Bush takes blame for Iraq war on bad intelligence

N&P: Discussion of news headlines and politics.

Moderator: frigidmagi

Post Reply
User avatar
Rukia
Pleasure Kitten
Posts: 1672
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 2:38 am
19
Location: batting at a ball of string...
Contact:

#1 Bush takes blame for Iraq war on bad intelligence

Post by Rukia »

By Steve Holland

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush took the blame on Wednesday for going to war in Iraq over faulty intelligence but said he was right to topple Saddam Hussein and urged Americans to be patient as Iraqis vote.

"It is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. As president I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq, and I am also responsible for fixing what went wrong by reforming our intelligence capabilities and we're doing just that," he said.

But he said, "My decision to remove Saddam Hussein was the right decision" because he was deemed a threat and that regardless, "We are in Iraq today because our goal has always been more than the removal of a brutal dictator."

Bush's new admission was significant in that he rarely admits mistakes, although he has acknowledged failures in U.S. intelligence on Iraq before.

His administration touted Iraqi weapons of mass destruction as a reason for going to war in March 2003, but such weapons were never found.

In an interview with Fox News to be aired on Wednesday night, Bush gave strong endorsements to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney, both frequently accused by critics of pushing the war on false pretenses.

"He's done a heck of a job," Bush said of Rumsfeld, "and I have no intention of changing him." As for Cheney, "my respect for him has grown immensely," Bush said.

Bush's Iraq comments came in the last of a series of four speeches outlining his Iraq strategy and trying to bolster American support for the war, came a day ahead of an Iraqi election that will pave the way for formation of a permanent government.

Bush, facing both low popularity ratings and waning public support for the war, hopes a smooth election would help him build a sense of progress in Iraq, where more than 2,100 U.S. troops have died.

His comments quickly drew fire from 40 Senate Democrats and one independent who sent him a letter demanding he provide a plan that identifies "the remaining political, economic, and military benchmarks that must be met and a reasonable schedule to achieve them."

"The president's speech today failed to provide the American people with any insight into his strategy for completing the mission," said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat.
The liberal MoveOn.org group said it delivered petitions bearing 400,000 signatures to 248 district congressional offices, urging support for an exit strategy plan with a timeline to bring U.S. troops home from Iraq.

'DAYS OF UNCERTAINTY'

Bush and other officials have talked of bringing home some troops in 2006 once commanders on the ground deem that Iraqi units are ready to take on greater responsibilities.

Bush asked for patience from Americans to give Iraqis time to form their new government after the election. After the vote, he said, there will be "days of uncertainty" and the winners may not be clear until the early part of January.

He reiterated his dismissal of Democratic calls for a phased U.S. pullout and accused Democrats who charge him with manipulating prewar intelligence of playing politics.

As part of an effort to have more contact with members of Congress who feel the administration makes decisions with little of their input, Bush joined several Democratic members of the House of Representatives for an Iraq briefing complete with U.S. commanders participating by videoconference.

New York Democratic Rep. Steve Israel said Bush talked of a need to change tactics. "Frankly, I found it refreshing," he said afterward.

Anthony Cordesman, an Iraq expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said that while Bush's Iraq speeches were better than some in the past, he still did not see a "total conversion from spin to leadership" and that Bush did not sufficiently explain past mistakes.

Top members of the House of Representatives subcommittee that oversees the defense budget said they heard the Pentagon would seek another $80 billion to $100 billion for the Iraq war next year, although they said the figure could change.

That would come on top of the $50 billion for the war Congress was expected to approve in the next few days.

(Additional reporting by Tabassum Zakaria, Adam Entous and Vicki Allen)
http://go.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml ... geNumber=0

There! He admits it... Now get the fuck over it people! Geeze... :roll:
shark42bait: you are evil...
shark42bait: i admire that in a woman....
I'm a mystery wrapped in an enigma wrapped in an AWESOME rack!
Image
"if you want to get out of a speeding ticket short skirts and crying are still the way to go" Kairy on "mythbusters"

LimePink: "Um, Mr. President? I was doing a suduko puzzle, and based on the hidden co-ordinates in the grid, I think Osama Bin Laden is either here : points on map: or here :points to another spot within 5 miles:. Also, Jay-Z killed Tupac Shakur and the lost treasure of Atlantis actually turned to the glacier that sunk the Titanic."
Robert Walper
Adept
Posts: 1087
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 7:37 am
19

#2

Post by Robert Walper »

One of the things I find interesting is that the WMDs is such a big issue. After all, it was one of the driving reasons behind the war, although Bush made it quite clear that freeing the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator was also a major goal.

Imagine if the WMDs hadn't been a issue. Would the US still have gone in to free the suffering and oppression of the Iraqi people?

In other words, the world doesn't give two shits about the Iraqi people's freedom, and only feel compelled to step in if they are personally threatened.

It's pretty fucking sad when fighting for people's freedom is a 'secondary' goal. Or as the whining about WMDs continues...not one at all.
User avatar
Comrade Tortoise
Exemplar
Posts: 4832
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 1:33 am
19
Location: Land of steers and queers indeed
Contact:

#3

Post by Comrade Tortoise »

If I didnt know better, I would accuse those whiny short-sighted bitches of racism... oh wait... I do on a daily basis. :razz:
"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."
- Theodosius Dobzhansky

There is no word harsh enough for this. No verbal edge sharp and cold enough to set forth the flaying needed. English is to young and the elder languages of the earth beyond me. ~Frigid

The Holocaust was an Amazing Logistical Achievement~Havoc
User avatar
Lord Stormbringer
The Red Duke
Posts: 231
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 12:31 am
19

#4

Post by Lord Stormbringer »

Robert Walper wrote:One of the things I find interesting is that the WMDs is such a big issue.
The sound-byte whores... I mean mainstream media have the attention span of speed addled five years olds. So naturally they fixated on that (far more than was warrented) and the Bush administration in turn exploited it with out bothering to set things straight.

If you look at the commentary of a lot of more enlightened, expansive advocates, such as Farheed Zackaria from Newsweek, you'll see that reforming the entire Middle East from a starting point of the relatively secular Iraq was a major long term goal. It was definitely a big part of the reason and had been from day one.

Too bad WMDS and No Blood For Oil make much better catchphrases and so any meaningul discourse was swept away in a tide of partisan rancor.
Image
Robert Walper
Adept
Posts: 1087
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 7:37 am
19

#5

Post by Robert Walper »

Lord Stormbringer wrote:Too bad WMDS and No Blood For Oil make much better catchphrases and so any meaningul discourse was swept away in a tide of partisan rancor.
That's another thing that gets me, the "blood for oil" debate. Some claim the US went in there for oil. I actually agree with that, but why is that a bad thing? What's wrong with a "scratch your back you scratch ours" deal? They'd have a point if the US went in there and only took over the oil resources, but they didn't. Regardless of just how successful or time consuming the effort is, the US is trying to set up a free democracy in that country. Something the population obviously really wants considering the huge voter turnout they had, even under the threat of being killed by bombs.

I see no problem whatsoever with "We'll take out your brutal regime and dictator, help you setup a democracy, and maybe in turn you can cut us a deal with your oil reserves".
User avatar
Rukia
Pleasure Kitten
Posts: 1672
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 2:38 am
19
Location: batting at a ball of string...
Contact:

#6

Post by Rukia »

Lord Stormbringer wrote:
Robert Walper wrote:One of the things I find interesting is that the WMDs is such a big issue.
The sound-byte whores... I mean mainstream media have the attention span of speed addled five years olds. So naturally they fixated on that (far more than was warrented) and the Bush administration in turn exploited it with out bothering to set things straight.

If you look at the commentary of a lot of more enlightened, expansive advocates, such as Farheed Zackaria from Newsweek, you'll see that reforming the entire Middle East from a starting point of the relatively secular Iraq was a major long term goal. It was definitely a big part of the reason and had been from day one.

Too bad WMDS and No Blood For Oil make much better catchphrases and so any meaningul discourse was swept away in a tide of partisan rancor.
one word; propaganda.

I've said this before and will say it till I die (or I'm proven wrong... death will probably come first)... We only hear a thrid of the story, and what we do hear, is highly humaitarian-esque. It's ridiculus. So WMD's weren't found. The guy was a sneaky bastard, and we were a bit too slow. Dosen't mean they didn't exist. And we gave him ten years to get his shit together and he didn't.

Bad intel or not, we were justified.
shark42bait: you are evil...
shark42bait: i admire that in a woman....
I'm a mystery wrapped in an enigma wrapped in an AWESOME rack!
Image
"if you want to get out of a speeding ticket short skirts and crying are still the way to go" Kairy on "mythbusters"

LimePink: "Um, Mr. President? I was doing a suduko puzzle, and based on the hidden co-ordinates in the grid, I think Osama Bin Laden is either here : points on map: or here :points to another spot within 5 miles:. Also, Jay-Z killed Tupac Shakur and the lost treasure of Atlantis actually turned to the glacier that sunk the Titanic."
User avatar
frigidmagi
Dragon Death-Marine General
Posts: 14757
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 11:03 am
19
Location: Alone and unafraid

#7

Post by frigidmagi »

Okay for my part. I was in the invasion. I didn't see any MWDs, just some circumstancal stuff that suggest they may of had something, or were planning to have something. However frankly? I wouldn't want to make a case of it in a court of law with what I got, the guy would walk.

However, when we were in the desert we didn't care about the MWDs, for fuck sake Egypt has nerve gas, Pakistan has nukes and on and on and on. However Saddam was a bloodsoaked tyrant who needed to go, his prensence resulted in at least 2 attempted wars of conquest and at least 2 civil wars/rebellions within his own nation. He needed to go and dragging it out meant more crimes and death done by him and his everyday. The vast majority of us on the frontline were happy to get rid of him by whatever means. My personnal regrets do not extend to the invasion, they cover not being able to do something about Sudan, seeing the war ran shit poorly but not in going to topple Saddam.

By best count the invasion has resulted in between 25,000-30,000 Iraqi deaths to this date. When I say resulted in I do not mean direct deaths via coalition troops, I mean every cause of violent death linked to the invasion itself.

Saddam is considered responible for the deaths of over 300,000 Iraqis and 100,000 Iranians and several thousand Kuwaits.
"it takes two sides to end a war but only one to start one. And those who do not have swords may still die upon them." Tolken
User avatar
Josh
Resident of the Kingdom of Eternal Cockjobbery
Posts: 8114
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 4:51 pm
19
Location: Kingdom of Eternal Cockjobbery

#8

Post by Josh »

As for the blood for oil line, we could have had the oil a lot more easily by simply lifting the sanctions and cutting deals. Unlike the Iranian regime, Saddam was quite willing to work with us.

Direct control of the fields? Who needs that when you can work with a regime that keeps the guerillas from harassing the workers via mass slaughter? Say what you will about our methodology, we're nowhere near so brutally effective at suppressing an insurrection as a tyrannical regime is. Given a the preponderance of force we have available, the old regime would have crushed this insurrection months ago.
When the Frog God smiles, arm yourself.
"'Flammable' and 'inflammable' have the same meaning! This language is insane!"
GIVE ME COFFEE AND I WILL ALLOW YOU TO LIVE!- Frigid
"Ork 'as no automatic code o' survival. 'is partic'lar distinction from all udda livin' gits is tha necessity ta act inna face o' alternatives by means o' dakka."
I created the sound of madness, wrote the book on pain
Post Reply