Discreet Dolls
Toronto Escorts

Presidential commission report on Iraq

Asterix

Sr. Member
Aug 6, 2002
10,025
0
0
The president's commission released it's final report today, and it wasn't good. They described US intelligence as "dead wrong", "worthless and misleading", and the daily briefings given to the president as "disastrously one-sided". Just in case anyone had any doubts. Most interesting is that the most critical chapter, not available for public release, was especially critical of the inadequacy of intelligence about North Korea and Iran. Hopefully this will all give GW pause before he decides to jump in again.
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
So, then, as I've said a million times, Bush didn't "lie"

The WMD Scandal that Wasn’t
Bipartisan bad news.

Rich Lowry

The commission studying the intelligence failures that produced disastrously flawed estimates of Iraq's weapons-of-mass-destruction capabilities has finally produced its report, and it's devastating. Not just for U.S. intelligence, which is portrayed as hapless and bungling, but for Bush critics who have vested so much in the argument that Bush officials pressured intelligence agencies to support the case for war.

New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd is the epitome of this school of thought. The very morning the report was released she wrote that "political pressure was the father of conveniently botched intelligence," and fingered Dick Cheney as the lead culprit. Cut to Page 50 of the WMD report: "The Commission found no evidence of political pressure to influence the Intelligence Community's prewar assessments of Iraq's weapons programs."

Bush critics have focused on the erroneous intelligence around Iraq's nuclear capabilities. Suddenly — or so the conspiracy theory goes — the CIA and others began to say what President Bush wanted to hear about Saddam Hussein and nukes in 2002. But the crucial shift away from the belief that Saddam had no active nuclear program came in early 2001, back when Bush was essentially maintaining President Clinton's Iraq policy. That's when we learned that Saddam was attempting to acquire aluminum tubes that could be used for conventional rockets, or — much worse — for gas centrifuges for enriching uranium.

Various intelligence agencies disagree about the purpose of the tubes. The CIA and others argued that they were for uranium enrichment and that, therefore, Saddam was reconstituting his nuclear program. The Department of Energy thought the tubes were unlikely to be used in centrifuges. But even it concluded from other evidence that Saddam had a renewed nuclear program. Only the State Department dissented from the conclusion in the notorious October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate that Baghdad had a program, but cautiously: "[the evidence] indicates, at most, a limited Iraqi nuclear reconstitution effort."

On biological weapons (BW), there was a shift from saying that Iraq might have bioweapons to concluding that it definitely did. The dark influence of Cheney? No. The change began in 2000, when President Clinton was still in office. It was based on information from a (totally dishonest, as it turns out) source code-named Curveball. That year, the National Intelligence Estimate was updated to say: "New information suggests that Baghdad has expanded its offensive BW program by establishing a large-scale, redundant and concealed BW agent production capability."

If there was a fundamental problem in how policymakers and intelligence officials interacted, it was that policymakers, again and again, were not made aware of the thinness and questionable reliability of much of the information about Iraq. In other words, intelligence agencies poorly served Bush, Cheney, and the rest of the hawks, not the other way around.

On the one hand, it is understandable that the intel was so fouled up. We assumed that Saddam had the worst intentions. If he wasn't cooperating with the United Nations, he must have been developing something nasty. The report, over and over, says that these assumptions — crucial to all the analysis — had "a powerful air of common sense" and were "not unreasonable." On the other hand, there were so many frank factual errors and sloppy practices in all this that former CIA head George Tenet should have his recently awarded Presidential Medal of Freedom revoked.

In its recommendations, the WMD commission makes some nods toward decentralization. This after Congress rushed to "reform" intelligence last year by centralizing it. If we undo that reform and pass another, will intelligence be doubly effective because it will have been "reformed" twice? Bureaucratic shuffling is beside the point. What is most important — and the WMD report usefully emphasizes this — is that we get more agents on the ground and that the people running U.S. intelligence be more imaginative and risk-taking.

That's not easy. Would that the problem really were just getting Dick Cheney to butt out.

OTB
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
Who is Rich Lowry and for whom does he write? Where can I read this for myself? I know it's hard keeping up the basic rules you learned in school, but without proper attribution, no one can give credence to quoted material.

Other than the finding that the intelligence supplied to the President was entirely erroneous, the only part of the Commission's finding Mr. Lowry talks about, appears to be: "The Commission found no evidence of political pressure to influence the Intelligence Community's prewar assessments of Iraq's weapons programs." The rest of the article appears to be his opinions on matters other than the Commission.

I'm not sure why you say his opinions have anything to do with the President lying. The facts remain as obvious as they have always been to all but GeorgeII and his cabal: Saddam hadn't had any WMDs for years. There was no need for a war.

Don't trust spies, they lie for money.
 

WoodPeckr

Protuberant Member
May 29, 2002
47,017
5,950
113
North America
thewoodpecker.net
Rich Lowry

Here's the dope on Rich:

http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry.asp

Upon further reflection the article may be an 'April Fool's Day' joke!

The WMD Scandal that Wasn’t...???? ....indeed.....so it was just a myth eehh... :rolleyes:
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
oldjones said:
Who is Rich Lowry and for whom does he write? Where can I read this for myself? I know it's hard keeping up the basic rules you learned in school, but without proper attribution, no one can give credence to quoted material.
I think Pecker answered this question, any reason you have to be such a prick?

oldjones said:
Other than the finding that the intelligence supplied to the President was entirely erroneous, the only part of the Commission's finding Mr. Lowry talks about, appears to be: "The Commission found no evidence of political pressure to influence the Intelligence Community's prewar assessments of Iraq's weapons programs." The rest of the article appears to be his opinions on matters other than the Commission.
Which was the whole point of Bush lied vs Bush was wrong.


oldjones said:
I'm not sure why you say his opinions have anything to do with the President lying. The facts remain as obvious as they have always been to all but GeorgeII and his cabal: Saddam hadn't had any WMDs for years. There was no need for a war.

Don't trust spies, they lie for money.
Because lying is knowingly saying something that is wrong. One would think you'd remember that from school.

OTB
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
onthebottom said:
I think Pecker answered this question, any reason you have to be such a prick?
'Scuse me, WoodPekr certainly did answer. After I asked. Am I a prick for asking then?

Which was the whole point of Bush lied vs Bush was wrong.
Duh Bush was lying vs. Bush was wrong was settled long ago. Like most government commissions, this one's the last to be heard from. What in my post gives you any reason think that was my issue? The article was cited as if it gave new, factual information. Turned out to be yet another partisan opinion piece I could do without, and that's what the excerpt you posted says.

Because lying is knowingly saying something that is wrong. One would think you'd remember that from school.

OTB
Again, where did I say the GeorgeII lied? Not what I care about; being wrong when so many others were right is maybe worse. But I was asking about this guy Lowry's opinions and why I should take them as proof of anything.

So far I've gotten nothing but potty-mouthed abuse for asking. Why do you guys have so much trouble dealing with facts?
 

irlandais9000

Member
Feb 15, 2004
637
0
16
USA
I'll say it though - Bush lied. Not that Rich Lowry would ever admit that, he is a well known partisan hack.

This commission is just another attempt by Bush to deflect blame from himself, where it belongs, onto our intelligence agencies.

The intelligence before the war was mixed. Note the information from Ambassador Wilson on the Nigeria WMD connection - which Bush chose to ignore because it didn't fit his desired result. Ironically, Bush supporters deride their opponents for advocating "junk science", when Bush is the worst perpetrator of using selective information.
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
Not that anyone cares about my personal opinions, but I think worse than lying is being so blinkered and or stupid—I'm in no position to sort that out—as to ignore the stated, proven conclusions of the guys on the ground, tasked with getting the truth in favour of the shaded, nuanced, suppositions and hypotheses of intelligence reports. I tend to despise conspiracy theories like Michael Moore's proposition in 9/11 but the willful blindness and incompetence that got America into Iraq and continues to botch the aftermath is so egregious, it's hard not to credit some dark plot and hidden purpose. I suppose there may be such, but I'd be far more certain that we can trust these guys to screw it up than fearful they might succeed.

It's just a bitter shame so many innocent Iraqis and Americans have to die for it. Surely we could hope for better from the nation that has given us The Bachelorette.
 

Asterix

Sr. Member
Aug 6, 2002
10,025
0
0
It never struck me that Bush was outright lying to the public about Iraq, lying to himself perhaps. Bush, and especially Cheney and Rumsfeld, made the mistake of all mistakes; first coming to the conclusion to go to war with Iraq and then waiting for information to come in to confirm that decision. George Tenet happily obliged. If Bush is guilty of anything, it is being extraordinarily gullible. Before the final go ahead to go to war, Bush pointedly asked Tenet if he was sure Iraq had WMD. Tenet replied that "it's a slam dunk, Mr. President". When that didn't quite satisfy Bush, Tenet stood up, raised his hands above his head and repeated, "Mr. President, it's a slam dunk". Good enough for GW. In a just world, George Tenet would be in jail for his role in all this.
 
Jan 24, 2004
1,279
0
0
The Vegetative State
Anyone who thinks that this massive foul-up in intelligence gathering, which somehow serendipitously confirmed exactly what the President wanted it to confirm, without a hint of dissent, occured independently of influence from those determined to justify a war within Iraq, and that there was simply a magical coincidence between thousands of intelligence "mistakes" and the cant of White House hawks...is...is...um, is a very trusting individual.
 

Truncador

New member
Mar 21, 2005
1,714
0
0
Intelligence, schmintelligence. The Iraq war was a smashing success, an entire nation was liberated from Fascist despotism and set on the road to freedom, France was humbled, and a watershed moment in the history of the State reached. So Saddam didn't have anything. Have, schmave. From the start I always thought that the whole thing about WMDs should best be regarded as a sort of legal fiction or conceptual tool, and that whether or not they existed is really besides the point.
 

Asterix

Sr. Member
Aug 6, 2002
10,025
0
0
Truncador said:
From the start I always thought that the whole thing about WMDs should best be regarded as a sort of legal fiction or conceptual tool, and that whether or not they existed is really besides the point.
Really. Do you honestly believe that Bush would have been able to win the support of the American people, congress, and Great Britain had he not been so determined in making the case for Iraq having WMD? Without it there is no way Bush could have sold the idea of going to war.
 

Truncador

New member
Mar 21, 2005
1,714
0
0
Asterix said:
Really. Do you honestly believe that Bush would have been able to win the support of the American people, congress, and Great Britain had he not been so determined in making the case for Iraq having WMD? Without it there is no way Bush could have sold the idea of going to war.
That's sort of what I had in mind in saying that WMDs served as a useful theoretical fiction. The notion served as a way to translate the rather abstract agendas and goals of the State into terms that mass publics could easily grasp and support.
 
Jan 24, 2004
1,279
0
0
The Vegetative State
Truncador said:
Intelligence, schmintelligence. The Iraq war was a smashing success, an entire nation was liberated from Fascist despotism and set on the road to freedom, France was humbled, and a watershed moment in the history of the State reached. So Saddam didn't have anything. Have, schmave. From the start I always thought that the whole thing about WMDs should best be regarded as a sort of legal fiction or conceptual tool, and that whether or not they existed is really besides the point.
I'm sure that's of enormous comfort to 1500+ American families who lost members defending their country from a legal fiction. Perhaps your note should be included in their machine-written condolence letters.

I have rarely been as disgusted with a post. You Straussians are real pieces of work...
 

Truncador

New member
Mar 21, 2005
1,714
0
0
Drunken Master said:
I'm sure that's of enormous comfort to 1500+ American families who lost members defending their country from a legal fiction. Perhaps your note should be included in their machine-written condolence letters.

I have rarely been as disgusted with a post. You Straussians are real pieces of work...
Spare us the crocodile tears, please. It strikes me that the Left, not the "Straussians" (whoever they are), are the ones who insist that American troops give their lives for nothing when they aren't actually accusing them of committing atrocities, acting as the dragoons of imperialism, and otherwise doing everything they can to drag their names and honour through the dirt. To do justice to the memory and honour of a fallen volunteer is to recognize that he faithfully served as the right arm of his Commander-in-Chief in whatever the latter ordered him to do.

Moving right along, I've never read a work of Strauss' in my life and don't plan on doing so soon. The term, "Straussian", seems to me to have the exact same signification that the term "Marxist" used to have on the Right, namely an accusation of membership in some imagined sinister qabal of theoreticians of pure Evil.
 

Truncador

New member
Mar 21, 2005
1,714
0
0
bbking said:
I can't think of anything more disturbing than asking a young man/woman to die for a lie and only a truly evil mind would come up with that.
Well, in spite of your opposition the people of Iraq are no longer subject to being put in plastic shredders and iron maidens at will, and the world is safe from a dangerous Fascist mental case. Evil indeed :rolleyes:

Saddam didn't have weapons of mass destruction- he was one. To say that the State "lied" about Saddam is about as accurate as calling people liars for saying that the sun rises in the East, which strictly speaking isn't "true" either.
 
Jan 24, 2004
1,279
0
0
The Vegetative State
You may not have read Strauss, but your bloated animadiversions on the "State", your antiquated notions of leftism, and your utter contempt for the "masses", who apparently need to be lied to and manipulated for their own good, are torn right from his pages. A Straussian you surely are, even if you didn't know it.

Let me ask you a simple question - if the Iraqi War was so implicitly noble and just, why was a "legal fiction" necessary to con people into dying for it in the first place?
 

Asterix

Sr. Member
Aug 6, 2002
10,025
0
0
Truncador said:
Saddam didn't have weapons of mass destruction- he was one. To say that the State "lied" about Saddam is about as accurate as calling people liars for saying that the sun rises in the East, which strictly speaking isn't "true" either.
Nice try. Certainly many people had to lie to many more people who should have known better, for the version fed to the public before the war to be so diametrically opposed to the truth. What I find especially galling is that the adminstration was so fervent in their conviction of Iraq having WMD, repeatedly saying there was no doubt. To try and compare this to a figure of speech such as "the sun rises in the east", is meaningless.
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts