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]

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]

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)

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)

quote:

---

I'm pretty sure the version I heard, wasn't from McCain.

---

Yeah, there could be many republicans who said such a thing. All I know is that I watched McCain say it on a news program, and I was shocked to hear HIM say it. He was totally gung-ho for an investigation, he just thought it was obvious that the results should be held till after the elections so as not to influence anyone's votes.I'm sorry, but whether the president made a huge fucking mistake, or lied to the american public is exactly the right kind of influences we want voters to have before they vote.I suppose he'd prefer an investigation proving Bush didn't get a blowjob like Clinton... which they used (somehow) to cast a "character" shadow over Gore. At least Bush never did that!

---

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

Just to let you know, you should press the "reply" button at the bottom of the individual post you are replying to, instead of at the bottom of the page. That way the person you are responding to knows you are talking to them.I can only hope you were totally agreeing with me, but maybe it was some other fine poster in this thread.

---

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

Sometimes I think it's that bad... especially when I contemplate the similarities between today's events and the Declaration of Independence's list of grievances.Then I think about it less emotionally and am not sure if it's that bad yet.I think a more accurate comparison would be to the corruption of the government during the mid to late 1800's. In this case the robber barons have near complete control of the government (including the congress).Thus I sometimes have hope that change will come through the ballot box and so we don't need a full scale change of government through the cartridge box.What makes me worry that the latter might be necessary at some point is the growing ability of a minority of the population to impose its will on the majority due to zoning and control of voting procedures by monied vested interests, as well as the horrific attempts by that minority to convert this country into a religious state by legal fiat. This goes triple when the goal of this religious state appears to be fulfilling biblical scripture.

---

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