Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet has taken responsibility for incorrect statements on Iraq and African uranium. Mr. Tenet stated that the information given by Bush in his 2003 State of the Union address was believed correct at the time, but was based on what was considered unreliable information.
Already the liberal spin machine is running around yelling "BUSH LIED" despite the complete lack of evidence that Bush knew the intelligence was false at the time. Furthermore, the evidence at the time did indicate the possibility of such a connection.
Clearly there needs to be an investigation into the intelligence process that led to this mistake being made. However, the basis for the war is not in doubt. Even Gen. Wesley Clark has admitted that all available evidence points to Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction, although he still disagrees with the war.
In the end, the Democrats are going to try to make as much political hay as they can, and already the usual suspects are doing just that. But at the end of the day, they cannot prove that Bush deliberate falsified information, nor can the argue that the war was wrong. While this is an embarrassing failure, and heads deserve to roll for it, the world is still better off without the Hussein regime. The Democrats will continue to try to push this story, and the more they do the more it will look like mere partisan wrangling.
The fact that the Bush administration has already delivered its Martha Stewart to the wolves in less than 24 hours must make you guys nervous that an atom is ready to split and turn your tranquil neighborhood into a mushroom cloud. Don’t blame that bead of sweat running from your body on the July heat, buddy. We know better.
Jay, the Niger uranium report had been debunked well over a year ago and long before Shrub’s State of the Union address. You know this as well as I do. If despite its total lack of any legitimacy it was still used to knowingly mislead us then the entire administration’s head deserves to roll.
LOL!
Jay, is it so outrageous to suggest that if a president wants to wage a war that’s going to cost lives, it’s not too much to ask that he make pretty damn sure that decision is predicated on accurate intelligence?
Regardless if he knew it was false or not, the president created an atmosphere where intelligence officials would have been rewarded for telling him what he wanted to hear.
If you’re the one who stimulates the production of phoney intel, plugging your ears and saying “la la la” when somebody tries to tell you it might not be accurate isn’t a defense when later, you’re accused of lying.
If Bush didn’t know the intel was bogus it’s because of his own duplicity.
The basis for the war was that Iraq had not declared its weapons of mass destruction. Every intelligence agency had stated that Iraq had not declared where its WMDs had gone. The estimates of 18,000 liters of anthrax and other figures were directly from the report of UNSCOM in 1998. They were not CIA or Bush Administration figures, they were UN figures.
The only piece of evidence determined to be false was the letters about uranium from Niger. Everything else has been either confirmed or is indeterminate at this time. The discovery of nuclear equipment in Baghdad shows that if Iraq did not have an active nuclear program then, they had the ability to create one at any time.
Furthermore, there is direct evidence that Iraq was assisting terrorist groups, training terrorists at the Salman Pak facility 30 miles south of Baghdad (which could be even be seen in civilian Ikonos satellite photos of the area), and now that Iraq did maintain links to al-Qaeda.
All in all, if you want to say that the war was wrong, you’d damn well better have more than just one small link in the chain.
All in all, if you want to say that the war was wrong, you’d damn well better have more than just one small link in the chain.
Well, then here’s another one – are we any safer now that we’ve gone to war with Iraq? Most Americans don’t seem to think so… Fox News still harps on about al-Queda under the bed…
Frankly the war would be easier to justify after the fact if there was power and water being reliably delivered to all Iraqis, and if the Terror Warning Level went down to green.
Well, then here’s another one – are we any safer now that we’ve gone to war with Iraq?
Would we be safer if we allowed Iraq to become North Korea?
Would we be safer if we allowed Iraq to become North Korea?
Speaking of North Korea, how’s the negotiations going? Are they any less likely to blow up the West Coast, seeing as how we invade countries at the least provocation?
Or did you forget that North Korea only announced they were a nuclear power because they were afraid we were going to invade them?
You know, there was a time when you had to wait for the other guy to draw before you pulled your gun and shot him, or else it was murder. There was a time when you had to be responding to actual aggression against your country before you could call it a just war.
Chet, I think I’ll wait for you to respond to my original question before we go on this tangent.
I did respond – I pointed out that it’s our fault North Korea went nuclear. (You know, that little matter of the electricity we promised to provide and then didn’t.)
Given that Iraq had no access, apparently, to any nuclear fuel, is it even likely they would have gotten as far as North Korea? I doubt it.
Anyway, now that we’ve covered that – what in international (or any other) law do you feel justifies pre-emptive war? That’s really the issue, isn’t it?
I mean, it’s obvious that our war in Iraq served national interests. But as far as I know, we need more than just self-interest to start a legal war. We need an actual Act of War. Otherwise we’re just shooting them because they looked at us funny.
Texas way man!!
I did respond – I pointed out that it’s our fault North Korea went nuclear.
Yea. We trusted a dictatorship.
what in international (or any other) law do you feel justifies pre-emptive war?
See my post here.
Yea. We trusted a dictatorship.
Huh? Did you read my post? They went nuclear only after we turned off the power we promised to provide. Sounds like the mistake was, they trusted us.
They went nuclear only after we turned off the power
No, Chet. They went nuclear once they got the capability to do so. They have never stopped working on their program – even during the inspections.
…they trusted us…
Yea. Blame America first. By the way, by “they” you don’t mean the Korean people, right? You mean the Korean dictator? Please clarify.