Report says U.S. spy agencies were 'dead wrong' about Iraq

[jdhill 0]

Quote

Do you subscribe to the "do something! anything! even if it's wrong!" school of international diplomacy, then?

Not at all, I suscribe to the theory that we should have stamped this peckerhead out in 91, or 94, or 98... You keep telling us that we put him in power, so it was ultimately our responsibility to acknowledge our mistake and take him out...

The national level intel was mixed... OK, you should be looking at all the analysis, not just that that confirms your template... but the tactical level intel pointed very clearly that he had them... commo, unit activities, deployment, yada, yada, yada... not to mention his dick dance with the inspectors... maybe we fell for a massive deception plan and he (SH) wanted us to think he had them, maybe he though he had them, maybe they went across the boarder to Syria... Time will tell.

Quote

A month before the attack Bush was handed a briefing entitled "Bin Laden determined to strike in US" listing airliner hijackings and threats against buildings in NY.

There you have it... he did nothing, it was his fault... don't bother with the fact there there was not any specific report saying 9/11 would happen, or even a 9/11 type attack would happen... we knew when BC was in office that AQ wanted to hit us, and in fact did (USS Cole, WTC '93, Embassy bobmings, etc), yet OBL was not gone after with any vigor, even when offered up...

Damed if you do, damed if you don't... Telling good intel from bad is a hard thing to do, having been in the business, I know...it becomes much easier after the battle is over.

Sure, mistakes were made, but you can say that all the way back to the departure of the British, and the creation of the current ME states, and every president we have had since then... not just to the sitting president.

IMO, history will record that it was the right thing to do, WMD or not. I'm sure you will disagree.

J

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

[Casurf1978 0]

Quote

yet OBL was not gone after with any vigor, even when offered up...

Actually BC did go after OBL. BC signed several directives that authorized the killing of OBL and other high ranking AQ personal. One directive specifically stated that we, USA, are allowed to shoot down any private civilian aircraft which would carry OBL and and head AQ operatives. We stationed 2 Los Angeles Class attack subs capable of striking of Afghanistan with cruise missels. Short of launching ground troops inside Afghanistan BC did go after OBL. I doubt very few Americans knew who OBL was or would've approved sending in troops to get OBL before 9/11.

[billvon 2,998]

>Not at all, I suscribe to the theory that we should have stamped this
>peckerhead out in 91, or 94, or 98... You keep telling us that we put
> him in power, so it was ultimately our responsibility to acknowledge our
>mistake and take him out...

Which peckerhead, Bin Laden or Hussein?

>but the tactical level intel pointed very clearly that he had them...
>commo, unit activities, deployment, yada, yada, yada...

As we have learned, intel did NOT point to his having them. But Bush wanted to believe he did, so he did.

>not to mention his dick dance with the inspectors...

The inspectors said he was cooperating and they could finish their inspections within a few months.

>Time will tell.

How long will the right wing use this one? "Oh, maybe he moved them all to Syria, then Syria moved them to Iran when we invaded Syria . . . "

I have a better theory. There were no WMD's and we just needed an excuse to invade, because we really, really wanted to invade to fulfill the goals of the PNAC. Facts support my theory a heck of a lot more than they do yours. Heck, government officials have admitted to it.

>There you have it... he did nothing, it was his fault... don't bother with
> the fact there there was not any specific report saying 9/11 would
> happen, or even a 9/11 type attack would happen...

So we knew that Bin Laden was planning an attack. He knew it could involve hijacked airliners and it might target NYC buildings. Not specific enough for you?

I bet if the report had said "BIN LADEN WILL BLOW UP BOTH WTC BUILDINGS WITH HIJACKED PLANES IN A MONTH" the right wingers would protest "but there was no specific date. How could we have known what would happen?"

>Sure, mistakes were made, but you can say that all the way back to the
>departure of the British, and the creation of the current ME states, and
> every president we have had since then... not just to the sitting
>president.

I agree with you there.

>IMO, history will record that it was the right thing to do, WMD or not.

Of course it will. We write the history books. I'll bet you any amount you want that none of the Iraqis we killed will claim it was the wrong thing to do.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>You need to look up the definition of war crimes.

That's easy. "Any crime committed during wartime against the United States."

Historically, only losers commit war crimes.

But there's no doubt that deaths in Iraq due to Bush's decision to engage is not a war crime. There might be something on the torture angle...but hard to pin on the President.

[jdhill 0]

Quote

Which peckerhead, Bin Laden or Hussein?

Hussein

Quote

As we have learned, intel did NOT point to his having them. But Bush wanted to believe he did, so he did.

You're being revisionist... The intel was the intel... some intel pointed to it, some did not... at the tactical level, many of the indicators did... the intel may have now been shown to be wrong, but that does not change the intel that existed at the time, and much of that, from multiple sources, from multiple countries, did point to it.

J

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

[03CLS 0]

Quote

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2005/03/31/usspies050331.html

Only one of dozens of news stories on the latest report about US intelligence and the war, WMD's and pretty much everything else.

So at the risk of starting the debate all over again -

Just how many reports of no WMD's, faulty intelligence and 'running to war' are we supposed to read before someone says "Hey maybe we were wrong?"

Gas is at the highest price ever, the middle east is anything but stable, we are still on 'yellow alerts' and the deficit is going to be trillions. Woo-hoo, where do I sign up?

TK

The intel was wrong, because they didn't have agents on the ground in Iraq until we started gearing up to
invade. Now we did have a chance to overthrow Sadam back in the Clinton years, but the White House didn't back the plan.

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

Quote

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2005/03/31/usspies050331.html

Only one of dozens of news stories on the latest report about US intelligence and the war, WMD's and pretty much everything else.

So at the risk of starting the debate all over again -

Just how many reports of no WMD's, faulty intelligence and 'running to war' are we supposed to read before someone says "Hey maybe we were wrong?"

Gas is at the highest price ever, the middle east is anything but stable, we are still on 'yellow alerts' and the deficit is going to be trillions. Woo-hoo, where do I sign up?

TK

The intel was wrong, because they didn't have agents on the ground in Iraq until we started gearing up to
invade. Now we did have a chance to overthrow Sadam back in the Clinton years, but the White House didn't back the plan.

The best opportunity of all was during the Bush(41) years, in 1991.

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

As we have learned, intel did NOT point to his having them. But Bush wanted to believe he did, so he did.

Quote

I have a better theory. There were no WMD's and we just needed an excuse to invade, because we really, really wanted to invade to fulfill the goals of the PNAC. Facts support my theory a heck of a lot more than they do yours. Heck, government officials have admitted to it.

Haven't read the report yet, eh?


http://www.wmd.gov/report/wmd_report.pdf

[jenfly00 0]

Quote

Anyone who is surprised & outraged at intelligence agencies making mistakes has obviously been reading too many Jack Ryan novels!

These agencies are charged with trying to find out stuff which their targets are trying very hard to conceal! By definition they have to deal with traitorous liars & make their assessments on incomplete information.

So yeah. They got it wrong. Live with it. Deal with it. Move on.

Mike.

On another note, did you know that Webster's has removed the word 'gullible' from it's dictionary?

-----------------------
"O brave new world that has such people in it".

[Ron 10]

Quote

Which peckerhead, Bin Laden or Hussein?

Both?

Quote

The inspectors said he was cooperating and they could finish their inspections within a few months.

They said he was not more than they said he was.

Quote

There were no WMD's

Uh Bill...He had them, we have the recipts.

Quote

Heck, government officials have admitted to it.

Government officials also said that SH had WMD's.....So what is your point? Some siad he had them, some said he did not....We knew he had some since we GAVE TEHM TO HIM....He never complied with the resolutions....

See, if he had played along and complied there would have been nothing done ever....

Quote

So we knew that Bin Laden was planning an attack. He knew it could involve hijacked airliners and it might target NYC buildings. Not specific enough for you?

No. You know how many threats we get a DAY? You bitch about us doing something about WMD intel, but bitch about us doing nothing on other intel?

One we knew a guy had WMD (Remember we gave them to him), we knew he would use them (He did remember?). The other we have some terrorist plot right out of a Clancy novel.

But I find it funny you bitch about us going on one set of intel, but not running like hell on the other.

Quote

I bet if the report had said "BIN LADEN WILL BLOW UP BOTH WTC BUILDINGS WITH HIJACKED PLANES IN A MONTH" the right wingers would protest "but there was no specific date. How could we have known what would happen?"

And I bet if we had intel that said, "Some guy, is gonna do something bad, to someone, at some point, in the next few odd years".....As long as it fit your needs you would say it pointed to 9/11.

But when we had intel that said SH didn't have WMD's...since it didn't fit your agenda it was bad.

Quote

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

• Quote