So the intelligence was wrong...

[Gav]

BBC covers Dubya's recent comments:

Originally Posted by BBC News Online

Bush takes on Iraqi war critics
I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq. And I'm also responsible for fixing what went wrong by reforming our intelligence capabilities. And we're doing just that," Mr Bush said.

'Pure politics'

The president insisted that US troops would stay in Iraq until the country's forces were sufficiently well trained to fully take over security duties.


Freedom in Iraq will inspire reformers from Damascus to Tehran
President Bush
A stable Iraq was in the interests of both the Iraqi and American people, he said.

And he accused critics in Washington, many of whom had originally supported the decision to invade, of playing "pure politics".

He said: "Victory will be achieved by meeting certain objectives: when the terrorists and Saddamists can no longer threaten Iraq's democracy, when the Iraqi security forces can protect their own people, and when Iraq is not a safe haven for terrorists to plot attacks against our country.

"These objectives, not timetables set by politicians in Washington, will drive our force levels in Iraq."

He concluded by saying that Iraq was becoming "a strong democracy" that would "inspire reformers from Damascus to Tehran".

Mr Bush's address follows earlier speeches on the Iraqi poll and the military and economic situation in the country.

Letter

A USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll released on Wednesday suggests 59% of Americans disapprove of Mr Bush's handling of the Iraq war.


HAVE YOUR SAY
Every intelligence agency in the world thought that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction
Richard T Ketchum, USA

Send us your comments
Ahead of the speech, in the Senate, 40 Democrats and one independent signed a letter to the president in which they urge him to be more frank with the Iraqi and American public.

The administration, the letter says, should "tell the leaders of all groups and political parties in Iraq that they need to make the compromises necessary to achieve the broad-based and sustainable political settlement that is essential for defeating the insurgency in Iraq within the schedule they set for themselves".

It adds that Mr Bush must set out "a plan that identifies the remaining political, economic, and military benchmarks that must be met and a reasonable schedule to achieve them".

Feel free to discuss...

[JackOfHearts]

I remember newspaper articles in the times questioning the validity of the intelligence before the invasion even began. I think I may still have those clippings, I'll look for them when I get back from work.

[jeff]

Quite a shell game. The rationale for the war is ever-changing.

Ironic, but pre-war Iraq was stable, anti-Iran, and opposed to allowing Islamic fundamentalists any power. Yes, that regime was totally evil, but it was secular and had no interest in sharing power with Islamists or Osama, or provoking an invasion from the US.

Certainly the intelligence agencies all thought there were WMD in Iraq - depending on what year and month that question was put to them. Blaming intelligence agencies is not the point: it was the selective quoting of intelligence agencies to the public that was the sin: the administration hyped the evidence that implied WMD, even when that evidence was discredited by the intelligence agencies, and kept silent on evidence against their being WMD. The full intelligence story was kept in the administration and not shared with the Congress, let alone with the American people who had to be sold the invasion.

The most Orwellian part is the double-speak accusation of "pure politics" - this coming from the man who for the past 4 years has wrapped himself in the flag, portrayed himself as "top gun" (remember the aircraft carrier landing and the so-called "spontaneous" banners showed on TV?), and equated 9/11 with Iraq.

[ReverseLunge]

Hey morons,

There was no mistake. You have to be stupid if you think we really need an excuse to do anything we want. Our objective was and is to destroy all defiance in the middle east and take all the oil. I don’t know if you all realize this, but the good Lord has given us the technology to kill folks without destroying His precious oil fields.

[Fechter1]

I know RL was just trying to be a troll, but you'd be surprised how many people around the world believe what he wrote to be representative of the American people's beliefs...

Scary, huh?

[gojujay]

Originally Posted by jeff

Quite a shell game. The rationale for the war is ever-changing.

Ironic, but pre-war Iraq was stable, anti-Iran, and opposed to allowing Islamic fundamentalists any power. Yes, that regime was totally evil, but it was secular and had no interest in sharing power with Islamists or Osama, or provoking an invasion from the US.

So, the enemy of our enemy is NOT our friend...

Originally Posted by jeff

Certainly the intelligence agencies all thought there were WMD in Iraq - depending on what year and month that question was put to them. Blaming intelligence agencies is not the point: it was the selective quoting of intelligence agencies to the public that was the sin: the administration hyped the evidence that implied WMD, even when that evidence was discredited by the intelligence agencies, and kept silent on evidence against their being WMD. The full intelligence story was kept in the administration and not shared with the Congress, let alone with the American people who had to be sold the invasion.

The most Orwellian part is the double-speak accusation of "pure politics" - this coming from the man who for the past 4 years has wrapped himself in the flag, portrayed himself as "top gun" (remember the aircraft carrier landing and the so-called "spontaneous" banners showed on TV?), and equated 9/11 with Iraq.

I guess it all comes down to... it was HIS decision to make. Congress, under BOTH parties has ever tried to usurp the Executive Branch's powers, and I view a lot of their actions as de facto interference in a separate branch's bailiwick. To be fair, the other two branches play the same game and the Fourth Estate makes money off the whole production (under the guise of being impartial).

Was the intel faulty? Some of it was, some of it wasn't. Oh no, mistakes were made. The guilty must pay. Who's guilty? Whoever is in a political party in opposition to mine!! Nigerian yellow-cake, Abel Danger(sp?), whose mistake was greater? The Opposition's!!!!

[Furry]

There is a Pentagon document from early 2001 about WMD, it pretty clearly said that Saddam COULD have some weapons but likely did not, and would not have the capability to have them without a great deal of foreign assistance.

The intelligence was clearly faulty if you looked at it hard enough, but the debate around the war was whipped into such a frenzy so quickly with so much sabre rattling (on all sides), that tragically we have this conflict that on the whole will likely turn out to be the right decision, but was born of this deceit rather than the legitimate ideological questions that should have been discussed.

[Epee_Pox]

So basically, they've concluded that the intel they relied on was incorrect. No indication that there was any purposeful deceit involved, just incorrect data that was relied on when making the decisions. Nothing really astounding here.

And the mission has been successful, and worthy. Not news to anyone who's been paying attention.

It's nice to see the White House starting to speak up for its actions in recent weeks, for a change. They've done a terrible job tooting their own horn, probably from a misguided attempt to appear "above it all," and seem to have finally realized that they'd better get started because most of the press aren't likely to do it for them.

[jeff]

Originally Posted by gojujay

So, the enemy of our enemy is NOT our friend...

You would think we would figure that out by now, considering that the guys that are Taliban now are people we were supporting when the Soviet Union occupied Afghanistan.

Originally Posted by gojujay

I guess it all comes down to... it was HIS decision to make. Congress, under BOTH parties has ever tried to usurp the Executive Branch's powers, and I view a lot of their actions as de facto interference in a separate branch's bailiwick. To be fair, the other two branches play the same game and the Fourth Estate makes money off the whole production (under the guise of being impartial).

Was the intel faulty? Some of it was, some of it wasn't. Oh no, mistakes were made. The guilty must pay. Who's guilty? Whoever is in a political party in opposition to mine!! Nigerian yellow-cake, Abel Danger(sp?), whose mistake was greater? The Opposition's!!!!

The intel was faulty, but it was manipulated and selectively quoted to make a case that even the faulty intel didn't make. For "who's fault?", that's a question of accountability for a war that was unnecessary. Pointing at the opposition is irrelevant, as it wasn't the case they insisted on, nor did they have the full intel. Accountability lies where it must - at the Administration's doorstep. Which part of "The Buck Stops Here" no longer applies?

[achilleus]

Originally Posted by Epee_Pox

So basically, they've concluded that the intel they relied on was incorrect. No indication that there was any purposeful deceit involved, just incorrect data that was relied on when making the decisions. Nothing really astounding here.

I think the news is that Bush finally admits error and claims responsibility. Something he has been loathe to do during his presidency.

Otherwise, you're right. We all know there were no WMD's, and no smoking gun has been produced as to the manipulation of evidence.

Originally Posted by Epee_Pox

And the mission has been successful, and worthy. Not news to anyone who's been paying attention.

You have a strange definition of successful and worthy.

Originally Posted by Epee_Pox

It's nice to see the White House starting to speak up for its actions in recent weeks, for a change. They've done a terrible job tooting their own horn, probably from a misguided attempt to appear "above it all," and seem to have finally realized that they'd better get started because most of the press aren't likely to do it for them.

They've done a terrible job of tooting their own horn because there is very little to toot about. Should they toot about the erroneous intel? Lack of troops to do the job? How about the financial projections? Oh, I know they should toot their horn about FEMA being ready for the next terrorist attack/disaster.

[ReverseLunge]

Originally Posted by Fechter1

I know RL was just trying to be a troll, but you'd be surprised how many people around the world believe what he wrote to be representative of the American people's beliefs...

Scary, huh?

I'm not talking about the beliefs of the common people. The average citizen refuses to face the truth. Why do you think we entered WWII? Why do you think we were in Nam? Why do you think we were in South America andwhy do you think we are in the Middle East?

Profit.

Stop believing false stories.

I doesn't matter if there were WMD or not. We would have made up a different story.

All we wanted to do is go there and subjugate and subvert them and take whatever natural resources they have.

You dudes are losers because you don't live in reality.

[gojujay]

Originally Posted by jeff

You would think we would figure that out by now, considering that the guys that are Taliban now are people we were supporting when the Soviet Union occupied Afghanistan.

Originally Posted by jeff

The intel was faulty, but it was manipulated and selectively quoted to make a case that even the faulty intel didn't make. For "who's fault?", that's a question of accountability for a war that was unnecessary. Pointing at the opposition is irrelevant, as it wasn't the case they insisted on, nor did they have the full intel. Accountability lies where it must - at the Administration's doorstep. Which part of "The Buck Stops Here" no longer applies?

Like I said, it was HIS decision to make. All the blame, all the glory(?), can't have it both ways.

[gojujay]

Originally Posted by achilleus

You have a strange definition of successful and worthy.

Do you suffer from the singularly American disease of wanting results yesterday? We should have pulled out a long time ago?

Originally Posted by achilleus

They've done a terrible job of tooting their own horn because there is very little to toot about. Should they toot about the erroneous intel? Lack of troops to do the job? How about the financial projections? Oh, I know they should toot their horn about FEMA being ready for the next terrorist attack/disaster.

Damn it! You didn't do it PERFECTLY!!

[Slim]

Originally Posted by jeff

The intel was faulty, but it was manipulated and selectively quoted to make a case that even the faulty intel didn't make. For "who's fault?", that's a question of accountability for a war that was unnecessary. Pointing at the opposition is irrelevant, as it wasn't the case they insisted on, nor did they have the full intel. Accountability lies where it must - at the Administration's doorstep. Which part of "The Buck Stops Here" no longer applies?

This is starting to sound a whole lot like the tunes of "Selected Not Elected" and "Bush Stole the election".


On another topic, sorry to hear things arent going quite the way you may have hoped....

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20051215/D8EGR3JO3.html

[Slim]

Originally Posted by Epee_Pox

It's nice to see the White House starting to speak up for its actions in recent weeks, for a change. They've done a terrible job tooting their own horn, probably from a misguided attempt to appear "above it all," and seem to have finally realized that they'd better get started because most of the press aren't likely to do it for them.

I'll second that.

[achilleus]

Originally Posted by gojujay

Do you suffer from the singularly American disease of wanting results yesterday? We should have pulled out a long time ago?

Well, we should never have gone in, but it's way too late for that. Bush's admistration wants to (re)build a democratic Iraq to stabilize the region. We are far from successful. Currently it's a work in progress. Some say it's going well, some say it won't ever be done. To really evaluate it's success will take some time, l mean years. Until then, it's not a success. Unfortunately, Bush, in his ramp up to war never really said this, and gave the impression that that the whole incident would be wrapped up in months, without any financial issues...

Originally Posted by gojujay

Damn it! You didn't do it PERFECTLY!!

I would settle for doing it adequately. However, from the get go, it's been done poorly, from bad intel to inept planning.

[Gav]

Originally Posted by Slim

I'll second that.

Try this next time....state your predictable opinion ...FIRST. Then, its much easier for the usual suspects to chime in with their "Right on Slim!" or, "Great post Slim", or "You tell 'em Slim"*. That may scare us intellectual inferiors away and spare you the pain.

* Oh wait they don't.

[jeff]

Originally Posted by Slim

This is starting to sound a whole lot like the tunes of "Selected Not Elected" and "Bush Stole the election".

No it isn't. Do you have anything factual to rebut my statement?

Originally Posted by Slim

On another topic, sorry to hear things arent going quite the way you may have hoped....

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20051215/D8EGR3JO3.html

Don't accuse me of being anti-American, Slim, no matter how much that empties your list of rhetorical answers. I want us to be successful, and want Iraq to become a peaceful democracy. Neither of which has anything to do with condeming the administration for having misled us into the war in the first place. Don't you remember pre-election Bush coming out solidly against nation-building?