Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Report Slams CIA For Iraq Intelligence Failures  
User currently offlineFlyingbronco05 From United States of America, joined May 2002, 3840 posts, RR: 2
Posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1105 times:

Seems like the truth is coming out. Let's see all you Bush supporters defend this....

"WASHINGTON (AP) -- The key U.S. assertions leading to the 2003 invasion of Iraq -- that Saddam Hussein had chemical and biological weapons and was working to make nuclear weapons -- were wrong and based on false or overstated CIA analyses, a scathing Senate Intelligence Committee report asserted Friday."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/09/senate.intel.ap/index.html


Never Trust Your Fuel Gauge
46 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineB757300 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 4114 posts, RR: 22
Reply 1, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1093 times:

What's to defend? The CIA obviously had a problem, not the administation. President Bush acted on the information provided to him. Information that he expected to be accurate and correct. It is not the administation's job to fact check everything that comes out of Langley. Oh, and the exact same information was provided to Congress and was believed by plenty of Democrats as well.

"When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for." -Bill Clinton on Larry King Live July, 2003

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and Senators and including other prominent Democrats, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -Sen. Robert "Sheets" Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -Sen. John F'ing. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" -Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...." -Sen. John F'ing. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -Patty "Osama Mama" Murray, October 9, 2002

"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

Speaking about the WMD's, "The consensus was the same, from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration, It was the same intelligence belief that our allies and friends around the world shared." -Senator Hillary Clinton, April 20, 2004 on Larry King Live



"There is no victory at bargain basement prices."
User currently offlineBoeing757/767 From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 2282 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1075 times:

While everyone was duped, it was King George who picked his leadership team. He bears some responsibility.


Free-thinking, left-leaning secularist
User currently offlineMt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6594 posts, RR: 6
Reply 3, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1065 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

There is somthing i dont undestand about some people

On one hand they claims that WMD existed and they are hidden in the dessert somewere,or they were moved.. Therefore the war was justified. On the other hand, when reports like these come out (which have been several) they claim that intelligence was wrong and everyone was duped. Usually in the same day

Im sure many people (democrats, french, germans) agreed that Iraq "MAY" have WMD program, i dont think that is an issue. The issue is the "HOW" to make sure that Saddam was complying.

I hope im explaining myself, it is not the "end" but the "means" of accomplishing this task.

As I see it there were two choices:

1. By force
2. By diplomacy

#1 was chosen by Bush. He should be responsible for the course of action not the intelligence. And that is were is mistake (IMHO) was.

[Edited 2004-07-09 18:55:39]


Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1063 times:

Again, B757300, you could name every Democrat alive. They don't have the power. You make yourself look like a bloody idiot every time you try to heap the blame on the Democrats for this, when it was your president, the man you so revere, who made the decision, and then became a revisionist after the weapons weren't found.

Keep doing it though. You bury yourself deeper in irrelevancy here every time you do-excpet with the likes of L-188, James86, Jcs17, and the others who have swallowed this man's propoganda hook, line and sinker.


User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17495 posts, RR: 45
Reply 5, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1057 times:

"Again, B757300, you could name every Democrat alive. They don't have the power"

He's not blaming the Democrats. He's simply showing that just about everyone and their mother (including the French) agreed that there were WMDs, so now this Monday Morning Quarterback act is ludicrous. So is blaming the Bush administration for believing the same intelligence that aaaaaaaaaaaaaaall those Democrats had believed as well at the time yet now are backpeddling like Lance Armstrong in reverse.



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17495 posts, RR: 45
Reply 6, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1051 times:

"The issue is the "HOW" to make sure that Saddam was complying."

The French specifically stated they had no interest in making sure Iraq complied with UN resolutions, nevermind enforcing any consequences of non-compliance.



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineMt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6594 posts, RR: 6
Reply 7, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1043 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The French specifically stated they had no interest in making sure Iraq complied with UN resolutions

Id love a source for this.

Correct me if im wrong, the UN asked for 1 month to loo for WMD, if the US told them were to look, but nooo "our sources are too important"...


Wait.. we didnt have a month.. just 45 min.. right?


[Edited 2004-07-09 20:03:15]


Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17495 posts, RR: 45
Reply 8, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1024 times:

"Id love a source for this."

I Michael Moored it a little, but their famous moment came in March 2003 when they said "Whatever happens, France will vote 'no'."

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/iraq_03-10-03.html



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineWellHung From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 1017 times:

How long until Cheney says THIS committee is mistaken, too?  Insane

User currently offlineIakobos From Belgium, joined Aug 2003, 3313 posts, RR: 34
Reply 10, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 1014 times:

Thanks for the link MaverickM11,
besides the "banner" did you also read the article ?
To this day it seems Chirac was correctly assessing the situation, the "threat", and the consequences.


User currently offlineMt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6594 posts, RR: 6
Reply 11, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1005 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

"I Michael Moored it a little, but their famous moment came in March 2003 when they said "Whatever happens, France will vote 'no'."


Ok Micheal "MaverickM11" Moore, you really should read the articles before you post. It proves my original point. It was the "HOW"!

""Whatever happens, France will vote 'no'.""

This was true for that one particular resolution which gave iraq 7 days. The UN wanted 1 month.



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21461 posts, RR: 53
Reply 12, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1002 times:

MaverickM11: I Michael Moored it a little, but their famous moment came in March 2003 when they said "Whatever happens, France will vote 'no'."

From your own source, a few lines down:

Chirac: France will vote 'no' because she considers tonight that there is no reason to wage a war to reach the goal we set ourselves, that is the disarmament of Iraq.

It´s exactly the opposite of what you´ve claimed!


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1000 times:


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2842493.stm

BTW, is this the same congress ?

To all the flag burners, wine spillers, fries renamers, ban France advocates. Wind back the TV tapes, dig up the old newspapers, watch, read & be embarrassed.

You were blinded by flag waving, forgot to keep your eyes open & picked the wrong site. Learn from it.


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21461 posts, RR: 53
Reply 14, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 988 times:

"Will you have freedom fries with your crow, Senator?"  Wink/being sarcastic

User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17495 posts, RR: 45
Reply 15, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 972 times:

"MaverickM11: I Michael Moored it a little, but their famous moment came in March 2003 when they said "Whatever happens, France will vote 'no'."

From your own source, a few lines down:

Chirac: France will vote 'no' because she considers tonight that there is no reason to wage a war to reach the goal we set ourselves, that is the disarmament of Iraq. "

How are those opposites? France literally said, "whatever happens, France will vote no". The reason France gave for this was that they wanted a peaceful disarmament of Iraq, as did conceivably everyone else. What is missing is that France was opposed to any forceful intervention whatsoever, even when the likelihood of Saddam complying with UN regs was near zero. Yes, this was one resolution, but it was one resolution following dozens of others (that extra month they wanted was also on top of 150+ previous months). France wanted to "reach the goal we set ourselves" but changed its mind when reaching that goal looked like it may require military intervention. In fact it was foolish at the time to believe that the Iraq conflict would end peacefully. France did not allow for any other option.



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 968 times:

Maverick, the U.S. obviously did not allow for any other option. Even with the report that the WMD intel was terribly flawed, and outright false (not a lie by the administration, but that the intel was not true), Bush said that despite that, he'd still have gone to war. He is, in my book, very dishonroable. The reason he went to war was false, but he'd had gone anyway.

So you can scream at France all you want. The Administration wanted it's war, and it's clear that, with this report, it wasn't about making America safer, it was about getting Bush re-elected.


User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17495 posts, RR: 45
Reply 17, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 964 times:

"Maverick, the U.S. obviously did not allow for any other option"

It absolutely did. If Saddam came clean the US administration stated multiple times that it would not go to war. Whether this is the truth or not is a whole different story. Never did the administration say outright "whatever the result, we will go to war."



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 960 times:

It absolutely did. If Saddam came clean the US administration stated multiple times that it would not go to war.

How can you say that, when Bush himself today said he'd had gone to war if the intel said Saddam didn't have the weapons! Bush said that Saddam was a meneace either way, and he'd have given the order!

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040709_1544.html

So, we would have gone to war anyway. And that's where I take exception with this administration. They would have done ANYTHING to get this war, and that's what makes them dishonorable in my eyes.


User currently offlineSchoenorama From Spain, joined Apr 2001, 2440 posts, RR: 25
Reply 19, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 959 times:

Maverick:

"If Saddam came clean the US administration stated multiple times that it would not go to war."

Saddam did come clean. Remember the 12,000 pages document he provided? The Bush Administration already said it wasn't accurate enough before they even read it. And, not less important, the UNSC, the organisation which imposed the resolutions in the first place, did NOT approve a pre-emptive war against Iraq.

"Never did the administration say outright "whatever the result, we will go to war.""

That's complete bullsh!t, Maverick. They were very keen to go to war, but Powell convinced them to go to the UN first. They though they had clean case convincing the UN, which they hadn't. They weren't able to convince the UN but went to war nevertheless, with a very small "Coalition of the Willing". Did you know that this "Coalition of the Winning" is called so entirely for "Domestic Consumption"?




Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21461 posts, RR: 53
Reply 20, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 954 times:

Your claim:

MaverickM11: The French specifically stated they had no interest in making sure Iraq complied with UN resolutions, nevermind enforcing any consequences of non-compliance.

Reality:

Chirac: France will vote 'no' because she considers tonight that there is no reason to wage a war to reach the goal we set ourselves, that is the disarmament of Iraq.

Opposite. Clearly.


User currently offlineMt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6594 posts, RR: 6
Reply 21, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 941 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

If Saddam came clean the US administration stated multiple times that it would not go to war

Incredibly.. he did.. If he hadn't, and was lying, US trops would be sitting on piles opon piles of WMD.





Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17495 posts, RR: 45
Reply 22, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 940 times:

Klaus, you completely changed the wording from your first try to your second, aka you were wrong the first time.

"MaverickM11: The French specifically stated they had no interest in making sure Iraq complied with UN resolutions, nevermind enforcing any consequences of non-compliance.

Reality:

Chirac: France will vote 'no' because she considers tonight that there is no reason to wage a war to reach the goal we set ourselves, that is the disarmament of Iraq.

Opposite. Clearly.
"

Still doesn't change the fact that they said, "whatever you want, NO".

""Never did the administration say outright "whatever the result, we will go to war.""

That's complete bullsh!t, Maverick"

So you know exactly what this administration was thinking? Nonsense. Whether they intended to go to war regardless of the inspections outcome they still feigned an effort to show that there was a peaceful solution. Whether that is reality or not is not for you or I to decide beyond a personal opinion. Vis a vis the coalition, Iraq could comply and avert war, or not comply and be invaded, all under a predestined timeline. France would hold no timeline, nor military consequence for Iraq, no matter what, IN SPITE of the fact that they wanted to see Iraq disarmed (after all who didn't?).



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29799 posts, RR: 58
Reply 23, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 929 times:

If there is blame to be placed at G.W.'s feet then let it be some that he deserves.

Namely keeping Tenet at the helm of the CIA.


Bush had way too much loyalty to that man.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 51
Reply 24, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 916 times:

Our intel abilities have been going down hill since Bubba's days.

What is it they say about hindsight?


25 L-188 : JeffM. I would go back farther to Carter. But Bubba's presidental order that prohibited the CIA from working with people of questional human rights ba
26 Schoenorama : MaverickM11: "So you know exactly what this administration was thinking? Nonsense." There is enough documentation available now on the processes which
27 777236ER : If a Democrat made the mistake that GWB did - which is much much more important than a blowjob and cost a lot more lives - would you list all the Repu
28 FDXmech : >>>Again, B757300, you could name every Democrat alive. They don't have the power.
29 Cptkrell : Well, then, shouldn't we view the report as a slam on themselves (the Senate "Intelligence" Comittee) also? Regards..Jack
30 JeepBoy : Alpha says: ***So you can scream at France all you want. The Administration wanted it's war, and it's clear that, with this report, it wasn't about ma
31 Alpha 1 : The Congressional Democrats couldn't vote, No? They are the minority party in Congress, no? Do the math, genius.
32 JeffM : "..Bubba's presidental order that prohibited the CIA from working with people of questional human rights background is what really hurt. I can tell yo
33 Alpha 1 : Yes, JeffM to the rescue to blame Clinton for Bush's shortcomings. Gee, why am I not surprised. Oh, and we've had such limitations on the CIA since th
34 L-188 : I think "Will take years" is the correct phrase. Hopefully we have actually started on that path.
35 Post contains images Alpha 1 : I think "Will take years" is the correct phrase. Since restrictions on the CIA have been in place for years, you're correct, it will take years to cor
36 FDXmech : >>>They are the minority party in Congress, no? Do the math, genius
37 Alpha 1 : No, genius. The minority has no real power when you know the Majority will vote in lock-step with the Administration. The Democrats had no control on
38 FDXmech : >>>the Democrats had no real say-so in us going to war.
39 Post contains images Alpha 1 : They didn't vote no based on the flawed intelligence given to them and the Administration by the intel community. I do think, had we known then what w
40 FDXmech : Ahhh, I'm sorry. XXXOOO
41 Klaus : The opposition and the US general public were so scared that their brains collectively turned to jelly. Not exactly your brightest hour. Still, there
42 FDXmech : >>>The opposition and the US general public were so scared that their brains collectively turned to jelly. Not exactly your brightest hour.Watching Bu
43 Alpha 1 : Agree or disagree fine. But don't act so high and mighty when it wasn't your country attacked. Your condescending attitude is quite....should I say it
44 Schoenorama : I agree with what Klaus just pointed out in reply number 41 regarding the President's ultimate responsibility. I'd like to add the fact that at least
45 Klaus : FDXmech: Agree or disagree fine. But don't act so high and mighty when it wasn't your country attacked. What part of "Iraq was in no way connected to
46 Lehpron : >> " But don't act so high and mighty when it wasn't your country attacked"
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
NYT Confirms: Dems Have No Plan For Iraq posted Mon Nov 13 2006 16:22:44 by Cfalk
More Troops For Iraq? Bush Ignores. posted Fri Sep 29 2006 22:00:38 by ArtieFufkin
As For Iraq, Let's Get One Thing Straight: posted Sat Sep 9 2006 22:41:29 by Aloges
April Deadliest Month For Iraq! posted Sat Apr 29 2006 19:05:29 by Luv2fly
The End Of All US Illusions For Iraq: Civil War!? posted Wed Mar 1 2006 10:20:46 by Sabenapilot
Bush Gives New Reason For Iraq War posted Wed Aug 31 2005 21:18:39 by Clickhappy
US Army Recruiting Problems For Iraq. posted Sat Jul 23 2005 12:26:59 by Bofredrik
Bush's Plan For Iraq Afghanistan Syria North Korea posted Sat May 21 2005 20:13:08 by Airlinerfreak
$82 Billion More For Iraq/Afghanistan Approved posted Wed May 11 2005 01:54:07 by AeroWesty
B.U.S.H. Wants Another 80 Billion For Iraq posted Mon Dec 27 2004 05:03:27 by Clickhappy