Bush to Appoint Independent Commission ? What's wrong with this equation?
Bush + CIA intelligence= Bush Exaggerates Intelligence
Bush+WMD Hunt = NADA, ZIP, ZERO and Zilch
Bush + "Independant" Inquiry=??????
The answer anyone???
Here's a hint... the Election is Nov. 2
Bonus Points if you know how many members of the commission there will be.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/02/02/spr...wmd/index.html
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush said Monday he would appoint a presidential commission to review U.S. intelligence on the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Bush+WMD Hunt = NADA, ZIP, ZERO and Zilch
Bush + "Independant" Inquiry=??????
The answer anyone???
Here's a hint... the Election is Nov. 2
Bonus Points if you know how many members of the commission there will be.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/02/02/spr...wmd/index.html
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush said Monday he would appoint a presidential commission to review U.S. intelligence on the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Comments
Makes it look like Bush wants to get to the bottom of the problem... when he knows exactly what the problem is... they harassed and cajoled the CIA until they stopped getting resistance and the analysts were "on board".
"Mr. Bush has set no timetable for the inquiry, and he sidestepped a reporter's question today about whether Americans were owed an explanation before the Nov. 2 elections. Mr. McClellan said that the committee's work would extend past the Nov. 2 presidential election "so it doesn't become embroiled in partisan politics."
By using an executive order to establish the commission, Mr. Bush will retain greater control over its membership and mission; aides said it will probably be given until next year to complete its work."
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/02/in...2CND-WEAP.html
Regarding this investigation: Everyone should be careful what they wish for...what if we find that Democrats were behind this "bad" intelligence...what if we find that Republicans were behind this "bad" intelligence? What if it was just bad intelligence? What if it was good intelligence and we find WMD's?
It is really sad that this is being politicised in search of votes...can we stoop any lower?
There's been so many articles that have stated the Administration kept pressing the intelligence agencies to give them evidence to back up their story that Saddam had huge arsenals and was trying to buy Yellow cake... that the CIA analysts were not elling them what they wanted to hear so they started circumventing the analysts and looking at raw intel.
Yup... the Democrats did screw up... they actually believed Bush's case.
it was reasonably bad intelligence that was stovepiped in order to paint a much worse picture . . . a picture that could be used to further a long standing goal of the administration (Perle, Cheney Wollfowits)
The Democrats had no spine and they should be kicked in the arse for it . . . Kerry should get slapped by Clark!)
What we wish is for the truth to come out . . .
what I don't understand is who decides who gets to pick teh commission? I mean how does such a decision come about? is it in some set of bylaws somewhere? or are they making it up as they go? and is Bush just deciding 'hey, I the President . . . I'll decide who is on this commission . .. well, because I said so"?
If it were an EVEN number of comissioners... it would be truly bipartisan if he picked say 8... 4 from the right and 4 from the left.
I guess he could still stack it with 5 on his side and 3 from the left...
but he picks, so it's irrelevant.
It keeps the focus on the CIA and NOT what the administration did.
It's like Saddam creating a presidential commission on human rights... pointless.
Is it because no politicians are willing to say out loud, that we want to investigate not just the CIA but the role of the administration in this matter too?!?
Why not set up a Congressional committee?!?!?
Originally posted by rageous
I love this. He gets criticized for ordering an investigation into something you guys have been dogging him about for ages now. And what if he didn't call for the investigation? Why not save your further criticisms for a more appropriate time instead of just sitting around the water cooler gossiping about what you "know" will happen?
Are you new to the US or something? The problem is not him "ordering"
(more like GIVING IN to pressure from both Dems and Reps for an investigation ) an investigation.
The problem is the manner in which this "investigation' will be set up. Surely for once you could try to think beyond the party, or is that too much to ask?
Or maybe you just think taking the country to war-over at the very least and with the full benefit of the doubt, horribly faulty intelligence-is no big deal?
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Am I correct in assuming that the commission will report its findings after the election?
the commission report will be published in 2005. The fact that Bush made this commission imply that he agree finally that the informations where false.
There's no real reason for a commission because... THEY KNOW WHAT THEY DID.
It's the blame the CIA more they're going into now.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...129196-0071043
A Iraq Hawk and what she says what went on...
Combining important new research with an insider's grasp of Beltway politics, Mylroie describes how the CIA and the State Department have systematically discredited critical intelligence about Saddam's regime, including indisputable evidence of its possession of weapons of mass destruction. She reveals how major elements of the case against Iraq -- including information about possible links to al Qaeda and evidence of potential Iraqi involvement in the fall 2001 anthrax attacks -- were prematurely dismissed by these agencies for cynical reasons. Mylroie traces how the very idea of state-sponsored terrorism was pronounced dead after the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, giving states like Iraq an open ing to underwrite terrorism without being detected. And she demonstrates that the war with Iraq was not only justifiable -- but the necessary and moral course of action.
Originally posted by Gilsch
Are you new to the US or something? The problem is not him "ordering"
(more like GIVING IN to pressure from both Dems and Reps for an investigation ) an investigation.
The problem is the manner in which this "investigation' will be set up. Surely for once you could try to think beyond the party, or is that too much to ask?
Or maybe you just think taking the country to war-over at the very least and with the full benefit of the doubt, horribly faulty intelligence-is no big deal?
Hmmm.. interesting point. I do often have trouble looking past the barriers my party has set up... wait a sec I'm not Republican. That can't work.
Chu_bakka and others: How do you know Bush lied? How do you know he exaggerated? How do you know the intel WASN'T totally wrong? Members of Congress DID see much of the intel....you do know that, right?
And now, it's "Bush lied and mislead everyone". What amazes me is NOT that you think Bush lied, but that you cannot even accept the POSSBILITY that he didn't. It's insane.
Originally posted by Mike
Didn't the Democrats also vote for the war based on the same intelligence that Bush was shown? Yet somehow these same Democrats blame Bush for believing this "bad" intelligence as if he created it when they believed the same intelligence. Isn't this the same intelligence that Clinton believed?
Regarding this investigation: Everyone should be careful what they wish for...what if we find that Democrats were behind this "bad" intelligence...what if we find that Republicans were behind this "bad" intelligence? What if it was just bad intelligence? What if it was good intelligence and we find WMD's?
It is really sad that this is being politicised in search of votes...can we stoop any lower?
Exactly. Look at Clinton's statements and actions against Iraq. The US government believed he had WMD for years and years. True, we didn't go to war...but what does that say? Nothing, except that Clinton was always afraid to take any real military action.
I say again: There is ZERO evidence that Bush lied or twisted the intel community's arm. Show me even a SHRED of evidence....go ahead. Oh, but I forgot, you have "articles" that say he lied. I forgot about those.
Isn't this the same intelligence that Clinton believed?
Not at all.
On the raw intelligence side, the major two developments were the UNMOVIC inspections and the influx of false INC defector reports.
On the product side, we had the NIE, which stands in stark contrast to all previous assessments, and, most importantly, the Office of Special Plans. OSP was the primary source for the intelligence products that painted an image of a WMD armed Iraq collaborating with al-qaeda.
OSP was also a direct creation of the Bush administration. As such, most intelligence products were indeed created by the Bush administration.
Smacks very disingenuous, even to many sheep I would think.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Exactly. Look at Clinton's statements and actions against Iraq. The US government believed he had WMD for years and years. True, we didn't go to war...but what does that say? Nothing, except that Clinton was always afraid to take any real military action.
I say again: There is ZERO evidence that Bush lied or twisted the intel community's arm. Show me even a SHRED of evidence....go ahead. Oh, but I forgot, you have "articles" that say he lied. I forgot about those.
You're comparing this situation to Clinton is laughable. Maybe he didn't take military action the way Bush did because he doubted the intel himself?
Bush did this for other reasons bucko. It's as clear as a bell only you don't want to see it. The same set of reasons why he wants to wait until after the election (
Originally posted by Wrong Robot
Can you accept the possibility that he did?
i guess he can't...
i can accept the possibility that he didn't lie
he most likely at least was subject to "selective hearing"...it took cheney like 2 years to admit that sadam had nothing "likely" to do with 9-11...
so the bush people heard what they wanted and went forward...
did he lie outright, possiblily not...this commission is likely not even going to look at that...after all the commission was only agree on after cheney received certain "conditions" from congress...
g