posted on February 5, 2004 01:35:22 PM new
okay fenix you say I misquote you. You say he said [and I quote: BWhat Bush said was that there was an immenient threat...again I'll ask you to show me where he used those words. Not where you are saying that's what he 'implied'....but where he is quoted as saying them himself. He didn't. What his words 'meant' is up for disagreement....but without an actual quote it's a false accusation.
clinton himself, after we went into Iraq, said his intelliegence did not know if we had distroyed the womd saddam had or not. That is NOT 5 - 10 year old information...it's current...AND relivant coming from the last president who also had to deal with what he saw as threats from the same madman. And guess who was involved in both presidents intelligence reports.
Bush did not lie to us. He took actions based on all the intelligence available to our country. Period. Spin it anyway you wish. But clearly see that our elected officials/representatives also acted by their pro-war votes on this same information. Democrats voted to go to war too. And clearly see that nothing changed from the clinton administration to the second Bush administration that made saddam suddenly become any less of a threat than our country had ALWAYS preceived him to be.
Matter of fact....the current leading dem candidate, Kerry, voted to invade Iraq. LOL I know, I know..... it would have been different if he'd been president at the time he voted for going to war......we all KNOW HE WOULDN'T HAVE TAKEN US TO WAR. LOL
posted on February 5, 2004 01:40:21 PM new
KD - LOL Some just can't handle a different opinion....the RIGHT one. It's only going to get worse once the dem candidate is selected........then the true fun will start.
---------
Tenet is defending his agency's information. I just don't agree that the President and the CIA are on different sides [against one another]. I believe they work together for the benefit of our nation's security.
posted on February 5, 2004 01:44:49 PM new
snowey - I don't believe that's so Linda, in the other thread, you said all I did was ask questions... I believe you misundertood. What I said was that you were great at asking questions, but not of answering questions directed at you. It's been my personal experience, with you, that when you have posted and I've asked a question of you, you didn't respond. That's why I made that statement.
posted on February 5, 2004 01:48:26 PM 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."
This is the quote by Bush that Linda refuses to interpret. And of course, I've asked the question several times.
LOLOL! David Kay has been appointed a member of the committee that will investigate the CIA.
posted on February 5, 2004 01:59:06 PM new
Questions that Linda failed to answer...only the ones that I asked.
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?????
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
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.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
SO....
Bush said in his State of the Union 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!!!
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"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.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Linda avoids questions or posts a lenthy unrelated copy and paste as an answer. Then turs around and accuses others of not answering her questions.
posted on February 5, 2004 02:05:45 PM new
You did not answer the question, Linda.
I didn't ask for a copy of the state of the union address. I can look that up all by myself. I simply wanted your interpretation of that quote and you responded with irrelevant BS.
So, it looks rather silly for you to accuse others of not answering questions.
posted on February 5, 2004 02:11:44 PM new
gee helen....how often you reverse yourself.
not too long ago I could have quoted you saying you really didn't give a XXXX what I thought. LOL
Maybe you want to adjust your monitor so you can better see/read my answer.
You're going to be sooo much fun when the dems do make a decision on their candidate. Too bad Dean spent all his money on only two caucus and LOST BOTH of them...............know what a disappointment that was to you since he was the MOST angry dem running.
posted on February 5, 2004 03:13:42 PM newAll you Pres Bush hating liperals don't want to be reminded of the following, but too bad, read it and continue to weep.
On Iraq and WMD: Did the president lie?
Larry Elder
Can one make the case that President George W. Bush "lied" or "misled" or intentionally "mischaracterized" the intelligence on Iraq and WMD in order to lead us to war? Sure, if one possesses a visceral anti-Bush mindset coupled with a willingness to ignore powerful arguments in favor of the war:
-- Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski, during a press conference last week, said "Many months before (the) Iraqi action, I met (the) predecessor of (chief U.N. weapons inspector) Hans Blix in Warsaw. . . . He told me (a) very important thing: that Saddam had these weapons or is ready to produce these weapons. Because to have such (an) impression that he has mass destruction weapons is a part of his doctrine, to keep . . . power in Iraq and to be strong in the region. So I think it's very difficult today to judge how it was when he . . . decided to continue this project of mass destruction weapons. . . . Absolutely, Iraq is ready to produce if it's necessary to keep the power of and dictatorship of Saddam and to play such (an) important role in the region."
-- In October 2003, months after the Iraq war began, former President Bill Clinton visited Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Manuel Durao Barroso. Durao Barroso said, "When Clinton was here recently he told me he was absolutely convinced, given his years in the White House and the access to privileged information which he had, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction until the end of the Saddam regime."
-- French President Jacques Chirac, in February 2003, spoke about "the probable possession of weapons of mass destruction by an uncontrollable country, Iraq," noting "the international community is right . . . in having decided that Iraq should be disarmed."
-- Former Clinton CIA director R. James Woolsey, in a Wall Street Journal article, made several points -- that Saddam possibly intentionally misled the world into thinking he still possessed WMD to keep his status as a power player in the region; that stockpiles of WMD possibly remained only to be destroyed at the last minute; that WMD-related material "probably" entered Syria months before the war; that Iraq admitted making 8,500 liters (8.5 tons) of anthrax, which if reduced to powder, could fill a dozen easily portable suitcases; and that "Iraq's ties with terrorist groups in the '90s are clear," with a decade worth of connections between Iraq and al Qaeda, "including training in poisons, gases, and explosives."
-- Weapons hunter David Kay, testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee, said that based on the pre-war intelligence, Saddam Hussein posed "a gathering, serious threat to the world." Hussein's scientists possibly misled the former dictator into believing Iraq possessed WMD, with the scientists possibly misappropriating funds. Kay also said that, based on his investigation, Iraq posed an even greater danger than previously thought.
-- Former President Bill Clinton on Dec. 16, 1998, stated, "Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. . . . I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again. . . . "
-- Former President Clinton, in an appearance on "Larry King Live" on July 22, 2003, said, " . . . (I)t is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons. We might have destroyed them in '98. We tried to, but we sure as heck didn't know it because we never got to go back there."
The near pathological contempt so many hold for President Bush clouds their ability to put themselves in the commander-in-chief's shoes. On Sept. 11, in America, over 3,000 people lost their lives. Meanwhile, Saddam Hussein continued to defy United Nations Security Council resolutions to come clean. He flouted the U.N.-sponsored Oil-for-Food program, diverting the money from its intended purpose.
Critics quite properly accuse the U.S. intelligence community for failing to connect the dots and thus prevent 9/11. After the first Gulf War in 1991, the advanced nature of Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons program shocked intelligence analysts. Nuclear bomb testing in India and Pakistan came as a surprise, as did the advanced nature of Iran's and Libya's WMD programs. By all means, the U.S. intelligence failures call for serious soul-searching, and possibly housekeeping to improve accuracy.
But, in the case of pre-war Iraq, the president's critics suggest the following: Cross your fingers, hope for the best, and run the risk of another attack on American soil, this time possibly with chemical or biological weapons. No, the president acted upon the best available information and properly discharged his responsibility as commander-in-chief.
posted on February 5, 2004 03:47:05 PM new
Did the President Lie?
"President Bush said over the weekend that weapons had been found. "
Yes.
"UN Weapons Search in Iraq was Fruitless, Blix Says
Associated Press
June 3, 2003
U.N. inspectors found no evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction but had many questions and leads to pursue when their searches were suspended just before the U.S.-led invasion, chief inspector Hans Blix said in his final report yesterday at the UN.
The United States and Britain have barred U.N. inspectors from returning to Iraq. Instead, Washington and London have deployed their own teams, and Blix said they have not requested any information or assistance from U.N. inspectors.
In the report to the Security Council, Blix said U.N. inspectors "did not find evidence of the continuation or resumption of programs of weapons of mass destruction or significant quantities of proscribed items."
The inspectors had many questions, however, about Iraq's chemical and biological programs when they left shortly before the March 20 invasion. Inspectors also didn't have time to follow up on some late information provided by the Saddam Hussein government, including interviews with Iraqis who helped destroy anthrax after the 1991 Persian Gulf war, he said.
The United States and Britain used the claim that Iraq had illegal weapons programs as a major reason for the war that toppled the Hussein government. The failure of U.S. and British teams to find any nuclear, chemical or biological weapons in the 11 weeks since combat ended has become a major issue in Washington, London and other international capitals.
President Bush said over the weekend that weapons had been found. As evidence, he pointed to two suspected mobile biological laboratories, which the Pentagon and U.S. weapons inspectors have said do not constitute arms.
Blix said in his 40-page report that Iraq denied the existence of any such units and had provided U.N. inspectors "with pictures of legitimate vehicles, which, they suggested, could have led to the information." He noted, however, that "none of the vehicles in these pictures look like the trucks recently described and depicted" by the U.S.-led teams hunting for weapons.
Blix is retiring after his contract as executive chairman of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission ends June 30. His report detailed the efforts of his inspectors, who were allowed to return to Iraq in late November after a four-year absence. Their searches for banned weapons were suspended March 18.
U.N. inspections uncovered "a small number of undeclared empty chemical warheads which appear to have been produced prior to 1990," he said. Those were destroyed, along with a few other proscribed items and about 70 Al Samoud 2 missiles with a range beyond the 92-mile U.N. limit."
posted on February 5, 2004 03:49:34 PM new
What a slanted article, Bear! What truths don't you understand? The CIA told the President their information about Iraq having nuclear bombs wasn't reliable, yet he made the judgement to go to war. No matter how much lipstick you put on the subject, he made a judgement call that was based on his own assumptions and labeled it terrorism.
posted on February 5, 2004 03:54:55 PM new
LOL just listen to the responses.....yep that article was right - The near pathological contempt so many hold for President Bush....sure obstructs their vision to see the truth.
posted on February 5, 2004 03:56:34 PM newCIA's Tenet: Analysts Never Claimed Imminent Threat
By Katherine Pfleger Associated Press Writer
Published: Feb 5, 2004
WASHINGTON (AP) - Intelligence analysts never told President Bush before the invasion of Iraq that Saddam Hussein's rule posed an imminent threat, CIA Director George Tenet said Thursday in a heated defense of agency findings central to the decision to go to war.
The urgency of the Iraqi threat was Bush's main argument for the war. But the president said Thursday he still would have invaded Iraq if he'd known no weapons stockpiles existed - adding a new element to the much-debated question of whether the United States went to war based on faulty assumptions.
Tenet, addressing such questions for the first time after weeks of silence, acknowledged that analysts believed before the war that Saddam had chemical and biological weapons, although none have been found. He said he believes some of what U.S. intelligence predicted about Iraq will turn out to have been right - and some wrong - as is often the case in such matters.
He made clear that analysts differed among themselves all along on important aspects of Saddam's chemical, biological and nuclear programs and spelled out those disputes in an October 2002 intelligence estimate given to the White House.
"They never said there was an imminent threat," Tenet said in a speech at Georgetown University. "Rather, they painted an objective assessment for our policy-makers of a brutal dictator who was continuing his efforts to deceive and build programs that might constantly surprise us and threaten our interests."
Tenet's remarks hit back at his former special adviser on Iraqi weapons, David Kay, who said last month "we were almost all wrong" about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
The comments also seemed designed to inoculate the CIA from becoming a scapegoat in the fight over whether the war was justified.
Speaking in Charleston, S.C., Bush acknowledged that the weapons have not been found, although investigators have discovered evidence of possible programs. He said the war was still justified.
"Knowing what I knew then and knowing what I know today, America did the right thing in Iraq," Bush said.
Tenet, in his 40-minute defense, never said in detail how the Bush administration, citing U.S. intelligence, might have painted an inaccurate picture of Iraq's weapons arsenal. He insisted that the intelligence analysts had not tailored their findings for any political purpose.
That leaves the door open for Democrats to demand more investigation and explanation, and for many to question the basis of the administration's pre-emptive strike doctrine.
"It goes to the core of why a nation went to war," said Democratic presidential front-runner, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry.
Before the war, Bush and his senior advisers made clear they viewed the threat from Saddam as urgent.
In October 2002, Bush told an audience in Ohio that "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?"
On Sept. 13 of that year, Bush said of Saddam, "He's a threat we must deal with as quickly as possible."
White House aides have pointed out that Bush, while he cited the urgency of Saddam's threat, never called the threat "imminent."
In his State of the Union address in January 2003, Bush said: "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."
Tenet's speech came at a sensitive time.
Bush was expected to announce Friday a nine-member panel to look at the Iraq intelligence and weapons proliferation issues worldwide. An administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., would be a member. Republicans on the Senate Intelligence Committee, led by Pat Roberts of Kansas, are also completing work on a report detailing intelligence mistakes. They shared it with members in a closed session Thursday.
Democrats want to focus on whether analysts were pressured by the White House to justify an invasion. At the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace on Thursday, Kay said he doesn't believe analysts' arms were twisted, but he said the president's commission should look into whether political leaders manipulated the intelligence data given them. "I think that is an important question that needs to be understood," he said.
Tenet, who was appointed by President Clinton, made his own pre-emptive strike: "No one told us what to say or how to say it."
Like Bush and other administration officials, Tenet wouldn't rule out that weapons still may be found. "Despite some public statements, we are nowhere near 85 percent finished," he said rebutting Kay's figure.
As chief of the CIA and 13 other agencies that make up the intelligence community, Tenet conceded that there were mistakes. Analysts, for instance, overlooked a notice that one source providing information on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was unreliable, he said.
On chemical and biological weapons, Tenet said analysts believed before the war that Saddam had programs and perhaps stockpiles, but investigators have found no evidence of such production. He said two sources with high-level access told the CIA in fall 2002, shortly before the war, that Iraq was producing biological and chemical weapons.
While Tenet conceded that U.S. intelligence agencies never penetrated Saddam's inner circle, those sources solidified his personal view that Saddam was a danger, he said. "Could I have dismissed such reports at the time? Absolutely not," he said.
Going into more detail than intelligence chiefs normally do, Tenet also claimed agency successes, including:
- The U.S. penetration of Libya's network of foreign suppliers for its weapons of mass destruction. That led the agency into developments indicating Libya's programs were no longer on a back burner, Tenet said.
- A CIA spy who led the U.S. to Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the al-Qaida mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks.
- Human sources that led to the arrest of Nashiri, al-Qaida's operational chief in the Persian Gulf who planned the USS Cole attack, and to the capture of Hambali, a chief terrorist in South Asia.
"A blanket indictment of our human intelligence around the world is dead wrong," Tenet said. "We have spent the last seven years rebuilding our clandestine service."
posted on February 5, 2004 04:19:03 PM new
Linda, I don't hate President Bush and Snowy already said she doesn't, so who are these people you're referring to that hate Bush so much?
posted on February 5, 2004 04:34:36 PM newThe little radio in my tooth told me to despise Bush
That's pathological.
I despise President Bush's actions in sending our soldiers to be killed for lies and profit, causing the death of thousands in an unjust war, his fiscal irresponsibility, and his use of Guantanamo Bay as a concentration camp.
A rational statement. Not even a teeny weenie bit near pathological.
Try another tactic. The near insane smear is obviously irrational.
ubbsucks
You have the right to an informed opinion -Harlan Ellison
[ edited by snowyegret on Feb 5, 2004 04:40 PM ]
posted on February 5, 2004 05:00:40 PM new
Most have made a rational evaluation of Bush as a liar, a manipulator and a danger to the world. This evaluation is based on facts. Right now, an investigation is being conducted to find out why his stated justification for a war was bogus...a war in which thousands have been killed and thousands have been wounded for life. His foreign policy, economic policy and domestic policy have all failed. He has contributed to the environmental pollution of the world in order to support his corporate buddies. It's certainly not "pathological" to see his miserable job performance as disgraceful.
posted on February 6, 2004 07:37:08 AM new The Threatening Record With list of Bogus White House Warnings
Excerpt...
In a major speech this morning addressing the failure to find WMD in Iraq, CIA Director George Tenet said the intelligence community never told the White House that Iraq was an imminent threat to America—a stunning blow to the White House, considering its repeated and unequivocal claims that war was necessary because Iraq was an "imminent," "immediate," "urgent" and "mortal" threat.
