What? Bush didn't invade Iraq because of WMDs? (1 Viewer)

[aps]

He cherry-picked intelligence? I am shocked! :shock:

Ex-CIA Official Faults Use of Data on Iraq
Intelligence 'Misused' to Justify War, He Says

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, February 10, 2006; Page A01

The former CIA official who coordinated U.S. intelligence on the Middle East until last year has accused the Bush administration of "cherry-picking" intelligence on Iraq to justify a decision it had already reached to go to war, and of ignoring warnings that the country could easily fall into violence and chaos after an invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein.

Paul R. Pillar, who was the national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia from 2000 to 2005, acknowledges the U.S. intelligence agencies' mistakes in concluding that Hussein's government possessed weapons of mass destruction. But he said those misjudgments did not drive the administration's decision to invade.

"Official intelligence on Iraqi weapons programs was flawed, but even with its flaws, it was not what led to the war," Pillar wrote in the upcoming issue of the journal Foreign Affairs. Instead, he asserted, the administration "went to war without requesting -- and evidently without being influenced by -- any strategic-level intelligence assessments on any aspect of Iraq." . . .

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/09/AR2006020902418.html

Pillar must be some Bush hater who is trying to discredit the president. Just ignore this 28-year employee of the CIA. He's got an agenda. :lol:

 

[cnredd]

He cherry-picked intelligence? I am shocked! :shock:


Pillar must be some Bush hater who is trying to discredit the president. Just ignore this 28-year employee of the CIA. He's got an agenda. :lol:

Is that the whole case?...Somebody's assumption?...I'm pretty sure if you looked hard enough, you'll find some more that agree with him...

Let me ask you a question...

Does the Supreme Court always rule unanimously?...No it does not...When someone writes, "The Supreme Court ruled a certain way on something", It really means "The MAJORITY OF JUSTICES ruled a certain way on something."...Most of the time there is at least one justice dissenting...

Now that's just 9 people who are educated in making rulings and final statements...

How many is that multiplied when talking about an Administration and/or government officials?...Are you expecting unanimous decisions and unanimous thinking when it comes to every issue?...

Of COURSE you're going to find someone that doesn't agree with something, or makes accusations based on whatever he/she may think...I don't think you could find one issue in the world today where EVERY person agrees on something...

Why would you expect so much of any government action or discussion?...

I don't know the numbers, but what if GWB went up to 50 generals and asked if we should go to Iraq and got a response of 40-10?...Using those 10 as the reason we shouldn't is not only weak, but it negates the votes of the majority!...

Finding exceptions to the rule does not disqualify the rule itself...

 

[Hoot]

Why would you expect so much of any government action or discussion?...

I would expect a president to hesitate before taking our nation to war if he had conflicting intelligence about the need for war.

I would expect a president to allow the inspectors to finish their jobs, since they only asked for 3-6 more months, to verify if there are WMD in Iraq.

I would expect a president to not lie about aluminum tubes, chemical and biological and nuclear weapons, Al Qaeda's ties to Iraq, Iraq's ties to 9/11, and how easy it will be to create a democracy.

5 years ago, the best scholars of Islamic fundamentalism were writing books like..."The Failure of Political Islam." 5 years ago, the Iranian revolution was exhausted, and support for radical groups was falling from Egypt to Saudi Arabia to Algeria.

Now we have a resurgence of political Islam, along with the collapse of the Arab/Israeli peace process, the war on terror, the bloodshed in Iraq and Afghanistan...all of which has contributed to the rebirth of radical Islam and the belief that the U.S. is waging a war on Islam.

Is this all Bush's fault? I won't be that callous, but by his actions, he certainly takes a major portion of the responsibility.

 

[aps]

Is that the whole case?...Somebody's assumption?...I'm pretty sure if you looked hard enough, you'll find some more that agree with him...

Let me ask you a question...

Does the Supreme Court always rule unanimously?...No it does not...When someone writes, "The Supreme Court ruled a certain way on something", It really means "The MAJORITY OF JUSTICES ruled a certain way on something."...Most of the time there is at least one justice dissenting...

Now that's just 9 people who are educated in making rulings and final statements...

How many is that multiplied when talking about an Administration and/or government officials?...Are you expecting unanimous decisions and unanimous thinking when it comes to every issue?...

Of COURSE you're going to find someone that doesn't agree with something, or makes accusations based on whatever he/she may think...I don't think you could find one issue in the world today where EVERY person agrees on something...

Why would you expect so much of any government action or discussion?...

I don't know the numbers, but what if GWB went up to 50 generals and asked if we should go to Iraq and got a response of 40-10?...Using those 10 as the reason we shouldn't is not only weak, but it negates the votes of the majority!...

Finding exceptions to the rule does not disqualify the rule itself...

Hi cnredd. Wha's up? Well, when multiple CIA employees speak out against the intelligence used, it's hard to ignore the evidence they are putting forth. If one employee speaks out against the administration, then I might not give it much credibility. However, when employee after employee state the very same information, it's hard to ignore it. Further, their statements are corroborated by the fact that we haven't found WMDs. Let's not forget Wilkerson, who was Powell's Chief of Staff. He is a republican, and he has spoken out against this adminsitration, knowing that he would be black balled. Powell no longer speaks to him, and they were very close. He knew this would happen if he spoke his mind, but he said he had to. Thus, he had nothing to gain in speaking out against the administration, and, in fact, had lots to lose. There's Richard Clarke and Paul O'Neill also.

Too many people with similar findings regarding this administration and the intelligence used to take us into war. It's like Clinton. He denied having an affair with Gennifer Flowers. I believed him. However, when woman after woman came out and said he was a womanizer, it solidified Flowers's allegations.

 

[GarzaUK]

Hi cnredd. Wha's up?

I tell you what is up with him. No matter how much evidence is thrown against cnredd administration that they misled the public and congress, he won't listen. But to be fair he is not the only one with his fingers in his ears singing "la la la."

At first I found it funny, but now it has become alarming. :shock:

 

[Deegan]

I tell you what is up with him. No matter how much evidence is thrown against cnredd administration that they misled the public and congress, he won't listen. But to be fair he is not the only one with his fingers in his ears singing "la la la."

At first I found it funny, but now it has become alarming. :shock:

No, it's just too easy to be on the opposing side here, slinging mud, hoping it sticks, and all the while ignoring facts that are perfectly relevant. The president decided to go with the intelligence that said he had them because of what had just happened on 9/11, we could ill afford to be wrong. He also had governments from almost a dozen countries who thought the same thing, and the knowledge that Saddam had used them before. Now what about all of this is still "alarming" to you?

Did your country "mislead" us, did the Russians, did the Chinese, did the French? They were all apparently wrong, but the fact is we all thought they had them, and for good reason. A brutal dictator is in jail, and it's one less country that could possibly develop weapons in the future. Millions of people are free to choose their own way, and freedom is being felt for the first time in thousands of years there. It's only right that oldest civilization known to man, should be free, but don't let those facts stand in the way of your partisan agenda.:roll:

 

[cnredd]

I tell you what is up with him. No matter how much evidence is thrown against cnredd administration that they misled the public and congress, he won't listen. But to be fair he is not the only one with his fingers in his ears singing "la la la."

At first I found it funny, but now it has become alarming. :shock:

And no matter how much evidence is shown that Elvis is still alive I won't listen to them either...

Although I give the Elvis believers more credibility...:shrug:

 

[Befuddled_Stoner]

And no matter how much evidence is shown that Elvis is still alive I won't listen to them either...

Although I give the Elvis believers more credibility...:shrug:

That's alright, Redd. We're taking that into account, and modifying our opinions of you accordingly. :mrgreen:

I know its hard to give credence to those nutjob wackos who support such outlandish nonsense, but when so many become disaffected and start to declaim the duplicity they encountered on the job.....well, it makes ya wonder. Did any previous presidencies hemorrhage dissidents this badly, or are we setting records here?

 

[cnredd]

That's alright, Redd. We're taking that into account, and modifying our opinions of you accordingly. :mrgreen:

I know its hard to give credence to those nutjob wackos who support such outlandish nonsense, but when so many become disaffected and start to declaim the duplicity they encountered on the job.....well, it makes ya wonder. Did any previous presidencies hemorrhage dissidents this badly, or are we setting records here?

Any "records" set are based purely on the times...

Take any President...Now imagine how far worse they would appear if they had 24 hour news channels, internet weblogs, instant access articles and op-ed pieces, and the media's neverending appetite for style over substance...

Somebody resigns in Eisenhower's administration, it got a footnote on page 3 of your local paper...Somebody resigns in Bush's administration, it gets coverage every 20 minutes on multiple channels, partisan websites, and yes...even debate forums...

And don't forget the pundits who are more than happy to tell you what it all means...

For all we know, JFK's shiny armor could've been tarnished had he had to deal with Helen Thomas, Ann Coulter, Al Franken, Rush Limbaugh, and plenty of others...

GWB is the first President that has to deal with this in full force...

Sadly, he won't be the last...

 

[aquapub]

The multitude of urgent and valid reasons Bush cited for us needing to end the 12-year diplomacy charade and take out Saddam have been posted on this cite over and over again.

Yes, among them was WMD.

Yes, we DID watch him use them (hence, demonstrating that he would use them and that he did have them).

Yes, we did watch Saddam proudly and openly sponsor suicide bombers.

And no, just because Saddam got rid of his WMD over the months we debated (publicly and openly) about invading doesn't mean he never had them.

You guys really need a new shtick. Undermining every single common sense measure taken to protect this country while claiming to be patriotic and to care about the troops is getting boring.

 

[aps]

The multitude of urgent and valid reasons Bush cited for us needing to end the 12-year diplomacy charade and take out Saddam have been posted on this cite over and over again.

Yes, among them was WMD.

Yes, we DID watch him use them (hence, demonstrating that he would use them and that he did have them).

Yes, we did watch Saddam proudly and openly sponsor suicide bombers.

And no, just because Saddam got rid of his WMD over the months we debated (publicly and openly) about invading doesn't mean he never had them.

You guys really need a new shtick. Undermining every single common sense measure taken to protect this country while claiming to be patriotic and to care about the troops is getting boring.

Thank you for those republican talking points. Want to talk about getting a new shtick. Look in the mirror. Frankly, I wouldn't care if I died from a terroritst attack, as long as all my constitutional rights and freedoms were respected at the time. I mean that--seriously. I'm glad that the constitution means jack s*** to you.

 

[cnredd]

Thank you for those republican talking points. Want to talk about getting a new shtick. Look in the mirror. Frankly, I wouldn't care if I died from a terroritst attack, as long as all my constitutional rights and freedoms were respected at the time. I mean that--seriously. I'm glad that the constitution means jack s*** to you.

The problem with this attitude is that enough people die and the Government capitulates to terrorism...Which would be the end of the Constitution anyway...

Even IF the loss of liberty and freedoms were happening now in light of national security, the other end of the deal...the loss of national security...would lead to the loss of ALL of the liberties and freedoms we now posess...

You're asking for loss in the long run...

"Don't give me papercuts now...I'd rather have my children and grandchildren slaughtered later."...:roll:

 

[MSgt]

I would expect a president to allow the inspectors to finish their jobs, since they only asked for 3-6 more months, to verify if there are WMD in Iraq.

Even if that would have taken us towards the beginning of summer in the desert? Even though it would have meant that our troops would have had to walk around in MOPP gear in 120 degree weather suffering heat stroke? I got news for you....we were attacking no matter what. We don't move that much gear and manpower to a location just to say "never mind." If we didn't do it then, we would have just had to do it later. Saddam had to go. There was a lot to consider besides your position in safe and comfortable America. Like I always say, there is always a bigger picture and those that choose to mire themselves in mundane details usually miss it.

 

[Hoot]

Like I always say, there is always a bigger picture and those that choose to mire themselves in mundane details usually miss it.

Mundane details? I'm sorry, Sarge, but marching our soldiers into war is hardly a mundane detail. Allowing the inspectors to finish their job, even if it means waiting till the heat of Summer, is hardly a mundane detail if the wait helps save even one soldier's life.

 

[MSgt]

Mundane details? I'm sorry, Sarge, but marching our soldiers into war is hardly a mundane detail. Allowing the inspectors to finish their job, even if it means waiting till the heat of Summer, is hardly a mundane detail if the wait helps save even one soldier's life.

Like I said....we were attacking regardless and Saddam had to go. Looking for a "smoking gun" is a mundane detail, especially if it meant having to attack in the heat of the summer.

 

[GarzaUK]

Even if that would have taken us towards the beginning of summer in the desert? Even though it would have meant that our troops would have had to walk around in MOPP gear in 120 degree weather suffering heat stroke? I got news for you....we were attacking no matter what. We don't move that much gear and manpower to a location just to say "never mind." If we didn't do it then, we would have just had to do it later. Saddam had to go. There was a lot to consider besides your position in safe and comfortable America. Like I always say, there is always a bigger picture and those that choose to mire themselves in mundane details usually miss it.

Couldn't you have waited until the fall at least, I mean thats just six months from March.

 

[cnredd]

Couldn't you have waited until the fall at least, I mean thats just six months from March.

On this side of the pond, we have a piece of paper that says the President, with the consent of Congress, is the one with the authority to make that decision...

He made it in March...after Congress gave their consent in October...so you're requesting a FURTHER delay of six months...

Funny how everyone cries "rush to war" when he waited 5 months already...

 

[GarzaUK]

On this side of the pond, we have a piece of paper that says the President, with the consent of Congress, is the one with the authority to make that decision...

He made it in March...after Congress gave their consent in October...so you're requesting a FURTHER delay of six months...

Funny how everyone cries "rush to war" when he waited 5 months already...

To give the weapons inspectors 5-6 months that they needed and to give the american army extra to to prepare, plus to actually make up a post-war strategy that the Bush administration ignored would have been the logical choice. But then again the weapons inspectors would have proven that there were no WMD's and avert Bush's little war.

But then again, that's the point of this thread, the WMD's were NOT a factor of this war. Which means that Bush did lie to Congress and the American people when he made all those speeches of WMD's.

The war was just to get Saddam out of power and the oil out of Iraq. Of course things didn't go what the neo-cons thought would happend while they drank coffee in their thinktank bases.
9/11 gave America the golden chance to take out whomever they didn't like. :2wave:

 

[cnredd]

To give the weapons inspectors 5-6 months that they needed and to give the american army extra to to prepare, plus to actually make up a post-war strategy that the Bush administration ignored would have been the logical choice. But then again the weapons inspectors would have proven that there were no WMD's and avert Bush's little war.

That would be correct if WMD was the ONLY reason we went to war...It was not...

But then again, that's the point of this thread, the WMD's were NOT a factor of this war. Which means that Bush did lie to Congress and the American people when he made all those speeches of WMD's.

Strike two...Currently...Right now...AS WE SPEAK...The WMDs that WERE REPORTED by Iraq in October, 2002's report to the UN AND the WMDs that were seen by the Inspectors in 1998 have not been found...

If I see you with a pen in your hand, and then when I turn around you move the pen from your hand, when I ask you ,"What happened to the pen?", there could be many answers...But "I don't know what pen you're talking about." is NOT a correct answer...

The war was just to get Saddam out of power and the oil out of Iraq. Of course things didn't go what the neo-cons thought would happend while they drank coffee in their thinktank bases.
9/11 gave America the golden chance to take out whomever they didn't like. :2wave:

You can make up any reasons you'd like...And if you want to believe Elvis is still alive, go right ahead...

But here are the reasons...If a couple fall through the cracks, there are still enough reasons officially documented that have nothing to do with WMDs to go through with the war...

 

[aquapub]

Thank you for those republican talking points. Want to talk about getting a new shtick. Look in the mirror. Frankly, I wouldn't care if I died from a terroritst attack, as long as all my constitutional rights and freedoms were respected at the time. I mean that--seriously. I'm glad that the constitution means jack s*** to you.

:rofl

So you mean to tell me that if a gun was being pointed at your head and someone gave you the choice between dying and letting your phone calls from Al Queda be listened to, you would chose death?

These kind of phony, adolescent assertions are precisely why nobody takes Democrats seriously on national security anymore; they are why Karl Rove continues to mock Democrats as pre-9/11 boobs.

I am perfectly fine with you calling my points "Republican talking points" because while you are playing politics and posturing with labels, you AREN'T refuting my points-and that does not go unnoticed here.

BTW, if you guys are so bothered by Republicans repeatedly mentioning the same facts that disprove your habitual lying about Iraq, perhaps you should start telling different lies so we can present different facts to prove you wrong with.

I am also perfectly fine with you putting your head on Osama's chopping block, because that will be one less hysterical liberal phony getting in the way of national security for frivolous, BS purposes.

And last but not least, what makes your overdramatic pledge of allegiance to civil liberties so laughable is the fact that the "rights" you are espousing don't even exist. The right to privacy, for instance, is a Constitutional fiction. If Democrats would stop taking hallucinogens before reading the Constitution we could all be spared this erroneous drivel about trampling the Bill of Rights.

 

[mpg]

Thank you for those republican talking points. Want to talk about getting a new shtick. Look in the mirror. Frankly, I wouldn't care if I died from a terroritst attack, as long as all my constitutional rights and freedoms were respected at the time. I mean that--seriously. I'm glad that the constitution means jack s*** to you.

You don't have to ignore facts to respect the Constitution.

 

[aps]

:rofl

So you mean to tell me that if a gun was being pointed at your head and someone gave you the choice between dying and letting your phone calls from Al Queda be listened to, you would chose death?

What a ridiculous comment. aquapub, I am not saying that we shouldn't listen to phone calls--I'm saying that we can listen to phone calls as long as we have a court order. And you wonder why I call your points "republican talking points." It's because they dont' address the genuine issue. What's sad is that you cannot see the difference.

These kind of phony, adolescent assertions are precisely why nobody takes Democrats seriously on national security anymore; they are why Karl Rove continues to mock Democrats as pre-9/11 boobs.

I am perfectly fine with you calling my points "Republican talking points" because while you are playing politics and posturing with labels, you AREN'T refuting my points-and that does not go unnoticed here.

See response above. LOL

BTW, if you guys are so bothered by Republicans repeatedly mentioning the same facts that disprove your habitual lying about Iraq, perhaps you should start telling different lies so we can present different facts to prove you wrong with.

I am also perfectly fine with you putting your head on Osama's chopping block, because that will be one less hysterical liberal phony getting in the way of national security for frivolous, BS purposes.

How classy of you.

And last but not least, what makes your overdramatic pledge of allegiance to civil liberties so laughable is the fact that the "rights" you are espousing don't even exist. The right to privacy, for instance, is a Constitutional fiction. If Democrats would stop taking hallucinogens before reading the Constitution we could all be spared this erroneous drivel about trampling the Bill of Rights.

Well I am glad that you think you know more than the Supreme Court. Sorry, aquapub, but if I am given a choice to give more credibility to you (who makes points without backing them up) or the majority of the Justices on the Supreme Court, forgive me if I say that it would be the latter. LOL

 

[MSgt]

Couldn't you have waited until the fall at least, I mean thats just six months from March.

No. Would you want to sit in the Kuwaiti heat for "just" six months waiting for the inevitable attack? It's easy to sit back in the air condition and say it. It's something else to do it.

Saddam had to going down and we went at the best time. You don't place your troops in unnecessary dangers just to satisfy some people, who have nothing to do with anything, that your target is a bad guy.

 

[oldreliable67]

The right to privacy, for instance, is a Constitutional fiction.

Well, no. While I agree with some of your other opinions in your last post, I think you missed the mark a good bit on this statement. The 4th Amendment, which has been the focus of a good bit of the controversy surrounding the NSA surveillance program controversy, is actually based on privacy. Many, many court tests have affirmed that the 4th Amendments protection from 'unreasonable searches and siezures' is based on an expectation of privacy. (Thats why police can search any open field, even if it is private property, without a search warrant - the courts have held that there is no privacy implication in an open field). The test of whether a proposed search or siezure is 'reasonable' of course, 'probable cause', that is, if sufficient reason exists to invade privacy.

 

[SixStringHero]

Everyone knows the real reason for Iraq....oil :roll:

Michael Moore was right. Bush planned on building a pipeline through Afghanistan under a Unical contract....oh wait that was a botched project which took place under the previous administration. :doh

I have yet to see any empirical evidence to support this ridiculous and fallacious theory. As much as I disagree with this president, I will not for one moment believe that a president of any affiliation would sell his country out for oil. Look at the price at the god damn pumps!

You want to blame anyone for rising oil costs? Blame America, Europe and especially China for increased importation. Blame both major parties since they have done virtually nothing in the way of getting alternative fuel sources.

When was the last time we built a refinery in this country? Oh yeah, about 30 years ago.