March 28, 2024, 03:59:32 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: NEW CHILD BOARD CREATED IN THE POLITICAL SECTION FOR THE 2016 ELECTION
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Bush misused Iraq intelligence: Senate report  (Read 4555 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
caesu
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 2001



« on: June 05, 2008, 05:48:56 PM »

Quote
Bush misused Iraq intelligence: Senate report


By Randall Mikkelsen Thu Jun 5, 1:23 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush and his top policymakers misstated Saddam Hussein's links to terrorism and ignored doubts among intelligence agencies about Iraq's arms programs as they made a case for war, the Senate intelligence committee reported on Thursday.

The report shows an administration that "led the nation to war on false premises," said the committee's Democratic Chairman, Sen. John Rockefeller of West Virginia. Several Republicans on the committee protested its findings as a "partisan exercise."

The committee studied major speeches by Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and other officials in advance of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003, and compared key assertions with intelligence available at the time.

Statements that Iraq had a partnership with al Qaeda were wrong and unsupported by intelligence, the report said.

It said that Bush's and Cheney's assertions that Saddam was prepared to arm terrorist groups with weapons of mass destruction for attacks on the United States contradicted available intelligence.

Such assertions had a strong resonance with a U.S. public, still reeling after al Qaeda's September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States. Polls showed that many Americans believed Iraq played a role in the attacks, even long after Bush acknowledged in September 2003 that there was no evidence Saddam was involved.

The report also said administration prewar statements on Iraq's weapons programs were backed up in most cases by available U.S. intelligence, but officials failed to reflect internal debate over those findings, which proved wrong.

PUBLIC CAMPAIGN

The long-delayed Senate study supported previous reports and findings that the administration's main cases for war -- that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and was spreading them to terrorists -- were inaccurate and deeply flawed.

"The president and his advisors undertook a relentless public campaign in the aftermath of the (September 11) attacks to use the war against al Qaeda as a justification for overthrowing Saddam Hussein," Rockefeller said in written commentary on the report.

"Representing to the American people that the two had an operational partnership and posed a single, indistinguishable threat was fundamentally misleading and led the nation to war on false premises."

A statement to Congress by then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld that the Iraqi government hid weapons of mass destruction in facilities underground was not backed up by intelligence information, the report said. Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon said Rumsfeld's comments should be investigated further, but he stopped short of urging a criminal probe.

The committee voted 10-5 to approve the report, with two Republican lawmakers supporting it. Sen. Christopher Bond of Missouri and three other Republican panel members denounced the study in an attached dissent.

"The committee finds itself once again consumed with political gamesmanship," the Republicans said. The effort to produce the report "has indeed resulted in a partisan exercise." They said, however, that the report demonstrated that Bush administration statements were backed by intelligence and "it was the intelligence that was faulty."

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said: "We had the intelligence that we had, fully vetted, but it was wrong. We certainly regret that and we've taken measures to fix it."

PUBLIC SUPPORT

U.S. public opinion on the war, supportive at first, has soured, contributing to a dive in Bush's popularity.

The conflict is likely to be a key issue in the November presidential election between Republican John McCain, who supports the war, and Democrat Barack Obama, who opposed the war from the start and says he would aim to pull U.S. troops out within 16 months of taking office in January 2009.

Rockefeller has announced his support for Obama.

The administration's record in making its case for Iraq has also been cited by critics of Bush's get-tough policy on Iran. They accuse Bush of overstating the potential threat of Iran's nuclear program in order to justify the possible use of force.

A second report by the committee faulted the administration's handling of December 2001 Rome meetings between defense officials and Iranian informants, which dealt with the Iran issue. It said department officials failed to share intelligence from the meeting, which Rockefeller said demonstrated a "fundamental disdain" for other intelligence agencies.

(Additional reporting by Andy Sullivan, Donna Smith)

(Editing by Frances Kerry)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080605/pl_nm/iraq_usa_intelligence_dc;_ylt=AlJ73rWzbI9XaxImI5wqB6us0NUE

this pretty much confirms the book of former press secretary McClellan.

i think it is just a matter of time until a Iraq War Crimes Tribunal will subpoena Bush / Cheney / Rumsfeld and others.

but i doubt the next President, even if it is Obama will order their extraditions, have them arrested and send over to that tribunal.
Logged

SteveDinMD
Scared Monkey
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 209


« Reply #1 on: June 05, 2008, 09:34:38 PM »

If the characterization in the story is accurate, this report is the vilest piece of garbage ever to be published under the auspices of the U.S. Congress.  It's central thesis and purported basis in fact are absolutely, completely, and provably FALSE.  It was obviously written with the intention to deceive the public in order to reap political advantage, but does so at the expense of grave injury to U.S. national security.  It's authors are nothing less than willful traitors to the United States and should be roundly condemned as such.  A veteran U.S. intelligence officer with over 20 years experience, I have personally reviewed over the years a mountain of evidence substantiating the central finding that Iraq was actively pursuing a clandestine WMD program in violation of U.N. resolutions. 

Certain individual items might have been given more or less weight by different agencies or analysts, but no one in my experience seriously doubted the central finding.  What's more, the vast majority of knowledgable career intelligence professionals to this day accept that finding as accurate.  The reason for this is both the nature and volume of the raw, underlying intelligence coupled with the MONTHS - long delay separating public disclosure of the finding and the coalition invasion of Iraq.  Intelligence professionals cautioned early on that the delay would afford the Iraq's ample time to remove or destroy prohibited materials.  This was considered relatively easy for them to do since most of the chemical and biological agents in question take up surprisingly small volumes given their lethality.  Still, not all the evidence was removed or destroyed.  Very few among the American public are aware that HUNDREDS of chemical munitions have in fact been discovered in Iraq since the invasion -- along with a gas centrifuge for producing weapons grade uranium -- proving beyond any doubt that Saddam Hussein's government was in direct violation of numerous U.N. Security Council resolutions and the ceasefire terms ending the Persian Gulf War.  This is the plain truth that no one hears about. 

Perhaps this was all predictable given the political climate in this country.  Zealous in their opposition to the Republican President, Democrats were eager to undermine the rationale for war, which they themselves overwhelmingly accepted early on.  For their part, Republicans in the Presidential administration were eager to avoid having to make subtle, reasoned arguments in the face of the Democrats' simple, wholesale denunciations.  The Administrations' answer was to simply claim that the intelligence they relied on was "wrong," a claim no less inaccurate than the Democrats'.  The only thing any of this has accomplished has been the complete politicization of national intelligence, to our collective detriment. 
Logged
caesu
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 2001



« Reply #2 on: June 06, 2008, 04:49:12 AM »

believe whatever you want to believe.

report is only saying that several statements made by president and vice president were not based in intelligence.

Quote
The Committee’s report cites several conclusions in which the Administration’s public statements were NOT supported by the intelligence. They include:
 
Ø      Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-Qa’ida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qa’ida with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence.
 
Ø      Statements by the President and the Vice President indicating that Saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attacks against the United States were contradicted by available intelligence information.
 
Ø      Statements by President Bush and Vice President Cheney regarding the postwar situation in Iraq, in terms of the political, security, and economic, did not reflect the concerns and uncertainties expressed in the intelligence products.
 
Ø      Statements by the President and Vice President prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq’s chemical weapons production capability and activities did not reflect the intelligence community’s uncertainties as to whether such production was ongoing.
 
Ø      The Secretary of Defense’s statement that the Iraqi government operated underground WMD facilities that were not vulnerable to conventional airstrikes because they were underground and deeply buried was not substantiated by available intelligence information.
 
Ø      The Intelligence Community did not confirm that Muhammad Atta met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in 2001 as the Vice President repeatedly claimed.
 

http://intelligence.senate.gov/press/record.cfm?id=298775

i expect that after bush term ends next year, more of his aides like Scott McClellan will come forward and confirm how the administration misled the nation and the world in this injust and costly war.

then the UN might set up a war crimes tribunal to prosecute the ones responsible.

if countries are getting away with starting unjust and pre-emptive wars, the world is going to be a much more dangerous place.
Logged

Auntiem
Monkey Junky Jr.
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 517



« Reply #3 on: June 07, 2008, 08:06:27 AM »

Quote
Bush misused Iraq intelligence: Senate report


By Randall Mikkelsen Thu Jun 5, 1:23 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush and his top policymakers misstated Saddam Hussein's links to terrorism and ignored doubts among intelligence agencies about Iraq's arms programs as they made a case for war, the Senate intelligence committee reported on Thursday.[/b]

[b]Ask any Iraqui about Saddam's terroism, with his citizens alone!!!!!   Putting live people, into wood choppers, feet first, so that the agony would last longer!!![/b]

The report shows an administration that [b]"led the nation to war on false premises,"[/b]

 <snipped)

"False premises"  have you been to GROUND ZERO? or are you still out in the streets, jumping on cars, celebrating???

 <snipped>

Statements that Iraq had a partnership with al Qaeda were wrong and unsupported by intelligence, the report said.
It said that Bush's and Cheney's assertions that Saddam was prepared to arm terrorist groups with weapons of mass destruction for attacks on the United States contradicted available intelligence.


<snipprd>
Such assertions had a strong resonance with a U.S. public, still reeling after al Qaeda's September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States.

   reeling?????? Reeling, is that what you call?????  That is the way I feel when I get off a Roller Coaster or Ferris Wheel....that is NOT, AT ALL, the way I felt, and feel after 9/11.  Terrified, shocked, bereaved!!!! Where do those who were "reeling" from?????? Another world????

The report also said administration prewar statements on Iraq's weapons programs were backed up in most cases by available U.S. intelligence, but officials failed to reflect internal debate over those findings, which proved wrong.

PUBLIC CAMPAIGN

The long-delayed Senate study supported previous reports and findings that the administration's main cases for war -- that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and was spreading them to terrorists -- were inaccurate and deeply flawed.

"The president and his advisors undertook a relentless public campaign in the aftermath of the (September 11) attacks to use the war against al Qaeda as a justification for overthrowing Saddam Hussein,"[/b] Rockefeller said in written commentary on the report.

     Baloney, he didn't have to!!!  We were attacked, slaughtered, terrified,  and he needed NO justification for going into afganistan, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia....ANY rotten  POS Muslim country that wants to destroy our America, Americans and the Freedoms we fought for, will continue to fight for and enjoy!!! If he believed that WMD's were ANYWHERE, Good.... let him go in and DESTROY them.....I sais it before and Isay it again,  WE HAVE WEAPONS TO DESTROY THEM, ......NOT FOR THE HELL OF IT, BUT FOR NATIONAL SAFETY, TO DEFEND OURSELVES, RATHER THAN BE DESTROYED,........THAT IS AN HONORABLE AND ETHICAL USE OF WEAPONRY.....WE SHOULD HAVE CONTINUED THE USE OF OUR AIR DEFENSE, RATHER THAT PUT "BOOTS ON THE GROUND".  oUR SOLDIERS CNA NOT DEFEND THEMSELVES AGAINST THESE SAVAGES WHO STRAP BOMBS ON CHILDREN, SUICIDE LUNATICS WHO GET ON BUSES OR GO I TO CROWDED AREAS TO MURDER INNOCENT PEOPLE......

Representing to the American people that the two had an operational partnership and posed a single, indistinguishable threat  was fundamentally misleading and led the nation to war on false premises.

When will people wake up and DISTINGUISH  threats BEFORE THE BOMBS FALL???? WHY MUST THESE P.C. FOOLS HAVE TO HAVE "DEATH ON THEIR DOORSTEP", WHEN IT WILL BE VIRTUALLY BE TOO LATE!!



 They accuse Bush of [color=red]overstating [/color] the potential threat of Iran's nuclear program in order to justify the possible use of force.

   


Logged
caesu
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 2001



« Reply #4 on: June 07, 2008, 08:14:03 AM »

you are a perfect example of how good the brainwashing by bush/cheney/rumsfeld worked.
Logged

Auntiem
Monkey Junky Jr.
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 517



« Reply #5 on: June 07, 2008, 09:03:59 AM »

      HOW CAN IRAN'S NUCLEAR PROGRAM THREAT EVER, EVER BE OVERSTATED????
Logged
caesu
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 2001



« Reply #6 on: June 07, 2008, 09:40:39 AM »

      HOW CAN IRAN'S NUCLEAR PROGRAM THREAT EVER, EVER BE OVERSTATED????

i thought this topic was about the Bush administration misleading the country into a war without proper intelligence backing up links between Iraq and 9/11 - WMD.

and about Iran:

the National Intelligence Estimate of december 2007 concluded with high confidence that Iran halted  its nuclear weapons program.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/91673

Quote
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Friday that the United States was committed to solving the Iranian nuclear threat through diplomatic multilateral means.

Perino was responding to comments made earlier Friday by Transportation Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz, who said that an Israeli attack on Iran appeared "unavoidable" given the apparent failure of sanctions to deny Tehran technology with bomb-making potential.

"I understand that Israel is very concerned about their future and their safety when they have a neighbor in their region - Iran - that says they want to wipe them off the map," Perino told reporters. "We are trying to solve this diplomatically," she explained.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/990867.html

you want to wipe all countries of the map that threaten you.

very PRO-LIFE that is. the unjust Iraq war now caused over a 1 million Iraqi dead civilians.
no surprise that this created a breeding ground for terrorism.
Logged

SteveDinMD
Scared Monkey
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 209


« Reply #7 on: June 07, 2008, 01:19:17 PM »

      HOW CAN IRAN'S NUCLEAR PROGRAM THREAT EVER, EVER BE OVERSTATED????

i thought this topic was about the Bush administration misleading the country into a war without proper intelligence backing up links between Iraq and 9/11 - WMD.

and about Iran:

the National Intelligence Estimate of december 2007 concluded with high confidence that Iran halted  its nuclear weapons program.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/91673

Quote
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Friday that the United States was committed to solving the Iranian nuclear threat through diplomatic multilateral means.

Perino was responding to comments made earlier Friday by Transportation Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz, who said that an Israeli attack on Iran appeared "unavoidable" given the apparent failure of sanctions to deny Tehran technology with bomb-making potential.

"I understand that Israel is very concerned about their future and their safety when they have a neighbor in their region - Iran - that says they want to wipe them off the map," Perino told reporters. "We are trying to solve this diplomatically," she explained.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/990867.html

you want to wipe all countries of the map that threaten you.

very PRO-LIFE that is. the unjust Iraq war now caused over a 1 million Iraqi dead civilians.
no surprise that this created a breeding ground for terrorism.

The war was -- and is -- perfectly just and perfectly legitimate.  Saddam Hussein was without any doubt in direct violation of the cease fire agreement bringing the Persian Gulf War to a close, not to mention numerous Security Council resolutions.  The United States was well justified in resuming hostilities since the terms of the peace were violated.  Saddam Hussein was also unquestionably aiding acts of terrorism threatening the U.S. interests and those of our allies.  Have you not stopped to wonder why suicide bombers are no longer attacking Israel every few days?  It's because Saddam Hussein is no longer around to pay the bombers' surving family members $25,000.00 per attack.  By the way, in case you hadn't noticed, the Islamic world -- especially the Middle East -- has been a breeding ground for international terrorism for over 50 years.  It didn't take a U.S. invasion to inspire.  At any rate, hostilities, it can be argued, should have been resumed against Iraq long ago, but the Clinton Administration opted to abandon strict enforcement of the cease fire terms and associated U.N. resolutions for eight years.  A case can be made that it was precisely this sort of neglect that made the Iraq War necessary. 

One could debate, I suppose, whether or not the war, despite being legitimate and just, was in the Unites States' best interests.  In arguing that it was NOT, however, one must make the case that U.S. interests would have been best served by leaving Saddam Hussein's regime intact and, by extention, completely abandoning any attempt at containment through sanctions.  Remeber; U.N. sanctions were already on the verge of collapse by the end of the Clinton Administration.  This was because they were never properly enforced for eight years, and because Saddam was over that time allowed to bribe prominent politicians in France, Russia, and the United Nations.  Remember Clinton's so-called "Oil for Food" program?  Anyway, I doubt anyone will be able to make a convincing case that we would be better off today with Saddam Hussein in control of an unrestrained Iraq, able to finance his evil with exports of $130 per barrel petroleum, totalling over $250 Million PER DAY. 

Finally, as regarding Iraqi civilian casualties, I don't have the figures, so I won't challenge your estimate of 1 million.  I will, however, hasten to point out that almost ALL of those casualties -- and each one a war crime -- were at the hands of the ENEMY, the enemy being a shifting collection of Baathists, Al Qaida and Shiite militias -- most aided and abetted by Iran & Syria.  The U.S. bears no responsibility for the atrocities committed by our enemies.  I'd further care to point out that each and every single instance of an IED attack is also a WAR CRIME, plain and simple.  In fact, our enemies in Iraq are ALL war criminals, subject to the death penalty.  Furthermore, NONE of our enemies in is under the protection of the Geneva Conventions.  They are all illegal combatants who enjoy no rights and no protections under international law, their fate subject to the sole discretion of the U.S. national command authority -- the President and his assigns. 
Logged
SteveDinMD
Scared Monkey
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 209


« Reply #8 on: June 07, 2008, 02:09:07 PM »


and about Iran:

the National Intelligence Estimate of december 2007 concluded with high confidence that Iran halted  its nuclear weapons program.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/91673

Quote

This assessment is both politically damaging to the U.S. and provably wrong.  To understand why this is the case, one needs to understand the circumstances under which it was developed.  This latest NIE, unlike its predecessors, was written in ODNI -- the Office of the Director, National Intelligence -- not CIA.  Furthermore, its principle authors were assignees from the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, outside of the customary analytical channels for this line of reporting.  Believe me; I&R, contrary to media reports, commands practically ZERO respect among professional intelligence officers.  This is particularly true regarding matters outside of strictly diplomatic concern.  This office is known for both the liberal bias inherent in its reporting and the overall incompetence of its staff, which explains the politically correct substance of the central findings, the shoddiness of the underlying analyses, as well as the extremely poor wording of the document itself.  This is worst example of an intelligence artform I've ever seen. 

Consider, too, the politically charged environment within which the NIE was produced.  With rampant Congressional and media meddling, the liklihood of an honest assessment being produced reflecting views contrary to the Democrats' political preferences was slim to none in ANY case.  The Democrats, you see, favor "speaking truth to power" only when it suits their interests.  When truth contradicts their agenda it's rewarded with that old standby -- character assassination.  At any rate, despite being classified, everyone in the Intelligence Community instinctively knew that the NIE on Iran -- or at least portions of it -- would be leaked to the press, and no one wanted to sign up for all the abuse that was sure to follow.  The job doesn't pay well enough to compensate for that kind of grief.  Since the 2004 election, intelligence had become part of the routine political discourse.  No less than, say, tax breaks or socialized health care.  It had become part of the political debate, to be hashed and re-hashed on the basis of ignorance and electoral advantage, and we are all the less secure for it. 
Logged
caesu
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 2001



« Reply #9 on: June 07, 2008, 02:27:32 PM »

all true. but that was not the case the administration was making.
that is what the senate report is saying.
bringing up WMD, nuclear program, ties with Al-Qaida - all not backed up enough by intelligence.
that's what i call misleading the public.

and indeed, those 1 million civilian deaths are not directly due to American actions of course.
but when Bush decided to kick open that hornets nest in Iraq he could have known a civil war would erupt.
but Bush didn't even know that there were two groups: Sunni/Shia, and that is the first thing one should know about Iraq.
talking about supporting the troops: he send the troops in without a post-invasion plan.
it will take so many years to put all those hornets back in to their places.

in the meantime the USA is not only supporting the Islamist country Saudi-Arabia (most of the 9/11 hijackers came from there).
but also the newly created Islamist countries Iraq and Afghanistan. all have a lawbook based on Sharia.
and Iran, another Islamist country, has its arch-enemy removed, and now has more influence in Iraq than even the Iraqi government itself.
ironically most of the false intelligence used to justify to war in Iraq orignated from Iranian secret agents.
the likes of Chalabi and others.

meanwhile now Iran is thanks to the USA is the major power in the region and threatening Israel directly and through Hamas and Hezbollah.
America is supporting the Lebanese Siniora government, but when Hezbollah started attacking the government last month the USA did nothing.
now Hezbollah is a accepted militia in Lebanon. and has the same status as the Revolutionary Guards of Iran.

the Bush Middle-East policy is a total disaster.

and Bin Laden is still making videoclips in his cave.

in the meantime oil prices are skyrocketing.
think about it. everytime at the pump with those SUV you are paying Saudi-Arabia and Iran.
that money goes to Hezbollah and Hamas and groups in Iraq fighting American troops with IED's.

and only now Bush is starting to think about a change in energy policy.
what a mess.

and still every now and again there is someone who thinks he was not such a bad President.
Logged

SteveDinMD
Scared Monkey
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 209


« Reply #10 on: June 07, 2008, 08:42:37 PM »

all true. but that was not the case the administration was making.
that is what the senate report is saying.
bringing up WMD, nuclear program, ties with Al-Qaida - all not backed up enough by intelligence.
that's what i call misleading the public.

and indeed, those 1 million civilian deaths are not directly due to American actions of course.
but when Bush decided to kick open that hornets nest in Iraq he could have known a civil war would erupt.
but Bush didn't even know that there were two groups: Sunni/Shia, and that is the first thing one should know about Iraq.
talking about supporting the troops: he send the troops in without a post-invasion plan.
it will take so many years to put all those hornets back in to their places.

in the meantime the USA is not only supporting the Islamist country Saudi-Arabia (most of the 9/11 hijackers came from there).
but also the newly created Islamist countries Iraq and Afghanistan. all have a lawbook based on Sharia.
and Iran, another Islamist country, has its arch-enemy removed, and now has more influence in Iraq than even the Iraqi government itself.
ironically most of the false intelligence used to justify to war in Iraq orignated from Iranian secret agents.
the likes of Chalabi and others.

meanwhile now Iran is thanks to the USA is the major power in the region and threatening Israel directly and through Hamas and Hezbollah.
America is supporting the Lebanese Siniora government, but when Hezbollah started attacking the government last month the USA did nothing.
now Hezbollah is a accepted militia in Lebanon. and has the same status as the Revolutionary Guards of Iran.

the Bush Middle-East policy is a total disaster.

and Bin Laden is still making videoclips in his cave.

in the meantime oil prices are skyrocketing.
think about it. everytime at the pump with those SUV you are paying Saudi-Arabia and Iran.
that money goes to Hezbollah and Hamas and groups in Iraq fighting American troops with IED's.

and only now Bush is starting to think about a change in energy policy.
what a mess.

and still every now and again there is someone who thinks he was not such a bad President.

If my points are, as you say, "all true," then you accept the legitimacy and justness of the Iraq War, and you accept that the situation today is at least arguably better that it would have been had the U.S. not invaded.  I find your characterization of Iraq (and by extension the Middle East) as a "hornets' nest" to be accurate enough.  If one is being harassed by hornets, however, one might well have to clean out the nest in order to find relief.  It can be a messy business, but is often enough necessary, much like waging war on NAZI Germany.  Millions died during the Second World War, but I would blame those deaths neither on the U.S. nor her allies, nor would I call their cause unjust. 

As for President Bush no knowing the difference between Sunni and Shia, you're mistaken.  The person you're thinking of is Representative Sylvestre Reyes, Democrat from the 16th Congressional District in Texas.  He is the current Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.  After being appointed to the Chairmanship by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi following the Democrats' electoral victory in the mid-term Congressional elections in November of 2006, Reyes famously embarrassed himself in public by demonstrating his ignorance of Sunni and Shia religious differences and the affiliations of the membership of the principal terrorist groups/militias operating in Iraq. 

I would caution you against citing the likes of Ahmed Chalabi as the source of "most" U.S. intelligence on Iraq.  Neither he nor the German source, codenamed CURVEBALL and denounced in the media as a fraud, were at all significant as sources of intelligence for most of the U.S. Intelligence Community.  Community assessments were made on the basis of tens of thousands of reports, reflecting collaborative interpretations of hundreds of thousands of underlying data points, the vast majority drawn from technical sources.  Assessments of Iraqi intentions and capacity for producing WMD weren't "wrong," nor were they unsubstantiated.  Remember; WMD and other prohibited weapons and materials WERE discovered in the wake of the U.S. invasion, contrary to popular misconception. 

As regarding Iran, geophysics have ALWAYS favored Iran with respect to its ambitions to achieve regional hegemony.  This is why the U.S. had for decades cultivated a friendly, constructive relationship with that country.  It was only in 1979, due to Carter Administration bungling, that this relationship was allowed to die.  The Islamic Revolution was completely avoidable, but Carter chose not to act.  At any rate, U.S. policy since that time has been compelled to work under serious disadvantages, attempting to build and maintain a regional balance of power to curb Iranian expansionism absent allies with sufficient power to accomplish this in their own right.  It's a state of affairs in which every alternative is bad.  One is left only to choose the least undesirable.  It's not where we would prefer to be, but where we've been stuck since 1979. 

The challenge now is to restrain Iranian aggression and allow growing stability in Iraq to over time build a national consensus to resist direct Iranian influence.  This is possible because the Iranians and Iraqis are ethnically and linguistically distinct.  For her part, Iran is vulnerable to growing political instability over time, which could eventually manifest itself in a revolution overthrowing the current theocracy.  This, however, is far from certain, nor is it likely to happen soon.  Radical Islam, more than Iran, is the enemy of Western Civilization.  If we can encourage a global Islamic Reformation so as to expunge the violent and intolerant articles of that faith, many heads of the hydra will predictably die off, leaving the World a safer place. 

Finally, current oil price levels are a definite challenge.  There is no reason at the moment to believe, however, that they reflect other than the interplay of the market forces of supply and demand, subject to OPEC monopoly power, and possibly exacerbated by speculation.  Certainly, changes in energy policy are in order.  As a first step, the U.S. should vastly increase its nuclear generation capacity, reducing domestic demand for fossil fuels.  Steep import duties on Chinese goods would have the complementary effect of reducing global demand.  Increased domestic oil (and natural gas) production would further reduce U.S. imports, putting additional downward pressure on world market prices and compromising the fiscal stability of Iran and Venezuela, thus enhancing the prospects for world peace.  Barring technological breakthrough, though, I'm afraid we're all stuck with fossil fuels, and no political candidate or party can alter this simple fact of life. 
Logged
crazybabyborg
Guest
« Reply #11 on: June 08, 2008, 09:17:25 AM »

Love to read your posts, SteveDinMD!

I have a question maybe you could help me with. I see long and short term advantages to our interests in keeping our troops in Iraq, but I'm wondering why we can't or haven't approached Iraq to help us alleviate our current oil crunch.

Looking forward to your comments!
Logged
Auntiem
Monkey Junky Jr.
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 517



« Reply #12 on: June 08, 2008, 09:28:33 AM »

      HOW CAN IRAN'S NUCLEAR PROGRAM THREAT EVER, EVER BE OVERSTATED????

i thought this topic was about the Bush administration misleading the country into a war without proper intelligence backing up links between Iraq and 9/11 - WMD.

and about Iran:

the National Intelligence Estimate of december 2007 concluded with high confidence that Iran halted  its nuclear weapons program.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/91673

Quote
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Friday that the United States was committed to solving the Iranian nuclear threat through diplomatic multilateral means.

Perino was responding to comments made earlier Friday by Transportation Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz, who said that an Israeli attack on Iran appeared "unavoidable" given the apparent failure of sanctions to deny Tehran technology with bomb-making potential.

"I understand that Israel is very concerned about their future and their safety when they have a neighbor in their region - Iran - that says they want to wipe them off the map," Perino told reporters. "We are trying to solve this diplomatically," she explained.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/990867.html

you want to wipe all countries of the map that threaten you.

very PRO-LIFE that is. the unjust Iraq war now caused over a 1 million Iraqi dead civilians.
no surprise that this created a breeding ground for terrorism.


     Another "lack of response" available, so it's avoidance or insults, ONLY, that you are capable of doling out to me....never mind.......it only affirms that your BS based attitude    ( one of which, it has become evident,  you are ONLY  capable (besides your plethora of mundane and way too lengthy posts, that are made up of waaaay too many and long quotes, and very little of your own thoughts)....... and confirms that it is simply   all you have to offer!!! No thoughts of your own, or presented in a  civilized manner of discussion, (which, btw, I admit that I have "somewhat" sunk to, only in retaliation and due to the obviousness, that is YOUR way of bantering (anything, more subtle would most certainly be way above your head).

(quoteth caesu, questioning why it was included in my previous post)

"i thought this topic was about the Bush administration misleading the country into a war without proper intelligence backing up links between Iraq and 9/11 - WMD.

and about Iran:.. "

     If you READ your post or rather, lengthy quote, that particular comment was taken directly from it, and the fact that it "....could never be overstated", was merely my observation....  Maybe, you should read what you quote BEFORE you post it, and  after posting it and certainly BEFORE you call someone to task AND questioning them as to WHY(??) they would include said in their answer to you!!!

Logged
Auntiem
Monkey Junky Jr.
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 517



« Reply #13 on: June 08, 2008, 10:15:12 AM »

 over a 1 million Iraqi dead civilians.

      I don't know where or how true your stated stats are re: Mortality of Iraqui civilians.....I don't have the time or luxury to research to the extent you do, I have a full time job and family and friends, HOWEVER....Questions:

         1.  How many were killed by Islamic extremists?
         2. Saddam Hussein, before his capture?
         3. Saddam's soldiers in retaliation of his capture?
         4.  car bombs, facilitated by followers of Islam?
         5. Innocent civilians, who are murdered on a daily basis for "failing" to follow Law
             of Islam ( like women and children rape victims, who are, by Law, comdemned
           to the crueist deaths), or caught worshipping as Jews or Christians,   
            forbidden  in all Islamic countries..........or caught with make-up or lacking     
           the "appropriate" head and face covering?
         6. How many were young children, who, unbeknownst to them, had bombs 
           strapped onto their thin little bodies, as they were sent into a welcoming 
          group of American Soldiers....for maybe the beloved piece of candy?
         7.  Maybe they were grieving family members of a murdered loved one who 
            dared shed a tear ?
          8. Or, daughters, who, on the passing of a parent, dared request a coffin or   
               some, even crude wooden box, in which to inter their loved one, as they 
            were forced  to look on, as the body of their beloved, wrapped in only the   
           dirtiest of rags was dumped into the shallowest of ill-dug graves?

      Then add up the American civilians, going to their jobs, going on vacation or making the return or business trip, American teenagers (you can call them Soldiers.....but they are civilians, teenagers, in uniform, bravely standing up to the vilest evil in this world, protecting their country, as their fathers and grandfathers did before them) so that we are not FORCED to read the Koran,....we can read the Bible, Old or New, we are free to worship, or not, in any way we choose, without fear of persecution, torture, murder....that is the bottom line, folks....that is what this is all about.....and it was not started or caused by us, in any way,shape or form.....it started, one bright, clear, tranquil morning in September, 7 years ago,......and it will end, when and only when World Safety is secured!!!!

Logged
caesu
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 2001



« Reply #14 on: June 08, 2008, 10:57:32 AM »

thanks for your posts SteveDinMD!
it is all a very complicated situation.

but it think the USA helped Iran a great deal.
removed their arch-enemy. gave it reason to start an arms race.
and now Hamas and Hezbollah are much more advanced.
Hezbollah is even a accepted militia in Lebanon.

these are screw-ups the next President has to deal.
first through diplomacy.

if the Bush administration went in Iraq with a little more preparation.
with more troops, like General Eric Shinseki advised, and didn't disband the Iraqi army.
then the surge wasn't even needed.
of course you can say this is all very easy to say in hindside.

but Cheney for example knew that they weren't going to be greeted as liberators.
that it wasn't going to be easy. although Rumsfeld and others made such a case.
and that the war would pay for itself and would be over soon. (mission accomplished)


listen what Cheney says here in 1994:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=YENbElb5-xY

of course that's before 9/11, but he KNEW it wouldn't be easy?
why not send the troops in with a post-invasion plan??

now it all erupted into civil war with over 1.2 million deaths now.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/sep/16/iraq.iraqtimeline (september 2007)
not all directly due to american weapons, but america set this disaster in motion by invading with a post-invastion plan.
although not entirely fair, so many blame america for that directly. and want to retaliate.
so this 'war on terror', is having a opposite effect for now.
Logged

caesu
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 2001



« Reply #15 on: June 08, 2008, 11:02:55 AM »

it should say:

but america set this disaster in motion by invading without a post-invasion plan.

Logged

Tylergal
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9535



« Reply #16 on: June 12, 2008, 01:01:48 AM »

There was never a postinvasion plan for World War II but we saved the dregs of Europe by going in and rescuing them from Hitler.  Get over your ill-informed self, Caseu.

"The dustbin of history is littered with remains of those countries that relied on diplomacy to secure their freedom. We must never forget... in the final analysis... that it is our military, industrial and economic strength that offers the best guarantee of peace for America in times of danger."
~~ Ronald Reagan


"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
~~ John Stuart Mill
Logged

There is always one more imbecile than you counted on
Tylergal
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9535



« Reply #17 on: June 12, 2008, 01:22:43 AM »

PPS
Throughout this war, the military has been inundated with negative press. Damaging leaks were rampant, coming from the Democrats in the Senate and the House, from the CIA and the State Department, even from inside the Pentagon. Every setback was exaggerated in an unrelenting information campaign to shape public perception.

Disinformation from our enemies was accepted without critical analysis by much of the media. Papers worldwide splashed every unsubstantiated negative story they could find. Enemy agents posing as stringers were feeding false stories about American atrocities. Terror attacks were timed for the 24-hour news-cycle. The broadcast media's mantra for Iraq was "if it bleeds it leads" writ large.

The enemy knew it, and used it.

This relentless media assault frustrated and confounded the military, for whom the lessons of press malfeasance in Vietnam still rankle. How can you prosecute a war against a vicious enemy when your every action may be portrayed as criminal? How can you show success when failure is all Americans are allowed to see and hear? How do you get your message out when the press ignores or alters it? How can you tell the ground truth if no one is there to listen?

The Pentagon had to respond; the onslaught of negative press was affecting the morale of troops performing brilliantly in a very hard fight, and undermining a war effort they were duty bound to prosecute. Rather than inserting "propaganda," the military attempted to get accurate information out, and the only way to do it was to ensure former military commentators had the very best, uncorrupted information possible.

Military pundits already knew from the past that truth on the ground is seldom what's reported on the Six O'clock News. They understood the importance of that information getting through the media spin. On TV, a former officer speaks directly to the American people; the message gets through, unfiltered by the media template, from someone with experience.

The "propaganda" these honorable men presented came from good faith assessments, and verified intelligence and data from the field. Rather than these veterans being conspiratorial liars, as the authors of Amendment 56 would have you believe, some of the most accurate information about Iraq came from them, which is exactly why their briefings anger the Democrats.

There was no spin in General Petraeus' testimony on Capitol Hill. He was professional and honest about the dangers of the surge. He was also clear about the potential success. Congressional Democrats insulted this fine officer, allowed Code Pink lunatics to interrupt him, and pretended to wish him well. They then did everything they could to undermine him. The Democrats have used the men and women of our military as political props, easy targets for their anti-administration hysterics.

The military does not have the luxury of turnstile political alliances and situational ethics. They are loyal, even when betrayed by Congress. The job we have given them is to win our wars, and then they are punished for doing so.

A fact that you will not hear from the press is that military public affairs and media liaison offices stress a strict adherence to truth. Despite the myths we are fed from the left, the military understands that a lie will always come back to haunt you; while truth may be difficult at first, it is a far better and honorable course. The military still believes in honor. While individuals may break this code, they inevitably suffer for it. In each of the supposed "exposes" such as Abu Grab, Hadditha and Guantanamo Bay, the military had already conducted investigations and indicted those suspected of wrongdoing. They needed no prodding from the press.

The New York Times in particular excels at "uncovering" stories that were not hidden, and spinning them into scandal after the fact. An April 20, 2008 article by David Barstow, Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon's Hidden Hand, fueled this controversy. In cherry picked quotes, Barstow spins a dark conspiracy from what would have been called effective press relations in previous years. The hand was not hidden, and in fact was quite open,  as evidenced by the easy access Barstow apparently had to program specifics.
Logged

There is always one more imbecile than you counted on
caesu
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 2001



« Reply #18 on: June 12, 2008, 07:25:05 AM »

There was never a postinvasion plan for World War II but we saved the dregs of Europe by going in and rescuing them from Hitler.  Get over your ill-informed self, Caseu.

"The dustbin of history is littered with remains of those countries that relied on diplomacy to secure their freedom. We must never forget... in the final analysis... that it is our military, industrial and economic strength that offers the best guarantee of peace for America in times of danger."
~~ Ronald Reagan


"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
~~ John Stuart Mill

there was no post-invastion plan in WWII???

you are joking right. what about the Tehran conference?
and the many conferences there were between Roosevelt and Churchill and some with Stalin/Molotov.
Logged

Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Use of this web site in any manner signifies unconditional acceptance, without exception, of our terms of use.
Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC
 
Page created in 3.077 seconds with 20 queries.