Kay testimony on WMD's not okay... is Bush really not responsible?

Not sure how many of you watched Kay's testimony on the failure to find WMD's, but I found myself quite disappointed. When he was put on as head of the search I was aware of his bias, but in not having found anything, it was sad to see him apparently still clinging to his biases.Obviously what he found (or rather did not find) is damaging to SOMEONE. To hear him tell it, the fault lies with the intelligence community and NOT with president Bush. He bent over backward painting a picture of an intelligence community hobbled by poor procedural restrictions, and so the results could not lay on Bush's shoulders. One key problem Kay stated, was the unwillingness of agents to say, "we need more data" before coming to a conclusion.Uhm... yeah, I heard this somewhere before. Oh yes, post 9-11. Oh yeah, and by republicans all throughout the Clinton presidency.This is why I wonder how Bush gets off the hook with regard to Iraq?Despite conservatives carping about intelligence restraints during Clinton's presidency, Bush did nothing to change them once he was in office. Then 9-11 happened and there was immediate statements that restraints must be lifted and focus shifted from tech to manpower. Yet Bush did not change this.Then he goes into Iraq on the basis of US intelligence, and then afterward when it is discovered it was not accurate, the answer is the same thing we've just heard?Didn't Bush have a duty to fix the intelligence system BEFORE deciding to go into Iraq? And if manpower intelligence on the ground was the issue, why did we undercut UN (manned) inspections, in favor of invasion based on purely tech based intel?To my mind Kay is towing the party line and repeating the same thing conservatives have said every time a screw up occurs. But at this late date it just doesn't cut it. We were three years into the Bush administration. He bears the burden for how he operated intelligence (especially after 9-11), not past administrations.I would also note he could very well have determined "we need more data". Most other nations had come to that conclusion. Most other intelligence agencies came to that conclusion. Many ex-CIA officials also came to that same conclusion.This is why the UN did not back our plan.What I would like to know, is if someone feels Bush is not responsible for the way intelligence is carried out three years into his own term, and not responsible for asking for more data (especially when WAR is what is at stake), why not?And if intelligence is found at fault, why are we not looking toward the countries that got their intelligence right on Iraq, and apologizing for having rushed to war for the wrong reason (even if Saddam out of power is a "good thing")?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)[This message has been edited by holmes, 01-28-2004]

Not to drag this off topic, but it is also rather odd that at almost the same time, the Hutton report essentially cleared the Blair administration of any wrongdoing while laying almost all the blame on the BBC. This in spite of the fact that Blair had stated that Iraq could launch a strike within 45 minutes using WMD among other completely false statements. Sounds like the whitewash is not confined to the US. Maybe Blair can take justice Scalia foxhunting and ask for some personal subsidies from the US taxpayers..it seems to have worked for Cheney.

The Hutton Inquiry specifically did not go into the truth or falsity of the statements made about Iraq's WMD, but rather investigated whether Tony Blair has modifed a dossier outlining them and knew that the information contained was false.

I do not necessarily think that is completely off topic, since this is a discussion about responsibility of leaders for the intelligence operations they run (Blair is fair play too). What ever happened to "the buck stops here"?Two more points to add to my first post...1) Kay, still running the party line, twisted facts to state that even the rest of the world's intelligence services, including the French and the UN thought Iraq had the weapons Bush claimed. I cannot imagine a more ludicrous statement. It is a bald faced lie and why no senator called him on this I have no idea. If this were true then why did both ElBaradei and Blix counter US claims, and Colin Powell have to come in and preach the US line to the UN... which France specifically countered. Everyone except our small coalition claimed (as Kay suggested US intelligence agents should have said) that we needed more evidence.2) Condoleeza Rice has now weighed in with a new spin. The Bush administration cannot be held responsible if now weapons are found because of Iraqi looting of key buildings after the invasion! That's right... the negligence of war planners to secure important buildings (which Rumsfeld claimed was okay because they knew that would happen and we should let them) gets Bush off the hook for not finding the WMDs. Yet they were able to secure oil fields? Hmmmmmm.When will the leaders of the war admit they lied, or made a huge mistake? When will the public demand accountability from their gov't instead of buck passing?I thought President's had to have character.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)[This message has been edited by holmes, 01-29-2004]

quote:

---

When will the leaders of the war admit they lied, or made a huge mistake? When will the public demand accountability from their gov't instead of buck passing?

​

I thought President's had to have character

---

They are under very little pressure to be honest. Bush has his core supporters activated and they will vote for him, send him money, campaign for him even if it turns out he rapes goats on Crawford ranch, forced his wife to have multiple abortions, is snorting coke right now, and was personally responsible for the collapse of Enron because he thought it would be fun. And leaders don't have to have character. I am hard pressed to think of a current leader that has character (meaning not repugnant character..there are plenty of those).The saddest part of this is that such a large proportion of the public buys into what people like Bush or Blair says. Chirac is also a monster criminal who has pulled some extremely Burlosconi-esque tricks. The problem is a lot of mass media is controlled by the same interests that pander to politicians so that most of the outragous things that are going on are either only briefly carried or are not mentioned at all. Free the media from corporate interests and then you might get your wish (and mine) of holding the current administration and any other corrupt people in power accountable for their actions.

It seemed to me that the evidence of WMD's in Iraq was always presented with a wink and a nudge. Even the slim evidence that Powell presented to the UN, in my opinion, was not enough to justify trampling over another country's sovereignty. However, there were plenty of human rights violations that would more than justify military action. Whether or not there were WMDs is a secondary issue to me, but the Bush administration should fess up to blowing the WMD issue out of proportion, even to the point of ignoring the reliability of some of their intelligence.My biggest beef with Bush is his inability to garner support from the UN, or at least a majority of democracies across the world. Bush, or America as a whole for that matter, should not act unilateraly in a world whose politics and economies are tightly interwoven. It seems that Bush's actions against Iraq are an attempt to legitimise his presidency after losing the popular vote and to secure another 4 years in office. It stinks of a desperate president trying to create partisanship in order to win votes. Unfortunately, this seems to be working, but I still have hope for us crazy Americans. Whoever the Democratic nominee ends up being (I was hoping for Gephardt, alas no more) should focus on how Bush has misused his power and how he has given America a bad name overseas. Claiming that invading Iraq was the wrong thing to do on principle alone is a dangerous position to take, afterall Saddam was not going to win any "Man of the Year" awards any time soon. Pointing out that Bush was unable to win the support of other democratic nations (don't worry, I'm not forgetting about our beloved Brits) is probably the best position to take. Hell, he wasn't even able to win support here in the States.What should have happened you asked (since I am proclaiming myself as an expert in international politics ):1. Send in inspectors.2. Send in more inspectors.3. Lift embargoes that were starving the Iraqi people but in now way hindering Saddam's ability to make weapons.4. Send in even more inspectors.5. Pressure the hell out of Saddam to have fair elections, open up every parcel of land to weapons inspectors, and force Saddam into a corner POLITICALLY until he had no option but to retaliate.These steps could have garnered support from the UN, but Bush took the easy way out which has resulted in a decline in American influence across the globe.[This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 01-29-2004]

Not until after the election if Bush loses. Not until 2008 if he wins. If it relates to the Iraq war, then the whole Iraq issue will hang in limbo until this summer when...a) there is a gradual, but visible transfer of power to the Iraqis. (Bush exploites it in time for the election)b) Iraq explodes in civil war between the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds.
(Bush dives for cover and Kerry jumps down his throat)(:raig

While I do NOT believe there were any "humanitarian rights" reason to invade Iraq (at least no more than to invade any of our other friends including: Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, Pakistan, Israel, China, etc etc), I do agree in general with what you laid out for what we should have done instead of invading.However, I want to warn people from drifting on to that subject in this thread. I don't believe reliving history with hypotheticals is helpful at all. The war happened, its; over.I want to focus on what we can learn from the experience and what that means for the future. One thing we totally learned is that Bush was wrong before 9-11, on 9-11, then before Iraq, and then during Iraq, and now after Iraq.Everyone can agree that Saddam was a terrible dictator and its great he is gone now, but the question remains is BUSH a good democratic leader that we should keep in power in the future. With how wrong he was, and his continuing insistence that he never made one mistake, points to a very solid NO.I don't want him making any more decisions for this nation in the future, so I don't have to keep hearing his flunkies pleading how Bush should be absolved of yet another mistake.Ya know I still can't get over that he could so obviously lie in a State of the Union address, and in another speech encourage the enemy to attack our troops, and he hasn't been sent packing yet.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

You forgot:C) We have a new (and belated) Spring offensive in Afghanistan, including incursions into Pakistan, ultimately resulting in the capture/death of Osama Bin Laden... and everyone forgets Iraq happened, much less that anything bad was done in pursuit of waging that war.I'm banking on C happening, and I am sure Bush is too, given the number of news announcements on a "long planned" spring offensive in Afghanistan... and some odd (and belated) badmouthing of Pakistan.Of course there is also:D) Saddam Hussein is put on trial Summer/Fall and Bush uses that as a cover for past misdeeds.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Well, if I were your local garden flavor Taliban commander, I would counter the Spring Offensive by striking a deal with the local warlords and meld in with the farmers during their spring planting of the poppy fields. In addition, I would send squads into the cities, lay low and wait. If I had a wicked sense of humor I would invite feydayen fighers from Syria, Jordan, Pakistan and Iran to die gloriously in battle with the "infidels". This would give the US military a body count and would make them believe that they had actually accomplished something. Meanwhile, Osama is squirreled away deep inside Pakistan until the Spring Offensive is over. By summer, it would be "back to the business at hand."As a matter of fact, the Taliban would be wise to coordinate a summer counter-offensive with Al Quada attacks in Iraq during power transfer to a new and shaky Iraqi government and really embarrass Bush.In Vietnam, it was called the "Tet Offensive". The Taliban and Al Quada don't have to win militarily. They just have to bend the political will of American voters during an election year.The newly elected government of Afghanistan won't amount to a hill of beans until they can extend their influence past the ciy limits of Kabaul. Until then, they are just a "city-state" in the classic Greek sense of the word.(:raig

On NPR, I just heard a discussion of the proposed independent investigations of the U.S. intelligence failures, concerning the pre-war Iraq situation.What I found perversely amusing, was a proposal from someone on the Republican side, that the findings of the independent investigation SHOULD NOT be released until after the upcoming presidential elections - That the finding should not be an issue in the election.In other words, an investigation that might find that there was gross incompetence on the part of the current administration, should not be an issue in the presidential election.Moose

Which of course means that they KNOW that gross incompetence will be found.

---

Asgara
"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato

John McCain, a republican who I actually have some respect for (even when I disagree with him) made that remark. I couldn't believe it when I heard it.The results of such an investigation should be of PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE before an election.What would the country do if he was elected, and then it is proven he lied? Ohhhh, riiiiiiiight. Nothing.Not sure if you've heard that Bush is now nixing any suggestion of an independent investigation. In other words to republicans blow jobs for presidents should be investigated, deceiving the american public should not.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I'm pretty sure the version I heard, wasn't from McCain. My impression was, that McCain was prominent in pushing for the investigation. Of course, that doesn't mean that the results could be held back.Moose

I totally agree!