Enjoy an Ads-Free Jets Insider - Become a Jets Insider VIP!
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 41

Thread: Senate Intel Committee

  1. #1
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [url=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,125188,00.html]http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,125188,00.html[/url]

    [quote][b]But one fact is now clear: Before the war, the U.S. intelligence community told the president, as well as the Congress and the public, that Saddam Hussein had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and if left unchecked, would probably have a nuclear weapon during this decade.

    Well, today we know these assessments were wrong. And, as our inquiry will show, they were also unreasonable and largely unsupported by the available intelligence.
    [/b][/quote]

    [url=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,125123,00.html]http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,125123,00.html[/url]

    [quote][b]"The fact is, the administration, at all levels and to some extent, us [Congress], used bad information to bolster its case for war, And we in Congress would not have authorized that war we would not have authorized that war with 75 votes if we knew what we know now."[/b][/quote]

  2. #2
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    State Location Here
    Posts
    7,730
    Post Thanks / Like
    Sounds like an absolution for Bush to me, Bit.

    Let's see, the Intel community screwed up...who should we blame, Bush -- who had been in office for 8 months, or the guy before him who spent 8 straight years f--cking up and weakening our intelligence agencies?

    Hmmmmmmmm.........

  3. #3
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like
    Funny the second quote above is not attributed to anyone....but it is none other than Jay Rockerfeller who was found to be circulating memo's on how to twist intelligence reports and other anti-terror activity against the President last year.

    Man that he is Rockerfeller blamed it on one of his intern's.

  4. #4
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    This is almost depressing. The problem is that we don't know why it was wrong. Oh, they'll list reasons, like we didn't verify this or that or whatever. But, aside from the political partisanship and all of the CYA going on - incuding opportunistic senators who may regret their support of the war or perhaps statements they made previous to Bush in which they supported Clinton's use of the exact same faulty intel - what we need to know is why it was wrong and what can be done about it, or, if it was wrong simply because we cannot find these weapons, and the tought little fact that much intel is by definition unverifiable. If it was 100% verifiable, it wouldn't be intel, it would be fact. I analyze stocks and some of my picks lose money. It doesn't mean my analysis was flawedor that my reasoning or research was short-sighted, it simply means that what I do is by definition uncertain and speculative and being wrong is part of the reality of life and I am required to make decisions based on incomplete and unverified information. Using the same process of analysis, I am also right a lot of the time and the key is taking calculated risks...but risk is inherent.

    Did they exist, did they not? Were they destroyed recently, smuggled out of country? We have photgrpahic evidence of plants being dismantled and trucks going over to Syria during the buildup while Bush stalled at the UN for the better part of a year. This doens't prove he had WMD, it simply implies that he had things he didn't want the world to discover..which is hardly the same thing.

    This isn't the first time we've been wrong, however, we've been wrong before in the other directions. For example, in 1991, our intel didn't think Saddam was very far along with WMD or nuclear capabilities, and we found out that he was, in fact, far ahead of our estimates. Ditto for Libya and North Korea. However, we'll all remember back during the Manhattan Project that we ultimately found out that Germany was not as far along as we feared. It's a tough business and goes beyond politics.

  5. #5
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by shakin318[/i]@Jul 9 2004, 01:16 PM
    [b] Sounds like an absolution for Bush to me, Bit. [/b][/quote]
    Shakin, 5ever

    do you honestly believe that the intel community operates in a vacuum? that is to say that their wrong conclusions were not in ANY way motivated by a desire to "give the White House the results it sought?"

    lets be completely honest here the intel community was far from amazing but it was only saying what Cheney and friends were looking for... there were many findings that ruled Saddam didn't really pose a threat but those seemed to get swept under the rug pretty early on in the Bush administration... you are right 5ever when you say intel by its nature is not 100% verifiable but at the same time that doesn't give the President a free pass - there has to be some responsibility for the "coincidence" that the wrong conclusions of the intel matched the intentions of the people in charge.

    it was a situation where the Administration wanted intel that supported it's decision, when it didn't find it right away they prodded the intel community to give them what they were looking for. Anyone who is an honest observer will admit this to be the case.

    the way i see it this is an indictment of the President and his highest executives. If we went to war based on faulty intel then it follows that he made the wrong call.

    lets be real if the tables were turned and Gore went to war based on faulty intel you guys would rake him across the coals.

    the true tragedy here are all the men who died for no real reason. Now it's official.

  6. #6
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Come Back to NY[/i]@Jul 9 2004, 01:22 PM
    [b] Funny the second quote above is not attributed to anyone....but it is none other than Jay Rockerfeller... [/b][/quote]
    the first quote was from Republican Pat Roberts.

    what sort of slander do you have for him, ya know to discount what he has to say?

  7. #7
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    State Location Here
    Posts
    7,730
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@Jul 9 2004, 01:38 PM
    [b] do you honestly believe that the intel community operates in a vacuum? that is to say that their wrong conclusions were not in ANY way motivated by a desire to "give the White House the results it sought?"

    lets be completely honest here the intel community was far from amazing but it was only saying what Cheney and friends were looking for... there were many findings that ruled Saddam didn't really pose a threat but those seemed to get swept under the rug pretty early on in the Bush administration...

    it was a situation where the Administration wanted intel that supported it's decision, when it didn't find it right away they prodded the intel community to give them what they were looking for. Anyone who is an honest observer will admit this to be the case.
    [/b][/quote]
    bit, you might have a point if you could provide examples of how what the intel community was saying about Sadaam changed dramatically (or even at all) from the end of the Clinton term through the first year of the Bush term. If you can't (and I don't think you can), then you're just spinning big time...

  8. #8
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,393
    Post Thanks / Like
    The intel wasn't perfect, but a leopard never changes it's spots.

    Saddam had WMDs and programs after Gulf War I and he wasn't just going to give them up. If little old pissant libya had WMDs, you can bet iraq, iran and syria had/have more of the same.

    Note which congressmen are still trying to pin it on Bush -- even though they used the same intel to vote for the war. Of course they try to pin it on someone else, they have to excuse why they willingly accepted the same information.

    The party of smaller military and intelligence spending has to explain away why the intelligence failed. Imagine that?

    Hee-haw!

  9. #9
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti+Jul 9 2004, 01:38 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (bitonti @ Jul 9 2004, 01:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--shakin318[/i]@Jul 9 2004, 01:16 PM
    [b] Sounds like an absolution for Bush to me, Bit. [/b][/quote]
    Shakin, 5ever

    do you honestly believe that the intel community operates in a vacuum? that is to say that their wrong conclusions were not in ANY way motivated by a desire to "give the White House the results it sought?"

    lets be completely honest here the intel community was far from amazing but it was only saying what Cheney and friends were looking for... there were many findings that ruled Saddam didn&#39;t really pose a threat but those seemed to get swept under the rug pretty early on in the Bush administration...

    it was a situation where the Administration wanted intel that supported it&#39;s decision, when it didn&#39;t find it right away they prodded the intel community to give them what they were looking for. Anyone who is an honest observer will admit this to be the case.

    the way i see it this is an indictment of the President and his highest executives. If we went to war based on faulty intel then it follows that he made the wrong call.

    lets be real if the tables were turned and Gore went to war based on faulty intel you guys would rake him across the coals.

    the true tragedy here are all the men who died for no real reason. Now it&#39;s official. [/b][/quote]
    Bitonti, this is a fundamental misunderstanding (or, rather, misrepresentation) that many have about the nature of Saddam and the threat of WMD and his irrefutable ties to terrorism, including AQ. We knew he had WMD that were unaccounted for. We knew he retained the ability to make more, and the desires to. This is why inspections were continues for 12 years. Saddam did not comply with inspections and was not forthcoming about what happened to his WMD. We had intel that said he had WMD. We knew he used to. We had no verified reports of him destroying all of his WMD or their related componentry. Yes, there were "reports" of his "not being a threat" but they were just as unverified, and, due to Saddam, unverifiable as the reports that he in fact DID have WMD. We still wouldn&#39;t know what the hell was up unless we had invaded. The entire world thought he had WMD and knew he was not cooperating with incpestions, and Russia even said Saddam was planning an attack, coupled with the fact that in 1991 Saddam was actually MORE dangerous than our intel thought and we only learned THAT because we invaded&#33;

    It does not follow that Bush made the wrong call. You are being absurd and simplistic and nakedly partisan. And, incidentally, I was not one of the conservatives who yelled at Clinton for his bombing of an aspirin factory in 1998 or his bombing of Iraq, based on the same intel. I think the Wag the Dog stuff was awful and I have consistent about that for years.

    If a weather man tells you there is a 65% chance that a hurricane will hit tomorrow, and you go out and spend money on safety measures, or even drive to a remote hotel room for the night, have you made the wrong call if it turns out there was no hurricane? You have no way of knowing beforehand what will happen in the future and you take reasonable steps to avoid risk, different individuals will take different measures and being "wrong" and staying in hotels rooms superflously a thousand times is better than being "wrong" and staying at home during a hurricane just [i]once[/i]. OBL didn&#39;t have WMD that we knew of, and we had vague warnings about attacks on buildings in cities. Boom - 3000 people are dead like that&#33; Next time it could be 30,000 or more. And before your knee-jerk reply of "Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11" appears, know that saying so displays another fundamental lack of understaing, IMO. Terrorism is not just confined to 9-11, OBL or AQ and it is not an individual crime whose response should be narrow in scope regarding just that crime. Saddam was a major supporter of terrorism and if your refuse to acknowledge that in light of overwhelming evidence than I guess further discussion is pointless.

    I&#39;ve said it before - if you truly believe that we are at war with terrorists and that terrorists are a legitimate threat, then you will likely support Bush&#39;s actions. If you don&#39;t think terrorism is a threat, then you won&#39;t.

  10. #10
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    Shakin we can&#39;t just bring up Clinton everytime it looks like Bush has made a mistake. Bush is in charge, Bush is the guy making the call, he screwed up to the tune of hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars, hundreds of dead GI&#39;s and there&#39;s absolutely no way that is directly Clinton&#39;s fault.

    to use a metaphor say the JETS fire Herman Edwards and the next guy comes in and uses the same preseason practice schedules, which are really easy on the players. When the JETS go 1-4 again is it Herman Edwards&#39; fault for making these bad practice schedules? no it&#39;s the new guy&#39;s fault cause he was supposed to do it better.

    5ever you mention 9-11 at the end of your post - i don&#39;t think that has ANYTHING to do with Iraq, whatsoever. Maybe less than 1%. Getting rid of Iraq&#39;s WMD was a goal that even best case made the world only slightly safer... there are many countries with WMD... Al_queda is active in 60+ other countries. if Iraq was one of em that still doesn&#39;t warrent invasion. We invaded Afghanistan and Bin Ladin is still there&#33;

  11. #11
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    5,979
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Spirit of Weeb[/i]@Jul 9 2004, 01:42 PM
    [b] The party of smaller military and intelligence spending has to explain away why the intelligence failed. Imagine that?

    [/b][/quote]
    Bingo.

  12. #12
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@Jul 9 2004, 01:56 PM
    [b] Getting rid of Iraq&#39;s WMD was a goal that even best case made the world only slightly safer... there are many countries with WMD... Al_queda is active in 60+ other countries. if Iraq was one of em that still doesn&#39;t warrent invasion. We invaded Afghanistan and Bin Ladin is still there&#33; [/b][/quote]
    Matt, by the logic of your last post (the section I&#39;ve quoted), even if Saddam had 1000x the WMD we thought he did, Bush would have still been "wrong" and thus the faulty intel had no bearing on your opinion of this war. So, it is a little disingenious of you to imply that this report "proves" that Bush was wrong when you considered him wrong regardless of the intel or WMD issue. Again, you are all over the place. AQ is in 60+ countries, but we still haven&#39;t gotten OBL. If we do get OBL, you&#39;ll say "AQ is still in 60+ countries&#33;"

    I think I&#39;m done here....

  13. #13
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    State Location Here
    Posts
    7,730
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@Jul 9 2004, 01:56 PM
    [b] Shakin we can&#39;t just bring up Clinton everytime it looks like Bush has made a mistake. Bush is in charge, Bush is the guy making the call, he screwed up to the tune of hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars, hundreds of dead GI&#39;s and there&#39;s absolutely no way that is directly Clinton&#39;s fault.

    [/b][/quote]
    You&#39;re totally avoiding my challenge. Show me an example of how what the intelligence community was saying about Sadaam changed (for better or worse) after Bush came into office.

  14. #14
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    shakin my point is exactly that

    Bush is supposed to be better on foreign affairs then Clinton - why DIDN&#39;T the intel improve?

    just cause Bush used the same tired-ass people/files from the blowjob administration doesn&#39;t get him off the hook - it&#39;s like one coach using another coach&#39;s playbook - if the playbook fails it&#39;s convenient to blame the other coach&#39;s playbook but the true blame lies with the new coach who never sorted it out...

    if Bush is no better than clinton what does that say about Bush?

  15. #15
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by jets5ever+Jul 9 2004, 02:04 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (jets5ever @ Jul 9 2004, 02:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--bitonti[/i]@Jul 9 2004, 01:56 PM
    [b] Getting rid of Iraq&#39;s WMD was a goal that even best case made the world only slightly safer... there are many countries with WMD... Al_queda is active in 60+ other countries. if Iraq was one of em that still doesn&#39;t warrent invasion. We invaded Afghanistan and Bin Ladin is still there&#33; [/b][/quote]
    Matt, by the logic of your last post (the section I&#39;ve quoted), even if Saddam had 1000x the WMD we thought he did, Bush would have still been "wrong" and thus the faulty intel had no bearing on your opinion of this war. So, it is a little disingenious of you to imply that this report "proves" that Bush was wrong when you considered him wrong regardless of the intel or WMD issue. Again, you are all over the place. AQ is in 60+ countries, but we still haven&#39;t gotten OBL. If we do get OBL, you&#39;ll say "AQ is still in 60+ countries&#33;"

    I think I&#39;m done here.... [/b][/quote]
    fair enough

    yes it is a side issue that i think all WMD pre-emptive war is unjustified -

    however the fact still does not change that the WMD you swore would be found is now officially never a real issue.

    you and Bush were wrong. Congress would have never voted for an Iraq war based on "terrorism" and PNAC doctrines, you know it and i know it - the end result is we went to war based on false info, and that&#39;s anti-American. We attacked a country that was never going to attack us... Israel, Iran? maybe but the US never.

  16. #16
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    State Location Here
    Posts
    7,730
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@Jul 9 2004, 02:09 PM
    [b] shakin my point is exactly that

    Bush is supposed to be better on foreign affairs then Clinton - why DIDN&#39;T the intel improve?

    just cause Bush used the same tired-ass people/files from the blowjob administration doesn&#39;t get him off the hook - it&#39;s like one coach using another coach&#39;s playbook - if the playbook fails it&#39;s convenient to blame the other coach&#39;s playbook but the true blame lies with the new coach who never sorted it out...

    if Bush is no better than clinton what does that say about Bush? [/b][/quote]
    come on now bit, you&#39;re being ridiculous. Bush was to revamp and restore the intelligence community in less than a year in office? And really, that&#39;s not my point anyway.

    You claimed that the Bush adminstration "prodded" the intel community to give them the information they were looking for, and all I&#39;m doing is asking you to support that accusation by providing an example of how any information on Sadaam changed from Clintons last couple of years to the months following Bush&#39;s inauguration.

  17. #17
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by shakin318[/i]@Jul 9 2004, 02:13 PM
    [b]
    come on now bit, you&#39;re being ridiculous. Bush was to revamp and restore the intelligence community in less than a year in office? And really, that&#39;s not my point anyway. [/b][/quote]
    shakin lets not forget this is the same intel community that really let their guard down from 9-11 - so between 9-11 and the invasion of Iraq Bush believes without question the same group of people? in essense i am blaming Bush for not taking care of business the way he needed to because the buck stops with Bush. If he isn&#39;t gonna improve intel after 8 years of Clinton then who will?

  18. #18
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti+Jul 9 2004, 02:12 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (bitonti @ Jul 9 2004, 02:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> [quote]Originally posted by -jets5ever@Jul 9 2004, 02:04 PM
    [b] <!--QuoteBegin--bitonti[/i]@Jul 9 2004, 01:56 PM
    [b] Getting rid of Iraq&#39;s WMD was a goal that even best case made the world only slightly safer... there are many countries with WMD... Al_queda is active in 60+ other countries. if Iraq was one of em that still doesn&#39;t warrent invasion. We invaded Afghanistan and Bin Ladin is still there&#33; [/b][/quote]
    Matt, by the logic of your last post (the section I&#39;ve quoted), even if Saddam had 1000x the WMD we thought he did, Bush would have still been "wrong" and thus the faulty intel had no bearing on your opinion of this war. So, it is a little disingenious of you to imply that this report "proves" that Bush was wrong when you considered him wrong regardless of the intel or WMD issue. Again, you are all over the place. AQ is in 60+ countries, but we still haven&#39;t gotten OBL. If we do get OBL, you&#39;ll say "AQ is still in 60+ countries&#33;"

    I think I&#39;m done here.... [/b][/quote]
    fair enough

    yes it is a side issue that i think all WMD pre-emptive war is unjustified -

    however the fact still does not change that the WMD you swore would be found is now officially never a real issue.

    you and Bush were wrong. Congress would have never voted for an Iraq war based on "terrorism" and PNAC doctrines, you know it and i know it - the end result is we went to war based on false info, and that&#39;s anti-American. We attacked a country that was never going to attack us... Israel, Iran? maybe but the US never. [/b][/quote]
    Bitonti -

    First of all, some committee issuing a report is not the final chapter in this issue. Where did Saddam&#39;s WMD go? Does the committee say so, verifiably?

  19. #19
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    State Location Here
    Posts
    7,730
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@Jul 9 2004, 02:17 PM
    [b] in essense i am blaming Bush for not taking care of business the way he needed to because the buck stops with Bush. If he isn&#39;t gonna improve intel after 8 years of Clinton then who will? [/b][/quote]
    Well, John Kerry sure as hell won&#39;t.


    Let&#39;s remember that we haven&#39;t been attacked since 9/11 (buck stops with Bush, remember now), and that you guys mock the administration when it takes action and makes us aware of threats picked up through the improved intel measures put in place in the last few years (all while fighting the Patriot Act and weeping for the poor poor ****bags at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib...)

  20. #20
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    5,979
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@Jul 9 2004, 02:17 PM
    [b] If he isn&#39;t gonna improve intel after 8 years of Clinton then who will? [/b][/quote]
    I&#39;m sure Kerry, the guy who proposed cutting the CIA by millions of dollars after the first WTC bombing will :rolleyes:

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us