure of process. Nobody goes to primary sources.” The intelligence community was in full retreat.


and the selling began:

On August 7th, Vice-President Cheney, speaking in California, said of Saddam Hussein, “What we know now, from various sources, is that he . . . continues to pursue a nuclear weapon.” On August 26th, Cheney suggested that Saddam had a nuclear capability that could directly threaten “anyone he chooses, in his own region or beyond.” He added that the Iraqis were continuing “to pursue the nuclear program they began so many years ago.” On September 8th, he told a television interviewer, “We do know, with absolute certainty, that he is using his procurement system to acquire the equipment he needs in order to enrich uranium to build a nuclear weapon.” The President himself, in his weekly radio address on September 14th, stated, “Saddam Hussein has the scientists and infrastructure for a nuclear-weapons program, and has illicitly sought to purchase the equipment needed to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon.” There was no confirmed intelligence for the President’s assertion.


In a television interview on September 8th, Condoleezza Rice, the national-security adviser, addressing questions about the strength of the Administration’s case against Iraq, said, “We don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud”—a formulation that was taken up by hawks in the Administration. And, in a speech on October 7th, President Bush said, “Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof—the smoking gun—that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.”


so, the question is: was the bush administration really a victim of bad intelligence from the CIA, and can that be used to forgive bush of any responsibility for invading iraq on bad intelligence?

[Colirio]

The entire post you just made though is what I already alluded to in my previous post. That is that your case against President Bush is based upon circumstantial evidence and speculation. As I ALREADY pointed out, though, even IF President Bush pushed and twisted the evidence to be able to make a case, British intelligence found the exact same thing! That would simply justify the case he was making! There still would have been no reason to oppose him as the Democrats have done.

Do I believe that President Bush planned to take action against Iraq upon entering office? Yes. Whether or not that action would have been the course we did end up taking remains to be proven. September 11th obviously changed our policies regarding these matters.

Under President Clinton, John Kerry, Tom Daschle, and many other liberals in congress URGED the president to take action against Iraq. As soon as President Bush entered office, though, they instead attacked his decisions and have attempted to undermine his actions since the beginning. Now, why is it that I bring this up?

Because this is nothing but a political game in attacking President Bush.

No matter how many recounts President Bush won during the election time, it was still claimed as a "controversy" in Florida.

From the day he took office the economy was reported as dropping when in truth it was dropping the last two years of President Clinton's term. Yet, President Bush received the blame.

At the time of September 11th everybody claimed to stand together unified in purpose. Then, a year before election time there was a 9/11 Commission started in which Democrats have been constantly trying to find a way to blame President Bush in retrospect of the events. (Much like how they claim Bush was trying to find a way to blame Saddam for things.)

Then, in spite of having urged President Clinton to take action against Iraq, many Democrats have fought President Bush in his decisions to invade Iraq. Their position was that he didn't have WMD when our intelligence and British intelligence showed differently. Then, when we actually have FOUND several canisters of WMD, these were disregarded as being "too little, too late."

Then, the economy improved and has kept improving. But, rather than give credit (whereas they had put the blame on him previously) to President Bush they instead proclaimed a loss of jobs.

Then, more jobs were created, but, the issue died rather than giving credit where blame was previously placed.

Then, the president was blamed for rising gas prices and was told that he should get those prices under control. Now that the prices have dropped again, is there any credit given to the president where the blame was previously placed?

Nothing but a political game. The same one that Democrats have been playing since before President Bush was even elected. I understand completely that my post will not change anyone's mind on this issue, but, I hope everyone understands that I do see these attacks against the president for what they really are.

[zimv20]

iow, as long as you can find a motive in my statements, bush is off the hook. again, nice.

regarding the brits "finding the same intelligence," that's a misnomer. perhaps you're saying they came to the same conclusions, but you can't pretend that that happened in a vacuum. there were misgivings in the british intelligence agencies, just as there were here, but blair eventually agreed w/ bush. i don't think one can reasonably conclude from that that the intelligence must be good. the proof, after all, is what was found -- or not -- on the ground. seems a lot of people are forgetting how certain the intelligence was, and how we "knew" exactly where to find WMD.

also, have a look at how much trouble blair is in now, and how angry the MPs are. at least the shoddy intelligence analysis done there has some repurcussions. here, i'm not sure the buck is required to stop at all.

[toontra]

Their position was that he didn't have WMD when our intelligence and British intelligence showed differently. Then, when we actually have FOUND several canisters of WMD, these were disregarded as being "too little, too late."

Exactly what "WMD" are you referring to? Link please. Once I have seen the evidence I will be able to say "too little, too late" perhaps.

You really shouldn't try the reverse psychology of using "intelligence" from us Brits for supporting the case for the invasion. In reality it was pressure from the Bush administration both on his own intelligence departments and those of his foreign allies which resulted in the garbage used to justify war. To claim that this was independently, methodically and balanced intelligence gathering by anyone, including the Brits, is quite frankly nonsense.

At the very least, it has been shown in the Butler report here that serious misgivings about their being WMD in Iraq were somehow mysteriously removed from published reports. Had these been made public, the case for immediate military action (as opposed to letting Blix finish his survey) wouldn't have gained the political or public support necessary.

[skunk]

You really shouldn't try the reverse psychology of using "intelligence" from us Brits for supporting the case for the invasion. In reality it was pressure from the Bush administration both on his own intelligence departments and those of his foreign allies which resulted in the garbage used to justify war. To claim that this was independently, methodically and balanced intelligence gathering by anyone, including the Brits, is quite frankly nonsense.
Well put.

[Colirio]

iow, as long as you can find a motive in my statements, bush is off the hook. again, nice.

LOL!

I said that the evidence you had given was circumstantial. Just because there is an accusation doesn't mean it's the truth.

Why is saying that British intelligence came to the same conclusions such a "misnomer" and how is it usuing reverse pychology? :confused: British intelligence had formulated the same conclusions that the US intelligence had at the time. Why would that not give us all the more reason to conclude that ours was correct? And to say that ritish intelligence was forced by Bush as well as US intelligence is once again just speculation. There is nothing to back up your claims.

Here's some WMD that was found. No, it isn't stockpiles, BUT it does prove that there was WMD there that was unaccounted for. I guess Saddam must have just "forgotten" about these when he was complying with UN resolutions... :rolleyes:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html
(I used FOX news as a link since I know you guys love it! :p )

http://www.spacewar.com/2004/040701191420.y8k05i9n.html

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/6/25/114037.shtml

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0%2C%2C2-10-1460_1397233%2C00.html

[skunk]

Why is saying that British intelligence came to the same conclusions such a "misnomer" and how is it usuing reverse pychology? :confused: British intelligence had formulated the same conclusions that the US intelligence had at the time. Why would that not give us all the more reason to conclude that ours was correct? And to say that ritish intelligence was forced by Bush as well as US intelligence is once again just speculation. There is nothing to back up your claims.
See Toontra's post above.

[Sayhey]

(I used FOX news as a link since I know you guys love it! :p )


As a brand new member in these forums what do you know about what we guys love? Or are you just returning under a new name? Wasn't our recently banned usmcdiorio from Colorado? If you really are new, then welcome and get to know us before you say what "we guys love."

[Bobcat37]

A) He's not from Colorado, I am, and he's not a recently banned member. Nice try though guys, I know you're just dying to ban another conservative ;)

B) I've personally never met a liberal on a message board that likes Fox News, and Colirio probably hasn't either. Everytime I list fox news as a source for a liberal, they tell me it is conservatively-biased garbage, and brush it off. If you guys aren't like that, then great. If you are... that's a pity :(

Was he stereotyping? Yeah basically... but from my experiences seems to be a dang accurate one. Again, I do hope it doesn't apply here, but I'm not going to get my hopes up... Fox really is a good news organization, heh!

[Sayhey]

A) He's not from Colorado, I am, and he's not a recently banned member. Nice try though guys, I know you're just dying to ban another conservative ;)

B) I've personally never met a liberal on a message board that likes Fox News, and Colirio probably hasn't either. Everytime I list fox news as a source for a liberal, they tell me it is conservatively-biased garbage, and brush it off. If you guys aren't like that, then great. If you are... that's a pity :(

Was he stereotyping? Yeah basically... but from my experiences it's a dang accurate one. Again, I hope it doesn't apply here, but I'm not going to get my hopes up...

Bobcat,

I wasn't aware that you were the only member from Colorado. Nor even the only conservative member from Colorado. I was only commenting on the seeming similarity between usmcdioro and our brand new member, Colirio. Perhaps an amalgamation of names and places? His posting style is also very similar. Now, I like all the new members we can get, from whatever their political perspectives (welcome, by the way,) but I also like folks who can follow the forum rules and respect each other. If Colirio is not who I think he is, then great! We need all the new members we can get. Thanks for the advice. ;)

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=81060&page=3&pp=25&highlight=usmcdiorio

[Bobcat37]

Thanks for the welcome :)

And trust me, you guys can IP check him, but he's not an old member... it is funny though that that old member's named ended in "rio" like "Colirio"... but that's just an odd coincidence O_o

PS- I think Durandal said he was from CO, so that makes 2 of us. As for the banned "Perci Mac" he said he was from CO, but did not reside here presently. He said that somewhere in the Moore topic if ya wanna verify.

[zimv20]

it is funny though that that old member's named ended in "rio" like "Colirio"... but that's just an odd coincidence
you assert that w/ quite a bit of certainty

[pseudobrit]

you assert that w/ quite a bit of certainty

kinda what I was thinking... hmm.

You guys know each other from elsewhere? (colirio & bobcat)

[toontra]

kinda what I was thinking... hmm.

You guys know each other from elsewhere? (colirio & bobcat)

Strange how both these new members joined within hours of each other, are from different states but claim to know each other's personal details, and are backing up each other's arguments. What's going on here?

New members of whatever viewpoint (as long as it's civil and reasoned) are welcome but I'm getting tired of the revolving door of past (sometimes banned) members re-appearing.

PS. voltron has been quiet recently. I've been away for a couple of months - did anyone upset him/her?

[zimv20]

PS. voltron has been quiet recently. I've been away for a couple of months - did anyone upset him/her?
he lost it one day, called someone an ass, iirc. that was his second banning, then he tried coming back several times under different names and kept getting banned. i'm not convinced he's gone for good.

[Sayhey]

Thanks for the welcome :)

And trust me, you guys can IP check him, but he's not an old member... it is funny though that that old member's named ended in "rio" like "Colirio"... but that's just an odd coincidence O_o

PS- I think Durandal said he was from CO, so that makes 2 of us. As for the banned "Perci Mac" he said he was from CO, but did not reside here presently. He said that somewhere in the Moore topic if ya wanna verify.

Perci Mac and the poster in question are the same person. Somebody is playing games around here, care to check the IP address, Rower?

PS - Nobody has a bone to pick with Durandal, who is a respected voice in these forums. Hope you make it to the same status, Bobcat.

[zimv20]

Perci Mac and the poster in question are the same person. Somebody is playing games around here, care to check the IP address, Rower?
rower's on honeymoon duty, i believe. report it and Doctor Q will look into it.

[pseudobrit]

Somebody is playing games around here

No kidding. I've heard the innocent, "who me? I'm just an innocent nobody who wandered into a Mac forum's political section one day out of the blue" from the re-enlisted before.

I wonder what ovi/sanfelipe/bond has been up to?

[Bobcat37]

Perci Mac and the poster in question are the same person. Somebody is playing games around here, care to check the IP address, Rower?

*sigh*

I already said, check the IP address...

Even though it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out, Colirio is my friend... OMG, I hope that is allowed here...

I wasn't going to declare it all over the boards, but once you guys started questioning his validity (and threatening with a ban), I figured I better speak up and clarify that he is a BRAND NEW MEMEBER

I thought he would like it here since there are plenty of people to the left of the spectrum. When we get bored we like debating polticis with people, we're both pretty passionate (Colirio doesn't even own a freakin Mac, he just likes politics). :rolleyes:

So anyway, I hope I was allowed to tell someone else about these boards... that's not a crime here too is it, now can we just get back to debating in peace? :)

[skunk]

*sigh*

I already said, check the IP address...

Even though it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out, Colirio is my friend... OMG, I hope that is allowed here...

I wasn't going to declare it all over the boards, but once you guys started questioning his validity (and threatening with a ban), I figured I better speak up and clarify that he is a BRAND NEW MEMEBER

I thought he would like it here since there are plenty of people to the left of the spectrum. When we get bored we like debating polticis with people, we're both pretty passionate (Colirio doesn't even own a freakin Mac, he just likes politics). :rolleyes:

So anyway, I hope I was allowed to tell someone else about these boards... that's not a crime here too is it, now can we just get back to debating in peace? :)
You're both very welcome!

[Colirio]

LOL!!!

Yeah, you can check my IP address if you wish. Bobcat and I are friends from other forums and he invited me here.

If you can't tell from my first few posts, I prefer to remain very friendly and civil and would like to have some great political debates with you guys! I have found that debating with others not only helps a person be more informed of the ideals of those who have opposing views, but, having to question your own beliefs generally tends to strengthen them.

Colirio - The nickname my old old martial arts master gave me. It means "visine" in Portuguese. :)

And I just said that FOX news comment because as Bobcat stated, most liberals tend to refer to FOX news as being very conservative. I assumed you guys were liberals, but, even if I assumed too much, it was just a joke. :p

[takao]

And I just said that FOX news comment because as Bobcat stated, most liberals tend to refer to FOX news as being very conservative. I assumed you guys were liberals, but, even if I assumed too much, it was just a joke. :p

well it all depends on scale... you have always to keep in mind internationality of this forums
for the USA FOX might be central-conservative leaning..here it would have problems distancing it self from the right end (does FOX actually own a TV station in the german market ? i don't think so ...but i'm not sure)

[toontra]

I have found that debating with others not only helps a person be more informed of the ideals of those who have opposing views, but, having to question your own beliefs generally tends to strengthen them.

Agreed, and welcome.


Bobcat and I are friends from other forums and he invited me here.

Understood. I would feel uneasy, however, if friends with the same viewpoint were to join a forum and act as a tag team, rather than independent, open-minded and individual posters (not saying you would!).

If you think that I (and others) am being a touch paranoid about this new member thing, there is a history of "new" members joining this forum and, within a short period of time, trolling. When that happens the whole forum degenerates to the point where no-one wants to visit any more!

[Colirio]

Well, I can understand you guys' concerns about it and that's why I posted. I see the same things on other forums and frankly it's annoying when banned people keep making a nuisance of themselves.

Bobcat and I generally do have the same views on things, but, there are certain places where we disagree and many other places where we will be more interested in different features of certain topics. So, I doubt you'll see any repeated posts and the like from us.

Thanks for the welcome guys!

Oh, and, even though I don't USE a Mac, I used to troubleshoot the AOL software for Mac users and so I at least understand how superior they are! ;)

[skunk]

Oh, and, even though I don't USE a Mac, I used to troubleshoot the AOL software for Mac users and so I at least understand how superior they are! ;)
Perhaps surprisingly, you are not alone here in not using a Mac. But we won't hold it against you....

[Sayhey]

Perhaps surprisingly, you are not alone here in not using a Mac. But we won't hold it against you....

Well .... I wouldn't go quite that far! ;)

We may try to convince you to make your next purchase a mac - but don't hold that against us. This is, after all is said and done, a very pro mac site.

[skunk]

This is, after all is said and done, a very pro mac site.
Maybe in other Fora, but here they're hardly mentioned, except in the strangely obsessive and, to me, pointless discussions of the candidates' own computing preferences. I don't care if you use a Sinclair ZX80, as long as the debate is stimulating. :)

[blackfox]

...snip... I don't care if you use a Sinclair ZX80, as long as the debate is stimulating. :)
Now that is out of the mainstream...(you liberals and your Sinclairs...)

[Sayhey]

Maybe in other Fora, but here they're hardly mentioned, except in the strangely obsessive and, to me, pointless discussions of the candidates' own computing preferences. I don't care if you use a Sinclair ZX80, as long as the debate is stimulating. :)

skunk, I was just joking. Most of us are interested in the other forums*, but there are some contributors here that have never contributed to the many mac threads, 'Rat springs to mind, and are welcomed. The new members are no exception. Doesn't mean we can't chide the apostates among us.

* love the use of "fora" but it is extremely old style - unless we are posting in latin. :eek:

[skunk]

skunk, I was just joking. Most of us are interested in the other forums*, but there are some contributors here that have never contributed to the many mac threads, 'Rat springs to mind, and are welcomed. The new members are no exception. Doesn't mean we can't chide the apostates among us.
I'm all for a little chiding...

* love the use of "fora" but it is extremely old style - unless we are posting in latin. :eek:
Well, excuse ME! :D
Scusatemi!
Mille fois pardon!

[Neserk]

c) re-elected?

.

God forbid! Don't even joke about that ;)