Welcome to ASFN Fan Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
Shouldn't We Know The Facts BEFORE We Decide to go to War??
Bush says he wants facts on Iraq WMD
Friday, January 30, 2004 Posted: 3:29 PM EST (2029 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Amid calls for an independent probe into prewar intelligence failures, President Bush said Friday he too wants to know about any discrepancies in what the United States knew about Iraq's weapons capabilities.
"I too want to know the facts," Bush said, repeating that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein was "a growing danger" and the world is better off without him.
"I want to be able to compare what the Iraq Survey Group has found with what we thought was there prior to going into Iraq," he said, referring to the CIA/Pentagon team assigned to hunt for banned weapons.
The Bush administration cited weapons of mass destruction as a key reason in its decision to invade Iraq last year.
On Capitol Hill, an influential member of the Senate Intelligence Committee joined the call for an independent investigation into the intelligence used to justify going to war.
Sen. Diane Feinstein, D-California, who earlier opposed such action, is prepared to support a resolution seeking an independent probe, a spokesman said.
Democrats and others have called for such an investigation after former top U.S. weapons hunter David Kay's assessment that Iraq likely had no stockpiles of banned weapons before the war. Kay cited apparent intelligence failures in his testimony this week before a Senate panel.
Some administration critics have demanded CIA Director George Tenet's resignation.
Support for an independent probe also is building among GOP ranks.
"A lot of Republicans are ready to get on the independent bandwagon," said a senior GOP Senate leadership aide.
Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, repeated his support for such a review this week, one he first voiced last summer when discrepancies emerged about Bush's 2003 State of the Union assertion that Iraq had attempted to buy uranium in Africa. (McCain's earlier statements)
"There has to be an outside commission investigating that and until that happens most Americans won't be satisfied," McCain said Thursday. "But most importantly we have to have lessons learned so we don't repeat the mistakes of the past."
Republican strategists have noted that many Democrats -- including former President Clinton -- bought into the same intelligence on Saddam's regime before Bush took office.
Clinton said Thursday ample evidence existed to justify pushing a new round of U.N. inspections at the least.
"At the time of September 11, there were officially unaccounted for stocks of botulin, aflatoxin and ricin, which justified, in my view, the U.S. going back to the U.N. and asking for the U.N. inspections," Clinton said.
Sen. John Kerry, considered the Democratic presidential front-runner, is among those who have demanded Tenet's resignation.
"I called for George Tenet to resign several months ago," the senator from Massachusetts said on the campaign trail Thursday. "I think there has been a lack of accountability at the CIA. I regret it. I know him personally, but that's the nature of responsibility."
Calls for the CIA chief's resignation also followed in the wake of last year's controversy over Bush's declaration that Iraq had sought to buy uranium in Africa, an assertion proven wrong.
But the administration continues to express confidence in Tenet's abilities, and the CIA cautioned that Kay's assessment of intelligence failures is premature and may be wrong.
Former Defense Secretary William Cohen, a Republican, said he agreed with the call for "an independent, nonpartisan commission to get at the facts." But he said he opposed calls for Tenet's resignation.
"I think at this point we should not be looking for scapegoats or scalps but rather the facts," Cohen said Friday on CNN's "American Morning."
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
Does anyone else find it pathetic that President Bush, after deciding to go to War at a cost of many lives and 8 Billion dollars a month, NOW says he wants to know the facts. I'm sorry, but that is very, very, sad, and just pathetic.
Originally posted by SUTTILL Does anyone else find it pathetic that President Bush, after deciding to go to War at a cost of many lives and 8 Billion dollars a month, NOW says he wants to know the facts. I'm sorry, but that is very, very, sad, and just pathetic.
Don't be such a schmuck. At the time, he was under the impression and was probably assured by the highest level of intelligence that what information they had was correct.
Now, it seems that is was not, and of course the President wants to find out what happened.
He thought he had the facts last year. It's not like he said, "well, we don't know anything but let's go in anyway." As much as the ultra-liberals on this board like to think that, it is in no way near the truth.
It's like I tell you that Torque is a great movie--and you assume it is (even though you don't watch it) until it comes out on video, then you watch it and go, "what the...??" (Of course, this is assuming that you trust my taste in movies)
PS: I have NOT seen Torque, and in now way, shape or form recommend it.
__________________
---------------------------------------------------- "I don't flop. I don't complain. I beat you." - Shaquille O'Neal
Originally posted by earthsci Good God, don't you know that what you are doing is un-patriotic? Don't ask questions!
Ha Ha! Can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not.
In case you arent', I should point out that asking hard questions about our leaders is indeed very patriotic, its been going on since the inception of our independence, and before. McCain and the others are also being quite patriotic in requesting the independent investigation. If you love your County, you hate it when it screws up and makes a bad decision like the one to go to War in Iraq. Our Nation can do better and hopefully will learn from this. Of course, I guess they said that with the Bay of Pigs, Vietnam, etc.
Just because we have not found weapons does not mean that they do not exist. It means we have not found them. Iraq is roughly the size of Texas. You could hide a lot there. That and the fact that many shipments were made to Syria before the war began, as the top weapons inspector pointed out on his way out. The weapons may be hidden extremely well or have been moved outside of Iraq. In either case that is a far different scenario than "they do not exist" or "they never existed."
__________________
"If Chuck is Solo, Larkin is his Fett!" - Morgan
Originally posted by Chaplin Don't be such a schmuck. At the time, he was under the impression and was probably assured by the highest level of intelligence that what information they had was correct.
Now, it seems that is was not, and of course the President wants to find out what happened.
He thought he had the facts last year. It's not like he said, "well, we don't know anything but let's go in anyway." As much as the ultra-liberals on this board like to think that, it is in no way near the truth.
It's like I tell you that Torque is a great movie--and you assume it is (even though you don't watch it) until it comes out on video, then you watch it and go, "what the...??" (Of course, this is assuming that you trust my taste in movies)
PS: I have NOT seen Torque, and in now way, shape or form recommend it.
Call me what you want Chap, but I think that taking our Nation to War is an extraordinarily important decision that we count on the President to get right. And this President blew it. The standard for this decision isn't "Oh, I thought I had the facts last year" as you seem to indicate. They need to know darn well what's going on before they decide to go to war and before they start telling the American people why.
Senator McCain is obviously not a "liberal", nor am I, and he is requesting an independent investigation.
Originally posted by Chaplin Don't be such a schmuck. At the time, he was under the impression and was probably assured by the highest level of intelligence that what information they had was correct.
Assured? Like what? they said, "Trust me Mr. President"? He would have needed to be shown hardcore proof, like spy satellite photos or something.
Assurance is nothing when you are sending people to their death.
Also, dumb analogy, recommending a movie and recommending mobilizing for war, aren't even in the same ballpark.
Originally posted by SUTTILL Call me what you want Chap, but I think that taking our Nation to War is an extraordinarily important decision that we count on the President to get right. And this President blew it. The standard for this decision isn't "Oh, I thought I had the facts last year" as you seem to indicate. They need to know darn well what's going on before they decide to go to war and before they start telling the American people why.
Senator McCain is obviously not a "liberal", nor am I, and he is requesting an independent investigation.
No, the President didn't "blow it", our intelligence gathering blew it.
Now, I'm not in favor of keeping George W. around, I actually dislike him a lot. But I'm also not prone to outbursts with no basis in reality either, like many of the extreme liberal minority. And your view in this matter is, yes, extremely liberal.
To assume that the President had no intelligence information and decided to commit to war without it is naive and just plain wrong.
Be against the war if you want, but don't use absurd stances with no basis in reality as your support. It won't hold.
__________________
---------------------------------------------------- "I don't flop. I don't complain. I beat you." - Shaquille O'Neal
Originally posted by Chaplin To assume that the President had no intelligence information and decided to commit to war without it is naive and just plain wrong.
So where is the proof? He is going to lose his presidency over this choice and if he had proof, damn straight he better come up with it before November or he is going to be a 1 term President like his father.
Originally posted by Ryanwb So where is the proof? He is going to lose his presidency over this choice and if he had proof, damn straight he better come up with it before November or he is going to be a 1 term President like his father.
I respectfully disagree with your point about this President Bush being a "one termer" like his father. I don't think it is very likely that he will be defeated by any of the Democratic hopefuls at this point. Something catastrophic ecenomically will have to happen between now and then for that to come to pass.
Originally posted by WizardOfAz I respectfully disagree with your point about this President Bush being a "one termer" like his father. I don't think it is very likely that he will be defeated by any of the Democratic hopefuls at this point. Something catastrophic ecenomically will have to happen between now and then for that to come to pass.
Nobody thought Clinton was going to beat George Bush either, but he did.
Originally posted by Ryanwb So where is the proof? He is going to lose his presidency over this choice and if he had proof, damn straight he better come up with it before November or he is going to be a 1 term President like his father.
See, that's the problem.
The proof he DID have, the proof he was told was accurate and true, looks like might be in dispute. That's not HIS fault. It is the fault of whoever said, "Mr. President, here is the proof that Iraq has WMD."
__________________
---------------------------------------------------- "I don't flop. I don't complain. I beat you." - Shaquille O'Neal
Tetris Champion!
Linear Mode
