PDA

View Full Version : Bush lied? Not according to the Democrats....



PhinPhan1227
07-09-2004, 11:41 AM
..and Republicans who made up the Senate panel to investigate the matter. So now those who want to continue to throw around "lied", can add themselves to the ranks of imbeciles who still throw around "appointed".


"The report says U.S. intelligence analysts remained objective, but got careless, which may have led them to overestimate the threat Iraq posed to the United States, officials said. It also says U.S. officials relied too much on intelligence information from Iraqi dissidents and exiles who may have had their own agenda and didn't penetrate Saddam Hussein's inner circle effectively enough.


"The fact is, the administration, at all levels and to some extent, us [Congress], used bad information to bolster its case for war," Rockefeller said. "And we in Congress would not have authorized that war — we would not have authorized that war with 75 votes — if we knew what we know now."

"Leading up to Sept. 11, our government didn't connect the dots. In Iraq, we were even more culpable because the dots themselves never existed," Rockefeller continued.

But the committee concluded that intelligence analysts were not pressured to change or tailor their views to support arguments for the invasion of Iraq.

"I think it's important to know that the intelligence they gave was under their judgment — the right perception," Sen. John Corzine, D-N.J., told FOX News on Friday.

White House spokesman, Scott McClellan said the committee's report essentially "agrees with what we have said, which is we need to take steps to continue strengthening and reforming our intelligence capabilities so we are prepared to meet the new threats that we face in this day and age."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,125123,00.html

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/09/senate.intel.ap/index.html

DolFan31
07-09-2004, 12:07 PM
So it doesnt bother you that we invaded a country with false intelligence?

ohall
07-09-2004, 12:16 PM
So it doesnt bother you that we invaded a country with false intelligence?

Yup it sure does. It concerns me even more that both canidates had it so darn wrong. Bush is not alone in being caught up in a huge blunder by the worlds INTEL agencies. Know what I mean? I doubt you do, because you're too biased to admit Kerry made even more damning claims about Iraq and it's WMD programs than Bush #43 ever did. I won't even talk about what the TWO Clinton's had to say about Iraq and its WMD programs. And I sure as heck know you don't want to talk about Edwards either.

Oliver...

DolFan31
07-09-2004, 12:22 PM
Yup it sure does. It concerns me even more that both canidates had it so darn wrong. Bush is not alone in being caught up in a huge blunder by the worlds INTEL agencies. Know what I mean? I doubt you do, because you're too biased to admit Kerry made even more damning claims about Iraq and it's WMD programs than Bush #43 ever did. I won't even talk about what the TWO Clinton's had to say about Iraq and its WMD programs. And I sure as heck know you don't want to talk about Edwards either.

Oliver...

Both sides got it wrong. Can you believe that Congress doesnt even read most of the bills(specifically the Patriot Act), would you expect them to go over intelligence? Even Hillary said Iraq is a threat. At least the Democrats(some Republicans) can admit they got it wrong.

PhinPhan1227
07-09-2004, 12:51 PM
So it doesnt bother you that we invaded a country with false intelligence?

It bothers me greatly that the Intelligence was faulty. But there are a few mollifying factors here.

#1-We are fighting a VERY different kind of conflict from that which our Intelligence agaencies have been trained to fight. They were set up for Superpower vs Superpower conflict. They have to retool their thinking, and that takes time...it also will mean mistakes are made. And worst of all, changing it will be tough because NO beaurocracy wants to change.

#2-I think Bush was an idiot for laying the rationale of the invasion on WMD's. I firmly believe that the establishment of a stable Iraq could be the long term solution to terrorism. That isn't changed by this information.

#3-As a combination of the two...with better intelligence, the war itself probably would have been handled better.

Bottom line, Bush needs to fix what's broken. But it was broken when he got it, through no fault of his own, or even really Bill Clinton.

ohall
07-09-2004, 01:03 PM
Both sides got it wrong. Can you believe that Congress doesnt even read most of the bills(specifically the Patriot Act), would you expect them to go over intelligence? Even Hillary said Iraq is a threat. At least the Democrats(some Republicans) can admit they got it wrong.

Good then I don't want to see your baised POV that says it's all Bush #43's fault.

Oliver...

P4E
07-09-2004, 02:48 PM
So it doesnt bother you that we invaded a country with false intelligence?
These intelligence matters need to be addressed. I have been VERY impressed by the work of that committee, -- both sides. But to answer your specific question...

I would have supported the invasion of Iraq and overthrow of Saddam Hussein absent any evidence of WMD whatsoever.

P4E
07-09-2004, 03:10 PM
Can you believe that Congress doesnt even read most of the bills(specifically the Patriot Act), would you expect them to go over intelligence?
I've served as the lead majority staffer for several State Senate committees here in NJ. Even at this level, it is an absolute practical impossibility for legislators to read, in full, all of the text of legislation on which they are obligated to vote.

In deciding their votes, legislators rely heavily upon the analysis and/or recommendations of partisan and non-partisan staff, staff counsel and the opinions and recommendations of the committee chairman with specific expertise in the area of a given piece of legislation. They will also receive input directly from constituents, interest groups and lobbyists, of course, but IMO, these are less influential than fellow legislators and staff.

No one, but NO ONE, actually reads all the bills they vote on.

PhinPhan1227
07-09-2004, 03:15 PM
I've served as the lead majority staffer for several State Senate committees here in NJ. Even at this level, it is an absolute practical impossibility for legislators to read, in full, all of the text of legislation on which they are obligated to vote.

In deciding their votes, legislators rely heavily upon the analysis and/or recommendations of partisan and non-partisan staff, staff counsel and the opinions and recommendations of the committee chairman with specific expertise in the area of a given piece of legislation. They will also receive input directly from constituents, interest groups and lobbyists, of course, but IMO, these are less influential than fellow legislators and staff.

No one, but NO ONE, actually reads all the bills they vote on.


Compare it to a doctor. Think ANY doctor has read the full reports on almost any of the drugs he's prescribing? It would shock you if you knew how often the person in the pharmacy has to call the doctor back to explain that he just prescribed a medication which has negative interactions with the OTHER medication he just prescribed the same patient(my wife's a pharmacist). It's called information overload...one person just can't take it all in.