posted on February 5, 2004 07:42:11 AM new
A strong response on US intelligence, before and after we went into Iraq. Very good explainations on many of the concerns some have had.
While speaking of our own intelligence agencies, he said other countries intelligence reached the same conclusions.
Tenet stated those who where assigned to search for womd are no where near the 85% complete, as Kay had previously stated.
posted on February 5, 2004 08:08:04 AM new
You missed the point again, Linda.
Tenet was letting the White House and his accomplices know that he will not be their scapegoat for the decision to go to war with Iraq. Bush took their information and skewed it to promote his preemptive war agenda.
Are you aware that Bush has announced his intention to appoint an independent commission to look int the CIA's performance on Iraq...with the implication that the CIA was at fault?
The truth is that the intelligence was as reliable as it could possibly be but Bush's interpretation was a deliberate misinterpretation. We've been over that topic many times.
posted on February 5, 2004 08:11:53 AM new
Helen - As much as you WISH to make this an us vs. them thing....the Bush administration is not trying to blame anyone....but rather find out where our strengths, as well as our weaknesses, are.
As Tenet said.....our intelligence was not the only one with this information. So...if you were to continue making the argument they're pointing fingers at one another, rather than working together for the same end, then you'll have to include all the other countries intelligence in that false scenario too. LOL
posted on February 5, 2004 10:06:36 AM new
Linda you really are missing the point.
Bush said that based on CIA intelligence that Iraq was an imminent threat.
The CIA has come out and said We never said imminent.
Reports and the threat levels were twisted to meet the White Houses need. Bush mislead the nation, told them that intelligence existed that did not.
Now that history is exposing the lies Bush wants to ONCE AGAIN deflect peoples attention with an investigation of the CIA. It's classless and reprehensible behavior and would be so even if it had been comitted by a democrat.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on February 5, 2004 10:08:40 AM new
Morning fenix - I'd ask you to please show me a direct Bush quote. He did not say that....Bush said that based on CIA intelligence that Iraq was an imminent threat. I have already posted the direct quote, from his own mouth, to prove that's not what he said.
edited to add: I'd also ask all to read Tenent's statements about our pre-2000 intelligence findings. What they believed about Iraq then....during the clinton administration. Not much changed between administrations to prove Iraq was not the threat both administrations thought he was.
Re-elect President Bush!!
[ edited by Linda_K on Feb 5, 2004 10:11 AM ]
posted on February 5, 2004 10:19:31 AM new
Why are you obessed with Clinton? Honestly - We are tallking about decisions made in the past year based on recent intelligence and your response is .. well what was it like from 92 -2000?
What does it matter? Bush misled this nation as to the reasons for sending hunndreds of thousands of service members overseas and spending billions of dollars we do not have. Clinton did not.
You are nearing the end of the Bush presidency and you still have not gotten over Clinton.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on February 5, 2004 10:29:33 AM new
so you can't prove your statement? I have proven the statement is not true.
get over clinton? One cannot dismiss what previous intelligence also showed during any previous administration that DIRECTLY relates to the current topic. To try and discount is to ignore the truth....that our intelligence was saying the same thing during previous administrations.....three to be exact. It also discounts the 12 years the UN spent working to get Saddam to either prove he had no weapons....or to admit he did. Saddam chose to not prove to the UN he had no weapons. If he had, Bush, clinton and bush1 wouldn't have had a leg to stand on.
But of course, you liberals don't want to hear the truth/facts.
posted on February 5, 2004 10:59:05 AM new
Bush said, in his State of the Union speech that Saddam Hussein was trying to buy uranium from Africa -- in order to support his conviction that they possibly had nuclear weapons.
Would you believe, if that statement had been true that it would lend credence to the possibility that Iraq was an imminent threat to us, LINDA?????
posted on February 5, 2004 11:15:32 AM new
Maybe that question is too tough for you.
The result, is that Bush apologized for that statement.
After trying to pin the blame on five fall guys, do you also remember the final 'fessing up in a White House statement delivered on July 7, that Bush should not have used the uranium allegations in his address.
"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late."
In other words, he was trying to ratchet up the need to go to war as soon as possible before it was too late....Doesn't "imminent" describe that to you????
That's how the media interpreted it and the rush was on to war....Do you remember???
No time to wait on the UN.
Congress had to vote NOW!!!
posted on February 5, 2004 11:24:39 AM new
Y'all remember the flap last summer, when Tenet did take the responsibility (but not the fall, oddly) for those "sixteen words" in President Bush's 2003 State of the Union speech?
The following are key elements of a report published last August about other "misstatements" the Bush Administration (and the President himself) made to rev us up for war in Iraq.
(It's full of cited quotes, Linda; you'll enjoy it! )
1. Iraq had direct ties to al Qaeda.
On September 27, 2002, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld described the
administration's search for hard evidence for a connection between Iraq and al Qaeda: "We ended up with five or six sentences that were bulletproof. We could say them, they are factual, they are exactly accurate. They demonstrate that there are in fact al Qaeda in Iraq." On February 21, 2001, Deputy Defense Secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, claimed, "Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. And an al Qaeda operative was sent to Iraq several times in the late 1990s for help in acquiring poisons and gases." There has been no proof to support any of these specific claims and counter-evidence to suggest that al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein did not trust each other. Nonetheless, over 70% of Americans believe the charge.
2. Iraq had reconstituted its nuclear weapons programs.
Vice President Dick Cheney told NBC's meet the Press on March 16, 2003: "And we believe he [Saddam Hussein] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." President Bush was only slightly less categorical when he declared in an October 7, 2002 speech: "The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program." The International Atomic Energy Agency found no evidence of a reconstituted nuclear program, let alone actual weapons. The IAEA's presentation to the UN Security Council on January 27, 2003 concluded, "We have to date found no evidence that Iraq has revived its nuclear weapons program since the elimination of the program in the 1990s." Nor has the U.S. found any evidence to support these claims since invading Iraq.
3. The Administration never said that Iraq had reconstituted its nuclear weapons program.
On July 13, 2003, National Security Adviser Condelezza Rice claimed: "We have never said that we thought he [Saddam] had nuclear weapons.'' As noted above, the Vice President made precisely that claim.
4. Iraq tried to purchase aluminum tubes to make nuclear weapons.
In a speech before the U.N. General Assembly on September 12, 2002, President Bush said, "Iraq has made several attempts to buy highstrength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon." At his Februrary 5, 2003 speech to the U.N., Colin Powell claimed that "Most U.S experts think they [aluminum tubes] . . . are used to enrich uranium." The International Atomic Energy Agency, after conducting an inquiry into the aluminum tubes issue, concluded they were not capable of uranium enrichment.
5. Iraq tried to purchase uranium from Niger.
Much controversy has focused on the President's statement in his January 28, 2003 State of the Union address that Iraq was attempting to acquire African uranium: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." This allegation has been repeatedly proven false, and based on forged documents. The fact that this allegation was untrue was well known in the intelligence community before the State of the Union address. CIA Director George Tenet admitted on July 11, 2003: "These 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the President." However, finger pointing among Administration officials has continued over who is responsible for this portion of the speech.
6. The White House did not know that intelligence was disputed.
National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said on the June 8, 2003 Meet the Press, "We did not know at the time -- no one knew at the time, in our circles -- maybe someone knew down in the bowels of the agency, but no one in our circles knew that there were doubts and suspicions that this might be a forgery." However, according to a July 23, 2003 Washington Post article, "The CIA sent two memos to the White House in October voicing strong doubts about a claim President Bush made three months later in the State of the Union address that Iraq was trying to buy nuclear material in Africa." Moreover, Stephen Hadley, an N.S.C. analyst who reports directly to Rice, has stated that he knew that about these doubts.
7. Iraq maintained stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons
In an August 26, 2002 speech to the VFW National Convention, Vice President
Cheney said: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.'' In a March 17, 2003, address to the nation, President Bush argued: "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." Three months after the end of major combat operations, there has been no evidence found of weapons of mass destruction.
8. The U.S. knew the quantities of Iraqi chemical weapons.
In his State of the Union address on January 28, 2003, President Bush stated: "Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent." Secretary of State Colin Powell declared in his February 5, 2003 speech before the UN that Iraq had "550 artillery shells with mustard, 30,000 empty munitions and enough precursors to increase his stockpile to as much as 500 tons of chemical agents." These weapons have not been found, nor has any evidence which would support these charges.
9. Saddam Hussein issued orders to use chemical weapons.
In a February 8, 2003 Weekly Radio Address, President Bush stated: "We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tell us he does not have." Powell repeated the charge in his February 4, 2003 speech to the U.N. However, no chemical weapons were used, nor found on the battlefields under the control of defeated Iraqi units.
10. The U.S. knew where Iraq had stored weapons of mass destruction.
In a March 30, 2003, interview on "ABC This Week with George Stephanopoulous", Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said, "We know where they [weapons of mass destruction] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.'' On February 5, 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell told the United Nations Security Council: "We know from sources that a missile brigade outside Baghdad was disbursing rocket launchers and warheads containing biological warfare agents to various locations, distributing them to various locations in western Iraq. Most of the launchers and warheads have been hidden in large groves of palm trees and were to be moved every one to four weeks to escape detection." After months of futile searches, the U.S. has still found none of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.
11. Since the war, the U.S. has found evidence of weapons of mass destruction.
In a May 29, 2003 interview on Polish television, President Bush triumphantly declared, "We found the weapons of mass destruction. You know, we found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world and he said Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on." Scientists and observers who examined these trailers concluded that they could not be used to make biological weapons.
12. Iraq had drone planes capable of unleashing biological and chemical attacks.
In his January 28, 2003 State of the Union address, President Bush stated: "We have also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas." No such aircraft has been found in Iraq.
13. Iraq had mobile biological warfare labs
On May 28, 2003, the CIA posted on its Web site a document it prepared with the Defense Intelligence Agency entitled, "Iraqi Mobile Biological Warfare Agent Production Plants.'' This report concluded that the two trailers found in Iraq were for biological warfare agent production. As stated above, scientists who examined the trailers concluded that they could not be used for biological weapons production.
14. Iraq has long-range ballistic missiles.
On February 9, 2003, President Bush said, "Let there be no doubt about it, [Saddam's] regime has dozens of ballistic missiles and is working to extend their range in violation of UN restrictions." However, no long range missiles were used against allied troops, and they have not been discovered since the war ended.
15. The U.S. began the war because Saddam Hussein would not allow U.N. inspectors in.
Speaking to reporters at the Oval Office on July 14, 2003, President Bush said: "We gave him [Saddam Hussein] a chance to allow the inspectors in and he wouldn't let them in" In fact, Hussein had let the inspectors in, and Bush demanded that the inspectors leave.
16. U.N. inspections failed.
Vice President Dick Cheney, quoted in the July 20, 2003 New York Times, stated: "Even as they were conducting the most intrusive system of arms control in history, the inspectors missed a great deal." In his July 24, 2003 speech to the American Enterprise Institute, Cheney argued: "Twelve years of diplomacy, more than a dozen Security Council resolutions, hundreds of UN weapons inspectors, and even strikes against military targets in Iraq - all of these measures were tried to compel Saddam Hussein's compliance with the terms of the 1991 Gulf War cease-fire. All of these measures failed." However, the inspectors were very effective in eliminating Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. From 1991 to 1998, UNSCOM, the U.N. inspection agency, destroyed 38,537 chemical munitions, 690 tons of chemical warfare agents, 3,275 tons of precursor chemicals, biological growth media, the Al Hakam biological warfare facility, 48 missiles, 50 warheads, 20 tons of missile fuel, 5 combat mobile launchers, 56 fixed launch sites and 75 components for 350mm and 1000mm guns. (Appendix I, 13th Quarterly Report of UNMOVIC, May 30, 2003)
posted on February 5, 2004 11:25:06 AM new
"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option." (Applause.)
Anyone reading both Kay's report and Tenet's statements today can see who and why there was concern about the threat Saddam posed. But the point is BUSH DIDN'T MAKE THE STATEMENT ALL YOU ACCUSE HIM OF MAKING. How you individually or as a group of anti-Bush people have 'taken' it is your problem/issue. It's NOT what the President said. Period.
posted on February 5, 2004 11:27:52 AM new"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option." (Applause.)
How do you interpret that statement, Linda?
I really would like to know.
Helen
[ edited by Helenjw on Feb 5, 2004 11:30 AM ]
posted on February 5, 2004 11:42:06 AM new
Anybody that thinks an administration calls for investigation of an agency because they just want to get together with their buddies on the same side and explore their strengths and weaknesses believes in the tooth fairy.
Politics is all about blame and yes it is adversarial and the last guy who screwed the CIA over was Kennedy and we see how he ended up.
Better to pick another small country to attack than the CIA because they can defend themselves a heck of a lot better than North Korea say. And they are not about to throw themselves on their sword for God much less Bush.
posted on February 5, 2004 11:44:21 AM new
linda...nevermind.
"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option." Bush
My interpretation...along with the nuclear reference....
He is saying -- Terrorists and Tyrants strike without warning!
If we don't act immediately, all actions, all words and all recriminations will come too late!
In other words it's now or never...Our goose will be cooked!.
posted on February 5, 2004 12:06:52 PM new
LindaK, remember I told you to look up just war theory? If you look it up, you will see why so many churches denounced the war on Iraq.
Using these principles, a preemptive attack is not justified unless there is an imminent threat to the nation doing the preemptive strike, and all alternatives have been exhausted. (Think of it as justification for using deadly force for self defense before an attack on you has occurred). There must be a clear and present danger that you will be attacked.
The justifications the Bush Admistration used for the preemptive war are lies.
You have the right to an informed opinion -Harlan Ellison
posted on February 5, 2004 12:08:10 PM newHow do you interpret that statement, Linda?
I take it that all intelligence/reports/people's statement given, made this administration feel Saddam needed to be dealt with now. No more 'chances', 12 years was enough. UN resolutions were ignored, that could have prevent this, and he was not going to sit by and let another 9-11 happen.
Here....read the president's words for yourself. begin quote:
"[i[Members of the Congress of both political parties, and members of the United Nations Security Council, agree that Saddam Hussein is a threat to peace and must disarm. We agree that the Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America and the world with horrible poisons and diseases and gases and atomic weapons. Since we all agree on this goal, the issues is : how can we best achieve it[/i]?"
Many Americans have raised legitimate questions: about the nature of the threat; about the urgency of action -- why be concerned now; about the link between Iraq developing weapons of terror, and the wider war on terror. These are all issues we've discussed broadly and fully within my administration. And tonight, I want to share those discussions with you."
"First, some ask why Iraq is different from other countries or regimes that also have terrible weapons. While there are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone -- because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are controlled by a murderous tyrant who has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people. This same tyrant has tried to dominate the Middle East, has invaded and brutally occupied a small neighbor, has struck other nations without warning, and holds an unrelenting hostility toward the United States."
"By its past and present actions, by its technological capabilities, by the merciless nature of its regime, Iraq is unique. As a former chief weapons inspector of the U.N. has said, "The fundamental problem with Iraq remains the nature of the regime, itself. Saddam Hussein is a homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction."
"[i]Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons[i]?"
"[b]In 1995, after several years of deceit by the Iraqi regime, the head of Iraq's military industries defected. It was then that the regime was forced to admit that it had produced more than 30,000 liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents. The inspectors, however, concluded that Iraq had likely produced two to four times that amount[/b[. This is a massive stockpile of biological weapons that has never been accounted for, and capable of killing millions."
end of quote/
-----------
I, like many millions of other American's, support the actions of this President and am glad Saddam is no longer a threat to our country. And I still remain confident we will either find the womd or will find out what happened to it. I don't believe that's going to happen until Iraq is a more stable country and those involved in the Saddam regime, who have knowledge of these items, feel free to openly discuss it.
posted on February 5, 2004 12:17:40 PM new
LOL neroter...
Linda, I asked you to interpret one statement that Bush made, indicating an imminent threat and instead you give me a c&p.
Do you always handle a question that you would like to avoid by a long copy paste?
You are fooling no one, Linda. The only justification for preemptive invasion as Snowy stated is an imminent threat. That's why you refuse to interpret Bush's statement.
posted on February 5, 2004 12:20:02 PM new
snowy - and all alternatives have been exhausted. (Think of it as justification for using deadly force for self defense before an attack on you has occurred). There must be a clear and present danger that you will be attacked.
Yes, another area of disagreement between our two sides. This president and our congress felt there was sufficient threat to go forward with our actions. Where did they get that info????? From our intelligence agencies and all those countries that we share intel info with. Whether or not any of you here approve of the action taken, that is a decision all our elected representatives made.
I'm not sure why you think I'd care what 'churches' think about our actions. Would you mind explaining? I don't base nor form my opinions from any church.
---------------
gravid - I agree that we, as a nation, need to find our where our intelligence was lacking. But where I don't believe it's a war of the CIA vs Bush is because in any life situation one needs to find out where things went wrong...what was lacking. That's the only way we learn anything.
But where I part company with most here is in believing this president lied to us, or us looking to BLAME the intelligence agencies. NO President gets his own information, they all rely on our intelligence. ALL presidents. If our intelligence is wrong...or lacking...we need to know that to be able to improve our weaknesses. Has to do with the way the 'real' world companies solve the problems they face, not fairy tales.
Too many other countries, the UN etc....thought the same things about Saddam/Iraq.
posted on February 5, 2004 12:40:21 PM new
Terrorists and Tyrants strike without warning!
Yes and the logical extension of this current policy is that America will not be safe until all the nations with tyrants (which means the ones our government does not approve of even if elected) are reduced to a state they can threaten no one.
So brace yourself for a LOT of little wars because there are a lot of countries that our government doesn't like.
And hope they are not smart enough to band together.
Do you really want to see how the US would go about fighting a whole bunch of countries at once?
Say Afganistan, Iraq, North Korea, Syria, Jorden, Iran, Sudan, Eygpt, Indonesia, Turkey, and Pakistan. With a dozen others from China, Yeman, Venezula, Arabia and Cuba or more offering materials and volunteers to help?
posted on February 5, 2004 12:55:36 PM new
Er, imminent threat is clear and present danger.
Given your support for school prayer and religion in public life and government, as espoused by the Bush Administration, I thought of you as a religious person, a churchgoer, that used religious principles as a basis for morality.
I get it now. Bush is the religion. Wow.
You have the right to an informed opinion -Harlan Ellison
posted on February 5, 2004 01:15:11 PM new
snowey - Making assumptions, rather than asking, appears to be the 'norm' here. You'd be very wrong in the assumptions you've made about me.
posted on February 5, 2004 01:18:31 PM new
::so you can't prove your statement? I have proven the statement is not true. ::
Well first of all, you misqouted me and twisted what both I and the director of the CIA and every news utlet out there stated. No one said that the Bush said that based on CIA info there was an immenient threat. BWhat Bush said was that there was an immenient threat and the now that Bush is calling for an investigation of the CIA because HIS OWN assertations are being proved false the CIA is coming forth and saying that they are not going to take the blame fpr this and that they did not give him info which would have supported his assertation. I can prove my statement. I cannot prove the one you tried to put in my mouth.
::: One cannot dismiss what previous intelligence also showed during any previous administration that DIRECTLY relates to the current topic.:::
How does it relate to the current topic Linda? Honestly, without being snide and sarcastic. How dos intelligence given five years earlier have some type of relevence when you are being given current info? I would hope that a decision to go to war would be based on current reports and not something that is five to 10 years old.
::It also discounts the 12 years the UN spent working to get Saddam to either prove he had no weapons....or to admit he did. Saddam chose to not prove to the UN he had no weapons. If he had, Bush, clinton and bush1 wouldn't have had a leg to stand on. ::
First of all, I don't think you meant to include Bush Sr since there was an invasion involved, not rumors and research. As for Clinton, didn't one of the NucSci guys that came out of Iraq admit that they never really were as far along as they told Saddam they were and that it was the the Gulf War and the Clintons bombings that saved them from being killed because when what they did have was destroyed it enabled them to convincing lie about the progress at the time?
Doesn't it bother you in the least that we are finding out that the president lied. That even the CIA is saying that the proof was not there? Does it make you stop and think at all?
:: But of course, you liberals don't want to hear the truth/facts. ::
Honestly Linda, it sounds like you are the one doing anything you can to not hear what is being said. You even watched the words coming out of a mans mouth and didn't hear it.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
[ edited by Fenix03 on Feb 5, 2004 01:26 PM ]
posted on February 5, 2004 01:19:40 PM new
The current policy is working, gravid. Other terrorist nations are coming into compliance just because of the actions taken by this administration. No need to take all countries that present a threat to our nation on all at once. One at a time will do just fine.
-----------
