Bush sets up WMD Intel Panel

[Guest Cerebus]

To nobody's surprise, Bush has done it:

 

Bush Sets Up Iraq WMD Intelligence Panel  

 

By Steve Holland and Caren Bohan

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Under strong political pressure, President Bush (news - web sites) on Friday established a bipartisan commission to investigate failures in intelligence used to justify the Iraq (news - web sites) war and gave it until well after the November election to submit its conclusions.

 

Bush picked as the chairmen of the commission former Virginia governor and senator Charles Robb, a Democrat, and appeals court judge Laurence Silberman, a Republican.

 

In a hastily arranged appearance in the White House press briefing room, Bush said the commission will "look at American intelligence capabilities, especially our intelligence about weapons of mass destruction."

 

Bush noted that former chief U.S. weapons hunter David Kay has not been able to confirm prewar intelligence that Iraq possessed stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction.

 

"We are determined to figure out why," Bush said.

 

"We're also determined to make sure that American intelligence is as accurate as possible for every challenge in the future," he added.

 

Bush gave the commission until March 31, 2005, to report back, meaning the results of the investigation would not be known until after the November election. Democrats want the report sooner.

 

Bush is scrambling to limit the political fallout from Kay's revelations that almost all the prewar intelligence about Iraq's alleged unconventional weapons was wrong.

 

BUSH TO FIGHT BACK

 

Claims that Iraq had stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction were the main reason cited by Bush for the Iraq war, in which more than 500 U.S. troops have died.

 

Bush's job approval ratings have been fading due to a number of factors, including the weapons issue and the fact that Democratic presidential candidates have been hammering away at him. He will appear on NBC's "Meet the Press" for an hour on Sunday in an attempt to fight back.

 

Bush also announced as members of the group Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record); Lloyd Cutler, who was White House counsel for former Democratic presidents Bill Clinton (news - web sites) and Jimmy Carter; Yale President Richard Levin; Admiral William Studeman, former deputy director of the CIA (news - web sites), and former appeals court judge Pat Wald.

 

Two more members are expected to be named.

 

Democrats have questioned whether the commission can be independent if its nine members are hand-picked by Bush and his team. The White House has ignored their appeals that Congress authorize the commission.

 

Democrats also want the commission to investigate whether the Bush administration exaggerated the CIA's intelligence to build a case against Iraq.

 

Bush had initially been cool to the idea of a commission and agreed to it last weekend under pressure from Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill.

 

Bush made clear in his brief remarks at the White House that he felt the decision to go to war against Iraq was the right decision, regardless of post-invasion intelligence issues.

 

"In Iraq, America and our coalition enforced the clearly stated demands of the world that a violent regime prove its own disarmament. In the aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001, I will not take risks with the lives and security of the American people by assuming the good will of dictators," he said.

 

Bush also said the commission will also review U.S. intelligence on weapons programs in countries such as North Korea (news - web sites) and Iran as well as in Libya and Afghanistan (news - web sites). In the Libyan case, U.S. and British officials were surprised at the extent of Libya's pursuit of nuclear weapons.

 

Though Dems are suspect of its deadline (May 2005) all except the most partisan would say that the comission could really do its job properly by October or November of this year.

[Guest JMA]

Good call by Bush. Hopefully we'll find out exactly what went wrong.

[Guest hunger4unger]

It remains that Bush & Blair ordered over 500 allied troops to their deaths and murdered 10,000 + civilians based onm when it coems down to it, lies. The "evidence" leading up to the war of Iraq having WMD's was false - whether they can palm it off by saying their intelligence agencies got it wrong is irrelevant - THEY presented the so -called evidence. As world leaders it is their job to get these things right.

[Tully316 0]

when will people start to realize that removing Sadaam was a good thing?

 

Soldiers have died, but that's their job. When cops get killed in the line of duty, no one says we should have just let the criminals go, and maybe they'd still be alive.

 

Learn something real quick, the world is not, nor ever will be a utopia where we all hold hands. Some people need to be bitch-slapped for the mere reason that if you don't, they will do it to you at some point in the future.

 

Face the fact that for the large part, the world is not as civilized as most would like to believe.

[sfaJack 0]

THEY presented the so -called evidence. As world leaders it is their job to get these things right.

How much more could they do to "get it right?"

 

How much detailed information do you require in order to be satisfied? What other procedures do you recommend they follow? How many more layers of diplomatic red tape do they need to cut through? How many more years of inspections do you require? What is your impossible standard?

 

Newsflash, you ignorant asshole: every intelligence agency in the world said that Iraq had (or was capable of producting) WMD's. All of them. The U.N. searched for 12 years, and their evidence indicated that the weapons existed. How in the hell can you blame Bush or Blair for relying on that information? Why wouldn't they believe it?

 

Fuckin' troll.

[Guest hunger4unger]

Steady on there pal, no need for flaming to get your point across.

 

Granted, they had every right to believe the info that they pressurized the intelligence agencies came up with but it remains that we were lead into the invasion on false grounds. The UN search uncovered NOTHING by the way; Hans Blix of the inspection team wanted more time to continue his search but wasn't allowed.

 

On the subject of the searches, and your questions, the simple answer is that if after years of searching nothing was found doesn't it seem plausable that they had no WMD's? My "impossible standard" I suppose is wanting hard evidence.

[Guest MikeSC]

It remains that Bush & Blair ordered over 500 allied troops to their deaths and murdered 10,000 + civilians based onm when it coems down to it, lies. The "evidence" leading up to the war of Iraq having WMD's was false - whether they can palm it off by saying their intelligence agencies got it wrong is irrelevant - THEY presented the so -called evidence. As world leaders it is their job to get these things right.

Simple question:

 

Would you RATHER Saddam be in power?

 

That is, ulitmately, what this boils down to.

 

If you think the world would be better with him in power, then say so. That is the central thrust of your argument.

-=Mike

[bobobrazil1984 0]

^ Face it. We were lucky that this huge failure happened in a situation where the end result was still good (saddam getting kicked out)

 

That isn't always going to be the case.

 

Who are we relying on make sure countries like say Libya dont secretly try to develop nuclear weaopns? Who are we relying on to try and track down Osama Bin Laden? Who are we relying on to try and track terrorist supporters? <insert anything non-diplomatic foreign policy related>. The answer to each of these questions is Our INTELLIGENCE.

 

Something is seriously wrong with our intelligence.

 

People need to stop harping about Iraq and look to the future. If this intelligence failure and its implications on the future doesn't scare you, then there is something serously wrong.

[Guest hunger4unger]

It remains that Bush & Blair ordered over 500 allied troops to their deaths and murdered 10,000 + civilians based onm when it coems down to it, lies. The "evidence" leading up to the war of Iraq having WMD's was false - whether they can palm it off by saying their intelligence agencies got it wrong is irrelevant - THEY presented the so -called evidence. As world leaders it is their job to get these things right.

Simple question:

 

Would you RATHER Saddam be in power?

 

That is, ulitmately, what this boils down to.

 

If you think the world would be better with him in power, then say so. That is the central thrust of your argument.

-=Mike

I would take Saddam still in power over the current situation any day of the week.

[Vern Gagne 0]

So basically fuck the Iraqi people. Who are liberated from a dictator and are closer to having free elections and running their own country again?

 

The situation in Iraq is not perfect. It's been a slow and sometime deadly process But, too overlook the good that's happened since the removal of Hussein is flat out wrong.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

I would take Saddam still in power over the current situation any day of the week.

Then you are extremely condescending.

 

Something is seriously wrong with our intelligence.

 

People need to stop harping about Iraq and look to the future. If this intelligence failure and its implications on the future doesn't scare you, then there is something serously wrong.

I completely agree with you. But there are measures that can be taken. For instance, I think Tenet should be replaced and intelligence needs to go back to relying on actual human beings on the ground.

[Guest Cerebus]

On the subject of the searches, and your questions, the simple answer is that if after years of searching nothing was found

What exactly do you mean "Years of searching?" UNSCOM was there from 91-98 and found a huge amount of illegal weapons but still had a large list unaccounted for. UNMOVIC was there from October of 2002 to about March of 2003 and while, I believe, they SHOULD have been given more time don't say that they didn't find anything in "years of searching." They did.

[Guest MikeSC]

It remains that Bush & Blair ordered over 500 allied troops to their deaths and murdered 10,000 + civilians based onm when it coems down to it, lies. The "evidence" leading up to the war of Iraq having WMD's was false - whether they can palm it off by saying their intelligence agencies got it wrong is irrelevant - THEY presented the so -called evidence. As world leaders it is their job to get these things right.

Simple question:

 

Would you RATHER Saddam be in power?

 

That is, ulitmately, what this boils down to.

 

If you think the world would be better with him in power, then say so. That is the central thrust of your argument.

-=Mike

I would take Saddam still in power over the current situation any day of the week.

Then you are an evil troll, quite frankly. Screw those untold millions of Iraqis who've been killed.

 

Yeah, the left is all for "human rights" --- well, provided that no actual effort on their part is required. If it is, screw 'em.

-=Mike

[snuffbox 0]

Id like to see some statistics on rape for America vs. Iraq just for the hell of it...

[Styles 0]

Id like to see some statistics on rape for America vs. Iraq just for the hell of it...

You mean government sponsored and participatory rape?

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

It remains that Bush & Blair ordered over 500 allied troops to their deaths and murdered 10,000 + civilians based onm when it coems down to it, lies. The "evidence" leading up to the war of Iraq having WMD's was false - whether they can palm it off by saying their intelligence agencies got it wrong is irrelevant - THEY presented the so -called evidence. As world leaders it is their job to get these things right.

Simple question:

 

Would you RATHER Saddam be in power?

 

That is, ulitmately, what this boils down to.

 

If you think the world would be better with him in power, then say so. That is the central thrust of your argument.

-=Mike

I would take Saddam still in power over the current situation any day of the week.

Then you are an evil troll, quite frankly. Screw those untold millions of Iraqis who've been killed.

 

Yeah, the left is all for "human rights" --- well, provided that no actual effort on their part is required. If it is, screw 'em.

-=Mike

Yes, make a generalization based on what one person thinks. I highly doubt that all Liberals feel this way.

[Guest MikeSC]

Id like to see some statistics on rape for America vs. Iraq just for the hell of it...

The gov't doesn't tend to, you know, endorse (heck, participate) in rape.

Yes, make a generalization based on what one person thinks. I highly doubt that all Liberals feel this way.

It is a generalization, but it is sadly fitting with the words of, say, the Democratic Presidential nominees.

-=Mike

...Being "for" human rights is useless if you won't do anything to make it happen.

[snuffbox 0]

Id like to see some statistics on rape for America vs. Iraq just for the hell of it...

The gov't doesn't tend to, you know, endorse (heck, participate) in rape.

I never said it did...I just wondered if such overall comparative stats existed. Its more a 'societal' question than 'political'. I certainly am not comparing George Bush to Saddam Hussein and his regime. I dislike Bushs presidency, but by no means do I think he is evil.

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

Id like to see some statistics on rape for America vs. Iraq just for the hell of it...

The gov't doesn't tend to, you know, endorse (heck, participate) in rape.

Yes, make a generalization based on what one person thinks. I highly doubt that all Liberals feel this way.

It is a generalization, but it is sadly fitting with the words of, say, the Democratic Presidential nominees.

-=Mike

...Being "for" human rights is useless if you won't do anything to make it happen.

Would you feel it necessary to travel to go to any other dictatorship and liberate those people?

 

I have no idea as to what Snuffbox is trying to say at this point.

[Guest hunger4unger]

It remains that Bush & Blair ordered over 500 allied troops to their deaths and murdered 10,000 + civilians based onm when it coems down to it, lies. The "evidence" leading up to the war of Iraq having WMD's was false - whether they can palm it off by saying their intelligence agencies got it wrong is irrelevant - THEY presented the so -called evidence. As world leaders it is their job to get these things right.

Simple question:

 

Would you RATHER Saddam be in power?

 

That is, ulitmately, what this boils down to.

 

If you think the world would be better with him in power, then say so. That is the central thrust of your argument.

-=Mike

I would take Saddam still in power over the current situation any day of the week.

Then you are an evil troll, quite frankly. Screw those untold millions of Iraqis who've been killed.

 

Yeah, the left is all for "human rights" --- well, provided that no actual effort on their part is required. If it is, screw 'em.

-=Mike

You can't generalize "the left". Not everyone's views sit into little boxes.

 

He should have been arrested and tried for war crimes I agree, much like Ariel Sharon should as well. Steam rolling into Iraq and crippling the country was NOT the way to get Saddam.

 

I would take Saddam still in power over the current situation.

[Firestarter 0]

Saddam Hussein Rules over Cell with Iron Fist

 

"Saddam is a very powerful man with a larger-than-life presence, and when he's in that cell, there's no mistaking who's in charge," said a special-forces officer who commands the watch of Hussein at an undisclosed location in Iraq. "We gave Saddam a small bag of nuts. While he was asleep, the rats got into the nuts and ate some of them. In retaliation, Saddam caught one of the rats' young, tortured it, and left it strapped to the wall with dental floss for days. Then, after it was dead, he stuffed its severed head with nuts and paraded it around the cell to warn the other rats."

 

"But Saddam will also be kind to the vermin and occasionally toss them an almond to fight over," the officer said. "In this way, he teaches the rats both to love and to fear him."

[Guest MikeSC]

Id like to see some statistics on rape for America vs. Iraq just for the hell of it...

The gov't doesn't tend to, you know, endorse (heck, participate) in rape.

Yes, make a generalization based on what one person thinks. I highly doubt that all Liberals feel this way.

It is a generalization, but it is sadly fitting with the words of, say, the Democratic Presidential nominees.

-=Mike

...Being "for" human rights is useless if you won't do anything to make it happen.

Would you feel it necessary to travel to go to any other dictatorship and liberate those people?

 

I have no idea as to what Snuffbox is trying to say at this point.

I, personally, would have little problem with it --- but it's not realistic.

-=Mike

[Highland 0]

Saddam Hussein Rules over Cell with Iron Fist

 

"Saddam is a very powerful man with a larger-than-life presence, and when he's in that cell, there's no mistaking who's in charge," said a special-forces officer who commands the watch of Hussein at an undisclosed location in Iraq. "We gave Saddam a small bag of nuts. While he was asleep, the rats got into the nuts and ate some of them. In retaliation, Saddam caught one of the rats' young, tortured it, and left it strapped to the wall with dental floss for days. Then, after it was dead, he stuffed its severed head with nuts and paraded it around the cell to warn the other rats."

 

"But Saddam will also be kind to the vermin and occasionally toss them an almond to fight over," the officer said. "In this way, he teaches the rats both to love and to fear him."

I just read the article. It sounds very campy and the guards appear to be far too admiring of him, but it does show him as a narcissistic egomaniac and judging from his speaches with roaches and lmice, he has other psychological disorders as well.

[Firestarter 0]

I just read the article. It sounds very campy and the guards appear to be far too admiring of him, but it does show him as a narcissistic egomaniac and judging from his speaches with roaches and lmice, he has other psychological disorders as well.

...

 

Um... it's from The Onion.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

I just read the article. It sounds very campy and the guards appear to be far too admiring of him, but it does show him as a narcissistic egomaniac and judging from his speaches with roaches and lmice, he has other psychological disorders as well.

...

 

Um... it's from The Onion.

The damned finest news source on the planet.

[Austin3164life 0]

Good call by Bush. Hopefully we'll find out exactly what went wrong.

1wrestling is now a more credible source of information than the CIA.

[snuffbox 0]

Id like to see some statistics on rape for America vs. Iraq just for the hell of it...

The gov't doesn't tend to, you know, endorse (heck, participate) in rape.

Yes, make a generalization based on what one person thinks. I highly doubt that all Liberals feel this way.

It is a generalization, but it is sadly fitting with the words of, say, the Democratic Presidential nominees.

-=Mike

...Being "for" human rights is useless if you won't do anything to make it happen.

Would you feel it necessary to travel to go to any other dictatorship and liberate those people?

 

I have no idea as to what Snuffbox is trying to say at this point.

I just asked a question out of curiosity...it has nothing to do with Bush or politics. More a comparison of the two cultures/societies, which I already said. I know Im asking alot to stary away fro politics and just analyze an entire situation...