Bush is either a liar or a fool

[BoredShirtless]

Too bad the Vice President's office sent a convoy to Niger to determine if the British intel was accurate. The convoy found that it was not.

So this means the Bush Admin knew it was false intelligence. Yet it still ended up in the 2003 State Of Union Speech. That, according to the dictionary, is called lying.

[Darth Wong]

Darth Wong wrote:

don't know, but they obviously didn't run around saying it was concrete enough to launch a war over it. Bush did.

This is from 1998..... sound like someone else??

Yes indeed, since it involved a cruise-missile strike on a particular target rather than a full-fledged invasion.

Kay is "falling on his sword" in order to protect the job of the President. Everyone knows it. Whatever WMD-related intel existed prior to the Bush Administration was exaggerated, hyped, and blown out of proportion by the Bush Administration, which is now seeking to pin somebody else as the fall guy. If you refuse to see that, you're being willfully self-delusional.

[Master of Ossus]

Darth Wong wrote:

don't know, but they obviously didn't run around saying it was concrete enough to launch a war over it. Bush did.

This is from 1998..... sound like someone else??

Yes indeed, since it involved a cruise-missile strike on a particular target rather than a full-fledged invasion.

By that logic, the fact that no one in the intelligence community was running around demanding that we invade Afghanistan over the embassy bombings means that we shouldn't have cared enough about terrorism to launch a war over September 11.

Kay is "falling on his sword" in order to protect the job of the President. Everyone knows it. Whatever WMD-related intel existed prior to the Bush Administration was exaggerated, hyped, and blown out of proportion by the Bush Administration, which is now seeking to pin somebody else as the fall guy. If you refuse to see that, you're being willfully self-delusional.

And again, do you have any evidence that the Bush administration actually pushed the intelligence community to create information on Iraq's WoMD programs? Even before the Bush administration took office, there was ALREADY intelligence that showed that Iraq had WoMD. That Bush cared more about that same intelligence than the Clinton administration says nothing--Bush also cared more about terrorism than the Clinton administration, which repeatedly refused to confront terrorists despite rampant warnings that they were a genuine threat to national security.

[Darth Wong]

By that logic, the fact that no one in the intelligence community was running around demanding that we invade Afghanistan over the embassy bombings means that we shouldn't have cared enough about terrorism to launch a war over September 11.

How does that follow? The point is being made that no one before Bush claimed to have sufficiently concrete information on WMDs to go invade Iraq. Are you saying there was sufficient cause to INVADE AFGHANISTAN before September 11 2001?

Kay is "falling on his sword" in order to protect the job of the President. Everyone knows it. Whatever WMD-related intel existed prior to the Bush Administration was exaggerated, hyped, and blown out of proportion by the Bush Administration, which is now seeking to pin somebody else as the fall guy. If you refuse to see that, you're being willfully self-delusional.

And again, do you have any evidence that the Bush administration actually pushed the intelligence community to create information on Iraq's WoMD programs? Even before the Bush administration took office, there was ALREADY intelligence that showed that Iraq had WoMD.

How about the fact that Powell had to go through the information provided him and weed out the obviously fraudulent junk (even though much of what remained was fraudulent as well, which tells you something about what he dumped)? It is indeed only unnamed sources which told Newsweek that pressure was being applied to "find" stronger evidence, but Powell's need to filter the obvious junk being fed to him says a lot.

That Bush cared more about that same intelligence than the Clinton administration says nothing

Read: "That he took obviously weak intelligence more seriously, and pretended it was more concrete than it was."

Bush also cared more about terrorism than the Clinton administration, which repeatedly refused to confront terrorists despite rampant warnings that they were a genuine threat to national security.

Exactly what would you have had the Clinton administration do, in order to "confront terrorists"?

[Sea Skimmer]

Bush also cared more about terrorism than the Clinton administration, which repeatedly refused to confront terrorists despite rampant warnings that they were a genuine threat to national security.

Exactly what would you have had the Clinton administration do, in order to "confront terrorists"?

Perhaps use more then a handful of cruise missiles, perhaps the worst possibul weapons for the task, to attack their bases in Afghanistan. There was a reason why the Bush administration used dozens of B-1 and B-52 sorties to attack the same targets three years later.

[Darth Wong]

Perhaps use more then a handful of cruise missiles, perhaps the worst possibul weapons for the task, to attack their bases in Afghanistan. There was a reason why the Bush administration used dozens of B-1 and B-52 sorties to attack the same targets three years later.

Hindsight is 20/20. It's pretty easy to say we should have used far more deadly force AFTER September 11 2001, but prior to that, we didn't have much to go on, did we?

[Knife]

Hindsight is 20/20. It's pretty easy to say we should have used far more deadly force AFTER September 11 2001, but prior to that, we didn't have much to go on, did we?

I'm in no way a Clinton fan, but even at that time, I advocated sending in a strike team or at least air strikes. Clinton took the way safe route instead of using men on site to designate targets and do follow up BDA reports in case a second or third sorte was needed.

A cruise missile is far and away from being a good anti personel weapon when a cluster bomb would have been infanitely better for a 'terrorist training base'.

[Master of Ossus]

By that logic, the fact that no one in the intelligence community was running around demanding that we invade Afghanistan over the embassy bombings means that we shouldn't have cared enough about terrorism to launch a war over September 11.

How does that follow? The point is being made that no one before Bush claimed to have sufficiently concrete information on WMDs to go invade Iraq. Are you saying there was sufficient cause to INVADE AFGHANISTAN before September 11 2001?

Yes I am. Afghanistan was a piece of shit under the Taliban. In my paper, I advocated US military intervention in Afghanistan in 1999, and again in 2000, in response to massive human rights violations that were taking place there under the Taliban government.

How about the fact that Powell had to go through the information provided him and weed out the obviously fraudulent junk (even though much of what remained was fraudulent as well, which tells you something about what he dumped)? It is indeed only unnamed sources which told Newsweek that pressure was being applied to "find" stronger evidence, but Powell's need to filter the obvious junk being fed to him says a lot.

All intelligence gathering is based around sorting through junk. The CIA collects tens of thousands of pages of documents every single day. It's then filtered as it goes up the chain of command. The fact that Powell then filtered it says nothing about anything.

Read: "That he took obviously weak intelligence more seriously, and pretended it was more concrete than it was."

The same was true of his response to terrorism, which Bill Clinton never cared about. You're not criticizing him because he took the threat of terrorism more seriously, are you?

Bush also cared more about terrorism than the Clinton administration, which repeatedly refused to confront terrorists despite rampant warnings that they were a genuine threat to national security.

Exactly what would you have had the Clinton administration do, in order to "confront terrorists"? [/quote]

1. He needed to actually DEAL WITH THE PROBLEM. His efforts at removing bin Laden were restricted to asking the Taliban nicely to remove him from their country, and later firing a few cruise missiles at a location that turned out to be based on faulty information.
2. He needed to do more to fund anti- and counter-terrorism measures within the United States. He actually CUT the budget of several anti-terrorism teams within the FBI, although he later raised their budgets in response to the Oklahoma City bombing.
3. He needed to deal with Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. As it was, Clinton retreated from the mess he started in Mogadishu. He ran away from the problems he created in the Middle East (despite his claims that the Middle East peace process would be over after the treaty he negotiated was complete). In response to the embassy bombings that killed hundreds of people, his response was to increase security around US embassies but do almost nothing to deal with Al Qaeda as a whole. As a result of the bombings, the CIA and FBI made NO arrests. That HAS to have been more important than dealing with the alleged Balkans genocide that he mobilized NATO to deal with. He didn't even bother deploying stealth warplanes to target Taliban bases in Afghanistan, he simply used cruise missiles, which were exceptionally poorly suited to the job he was allegedly trying to accomplish.
4. Following countless acts of terror in other nations, most notably the Sarin gas attack on Tokyo, he did NOTHING to increase American security from chemical, biological, and nuclear attacks. In fact, he CUT a CDC program to design better detection equipment for important civic centers.

Clinton's response to terrorism was nothing short of atrocious, as I pointed out in editorials dating back to Oklahoma City. I pointed out in that article his administration obviously did not take the threat of terrorism seriously, and how he was running away from important future issues, rather than attempting to deal with them.

Perhaps this question would be better: What did Clinton DO to deal with terrorism effectively? He slashed the intelligence and DoD budget during his two terms. He cut back on critical programs designed specifically to deal with terrorism, and his use of military solutions was piss-poor.

[Darth Wong]

Hindsight is 20/20. It's pretty easy to say we should have used far more deadly force AFTER September 11 2001, but prior to that, we didn't have much to go on, did we?

I'm in no way a Clinton fan, but even at that time, I advocated sending in a strike team or at least air strikes. Clinton took the way safe route instead of using men on site to designate targets and do follow up BDA reports in case a second or third sorte was needed.

Remember the political fallout from Somalia? There was a lot of public rhetoric floating around at the time about not sending American boys off to die in other peoples' wars, so it's not surprising at all that he chose the method which would not put any American soldiers in harm's way.

A cruise missile is far and away from being a good anti personel weapon when a cluster bomb would have been infanitely better for a 'terrorist training base'.

True. Then again, I have trouble imagining that Clinton personally specified certain weapons systems to be used, since he has no military expertise. Somebody in the military hierarchy must have planned the operation as per some very generalized parameters set forth by his administration.

[Master of Ossus]

Perhaps use more then a handful of cruise missiles, perhaps the worst possibul weapons for the task, to attack their bases in Afghanistan. There was a reason why the Bush administration used dozens of B-1 and B-52 sorties to attack the same targets three years later.

Hindsight is 20/20. It's pretty easy to say we should have used far more deadly force AFTER September 11 2001, but prior to that, we didn't have much to go on, did we?

Laughable.

We knew that the Taliban was sheltering bin Laden and several other key Al Qaeda leaders, who we knew were responsible for the deaths of dozens of Americans and hundreds of foreign nationals. These terrorists DIRECTLY attacked American interests on the USS Cole, in the African embassies, and in Saudi Arabia. They killed Americans in each of those actions. They also killed hundreds of civilians.

That's why I advocated sending the US military to strike Afghan targets in 1998, 1999, and again in 2000.

However, even then it was obvious that my advocation of military strikes was based on hindsight. All of those attacks were carried out by the Taliban-sheltered Al Qaeda group, along with numerous other attacks and planned attacks. Clinton also received periodic intelligence of other attacks that Al Qaeda was planning, including one to attack US aircraft over the Pacific. He did not increase security in airports as a result of this intelligence. He did not do ANYTHING to deal with Al Qaeda in the Muslim world, and in fact strengthened their position by retreating from Mogadishu.

To claim that terrorism only became an issue with the hindsight of September 11 is ridiculous.

Moreover, you are using a double-standard. If, as I believe and I think most people would agree with me, Iraq had in fact scrapped their chemical and biological weapons prior to the US actions in Iraq, then only in hindsight has it become obvious that Iraq did not in fact possess such weapons. Clinton also used Iraq's development of such weapons to justify several air-strikes against Iraqi radar and air-defense installations, although to be fair he obviously didn't use them as his only justification, or even as his primary one.

[Knife]

Remember the political fallout from Somalia? There was a lot of public rhetoric floating around at the time about not sending American boys off to die in other peoples' wars, so it's not surprising at all that he chose the method which would not put any American soldiers in harm's way.

True, but sending in a small team of roughly plt strength is not exactly a full blown invasion to ruffle the feathers of the public nor would a flight of strike craft. I was actualy in the Corps durring Somalia and while there was alot of the sentiment you desricbed, there was also alot of angry feelings about pulling out with our tail tucked under our legs.

True. Then again, I have trouble imagining that Clinton personally specified certain weapons systems to be used, since he has no military expertise. Somebody in the military hierarchy must have planned the operation as per some very generalized parameters set forth by his administration.

Agreed, but I'm sure he dictated that no American military man would be put in direct danger for the same political concerns you described above. The use of cruise missiles just reeks of political concerns instead of military stategy.

[Master of Ossus]

Remember the political fallout from Somalia? There was a lot of public rhetoric floating around at the time about not sending American boys off to die in other peoples' wars, so it's not surprising at all that he chose the method which would not put any American soldiers in harm's way.

Let me get this straight: a president of the United States should back off from critical issues, even if doing so will result in THOUSANDS of deaths in the future, due to political pressures? You have to be kidding. While I agree that Clinton's decision may have been the correct political move, it was a HORRIBLE military move that demonstrated a SHOCKING ignorance of intelligence that was being sent to him.

True. Then again, I have trouble imagining that Clinton personally specified certain weapons systems to be used, since he has no military expertise. Somebody in the military hierarchy must have planned the operation as per some very generalized parameters set forth by his administration.

Clinton still signed off on the mission, and he did specify to the military that no aircraft were to be used during the attack since that would put American pilots at risk. That pretty much left it to cruise missiles.

BTW, the same day Clinton also launched an airstrike against a Sudanese chemical plant that he claimed was making VX nerve gas. That intelligence turned out to be wrong, and thirteen Sudanese civilians lost their lives during the strike. Intelligence about these sorts of things can be inaccurate, and frankly Bush just took things further than Clinton did.

[The Kernel]

*snip*

You're enitre argument can be defeated by a single sentance: Congress was controlled by the Republicans at the time. They had no interest in giving Clinton support while they were conducting character assasinations, or were you asleep during the fallout from not only Somalia but the entire Balkans incident?

If you try to dispute this, don't think that I can't pull out some nice juicy quotes proving my position.

[The Kernel]

Let me get this straight: a president of the United States should back off from critical issues, even if doing so will result in THOUSANDS of deaths in the future, due to political pressures? You have to be kidding. While I agree that Clinton's decision may have been the correct political move, it was a HORRIBLE military move that demonstrated a SHOCKING ignorance of intelligence that was being sent to him.
Clinton still signed off on the mission, and he did specify to the military that no aircraft were to be used during the attack since that would put American pilots at risk. That pretty much left it to cruise missiles.

It's funny but Clinton actually drew up a plan to vastly increase the size of the anti-terrorism budget in 1998, but it was shot down by House Republicans.

[Darth Wong]

Laughable.

We knew that the Taliban was sheltering bin Laden and several other key Al Qaeda leaders, who we knew were responsible for the deaths of dozens of Americans and hundreds of foreign nationals. These terrorists DIRECTLY attacked American interests on the USS Cole, in the African embassies, and in Saudi Arabia. They killed Americans in each of those actions. They also killed hundreds of civilians.

Yes, I'm aware of Al-Quaeda's strikes on other countries. The fact remains that before Sept 11 2001, America did not have sufficient justification to INVADE a foreign country on that basis. And both parties seemed to agree, since nobody was screeching that they needed to launch a full-blown invasion and regime overthrow of Afghanistan. In fact, the biggest outrage directed at Afghanistan at that time was over their destruction of Buddhist statues, remember?

That's why I advocated sending the US military to strike Afghan targets in 1999, and again in 2000.

However, even then it was obvious that my advocation of military strikes was based on hindsight. All of those attacks were carried out by the Taliban-sheltered Al Qaeda group, along with numerous other attacks and planned attacks. Clinton also received periodic intelligence of other attacks that Al Qaeda was planning, including one to attack US aircraft over the Pacific. He did not increase security in airports as a result of this intelligence. He did not do ANYTHING to deal with Al Qaeda in the Muslim world, and in fact strengthened their position by retreating from Mogadishu.

Oh yes, Clinton singlehandedly decided this against overwhelming pressure from the public and the rest of the government ... NOT.

To claim that terrorism only became an issue with the hindsight of September 11 is ridiculous.

Strawman fallacy. I never said terrorism was a non-issue before Sept 11; I said there was insufficient justification for America to invade a foreign country (you know, "regime change" and all that) before Sept 11.

Moreover, you are using a double-standard. If, as I believe and I think most people would agree with me, Iraq had in fact scrapped their chemical and biological weapons prior to the US actions in Iraq, then only in hindsight has it become obvious that Iraq did not in fact possess such weapons.

How odd, then, that so many people found ways to demonstrate that the claims were overblown BEFORE the invasion occurred. There are still many archived threads on this very board discussing that very debate, back before we had the benefit of hindsight. Why is it that some people bought into the bullshit so wholeheartedly?

Clinton also used Iraq's development of such weapons to justify several air-strikes against Iraqi radar and air-defense installations, although to be fair he obviously didn't use them as his only justification, or even as his primary one.

Precisely. Airstrikes are one thing, a full-blown invasion is another. Clinton thought the terrorist thread was real enough to warrant airstrikes against foreign countries: an action which caused considerable consternation already. To argue that he had sufficient justification before Sept 11 to run around launching full-blown invasions is the only "laughable" thing here.

[Master of Ossus]

*snip*

You're enitre argument can be defeated by a single sentance: Congress was controlled by the Republicans at the time. They had no interest in giving Clinton support while they were conducting character assasinations, or were you asleep during the fallout from not only Somalia but the entire Balkans incident?

If you try to dispute this, don't think that I can't pull out some nice juicy quotes proving my position.

How the hell does that refute my argument that Bush took things further than Clinton did, but that Clinton did little to confront terrorism? Are you saying that Clinton didn't understand that terrorism was a danger? Are you claiming that the Republicans PREVENTED him from taking military action against Al Qaeda, even though there was very little resistance to his movements in the Balkans and even though the president can do pretty much whatever the hell he wants with the military for enough time for Clinton to launch low-intensity strikes against Taliban targets?

The fact that some Republicans spoke out against Clinton's military actions will avail you nothing. I'm sure that some Republicans missed the intelligence, too, but that doesn't show a damn thing about Bush or Clinton, and it sure as hell wouldn't have prevented Clinton from taking actions without notifying the Congress, first (he didn't tell them about the strikes he was launching in Afghanistan or Sudan, did he?).

[Darth Wong]

Let me get this straight: a president of the United States should back off from critical issues, even if doing so will result in THOUSANDS of deaths in the future, due to political pressures? You have to be kidding.

Very well, show me the articles you wrote in which you predicted the attack on the World Trade Centre, etc. Oops, can't find 'em? Oh yeah, that's right: nobody knew that would happen.

While I agree that Clinton's decision may have been the correct political move, it was a HORRIBLE military move that demonstrated a SHOCKING ignorance of intelligence that was being sent to him.

Oh, puh-lease. He used airstrikes because that was all he could do at the time. You can't seriously believe that he could have just walked onto the Senate floor and said "I declare war on Afghanistan".

BTW, the same day Clinton also launched an airstrike against a Sudanese chemical plant that he claimed was making VX nerve gas. That intelligence turned out to be wrong, and thirteen Sudanese civilians lost their lives during the strike. Intelligence about these sorts of things can be inaccurate, and frankly Bush just took things further than Clinton did.

If by "further" you mean "pushed the intel people to exaggerate the evidence and thus defraud the American people", then yes.

[Joe]

Kernel, that's just BS. While it's true the Republicans wouldn't cooperate at all with Clinton on domestic issues, he never really had a lot of trouble with them on foreign policy, with the possible exception of Somalia.

[Axis Kast]

David Kay’s claims after the resignation are very interesting indeed, especially considering that …

The ISG pulled out of Iraq almost precisely four months after his October presentation of preliminary evidence, at which point he reported that the ISG was, “ … still very much in the collection and analysis mode, still seeking the information and analysis that will allow us to confidently draw comprehensive conclusions …” (1) In fact, according to the Washington Post, Kay himself speculated that anywhere from six to nine additional months would be necessary for a thorough search as of that 2 October. (2)

As of October, Kay had visited a mere 10 of 130 suspected sites of chemical weapons disposal and storage. If he visited only ten in three months and later complained that resources were being stripped from his team and freedom of movement restricted, then his supposedly “final” conclusions are substantiated by only the most flimsy of efforts. The ISG concluded a slow search in less-than-optimal conditions at the end of a period that did not even exceed the minimum of one year which the United Nations intended to offer Hans Blix (or the six month limit Kay himself had earlier set). (2, 3, 4, 5)

Kay has appealed to the “chaos” of Iraq’s post-war period in order to explain the disappearance of weapons we knew the Iraqis to have had at one time in the past. Yet, if his speed was hampered whenever troops had to be detached to fight the insurgence, his resources were less than originally assigned, and his timeframe had been whittled down to the bare bones minimum, this isn’t anything but an appeal to ignorance. (6)

Finally, we know that Kay had access to European intelligence from countries that opposed the war. None of it pointed to any direction other than Hussein’s possession of weapons of mass destruction. Bush can be challenged for having relied on potentially faulty data, but the overall assessment generally suggested that the security threat was there. That France and Germany chose not to act on it revealed differing opinions of national interest, not utterly differing assessments of Iraq’s programs. (7)

What it all boils down to is that Kay’s assessment was sorely lacking in comprehensiveness of a nature that only additional time and greater resources can provide. His assessments are substantiated by only the most cursory of searches in poor conditions, and thus any claim to have “final” or irrefutable data is suspect.

(1) http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/s ... 22003.html

(2) http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dy ... ge=printer

(3) http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/s ... 22003.html

(4) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/middle_east/2492801.stm

(5) http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dy ... ge=printer

(6) http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20 ... 054646.asp

(7) http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/7819429.htm

[Master of Ossus]

Mike, basically you're saying that in spite of the obvious intention of the Taliban and Al Qaeda groups to continue attacking American interests, Clinton's use of ONE ineffective air-strike against Al Qaeda targets represents a confrontation of terrorism? I already defined what he needed to do to confront terrorism, and enumerated the ways in which he failed to do so. It doesn't matter that no one knew that the WTC was going to be attacked. We knew that Al Qaeda would launch further attacks in the future, and Clinton failed to safe-guard the nation by undercutting the military's efforts to deal with terrorism effectively.

US presidents can easily send special operations forces in to foreign countries, even without congressional approval. They can also order REAL airstrikes, with REAL aircraft without presidential approval. I have no idea what you're basing your statements on that airstrikes were his only option, at the time, but it's clear that even if that were true then the operation was bungled.

[theski]

Darth Wong wrote:

If by "further" you mean "pushed the intel people to exaggerate the evidence and thus defraud the American people", then yes.

This is the second time in this thread I will ask.... " Do you have any proof of this claim"??????????????

[The Kernel]

How the hell does that refute my argument that Bush took things further than Clinton did, but that Clinton did little to confront terrorism?

We'll let's see here, Bush had the support of 9/11 and didn't do a damn thing about terrorism until we were attacked. Unlike you, I wouldn't being to blame someone for something that is obviously not their fault, but you can't honestly say that Bush was so gung-ho about stamping out terrorism before 9/11 happened. Futher, the FBI during his administration got reports of the 9/11 hijackers training in Florida and did nothing. I wouldn't blame Bush for this either, but you certainly can't blame Clinton.

And also, like I said before, Clinton tried to drastically increase his counter-terroism budget in 1998, but it was shot down by House Republicans.

Are you saying that Clinton didn't understand that terrorism was a danger? Are you claiming that the Republicans PREVENTED him from taking military action against Al Qaeda, even though there was very little resistance to his movements in the Balkans and even though the president can do pretty much whatever the hell he wants with the military for enough time for Clinton to launch low-intensity strikes against Taliban targets?

Hindsight is 20/20, it is so easy for you to look back and criticize without realizing that it was a different world then and Clinton didn't have the support for military action.

I also notice that you are indulging in an often used Republican tactic when the shit hits the fan called "Blame Clinton".

The fact that some Republicans spoke out against Clinton's military actions will avail you nothing. I'm sure that some Republicans missed the intelligence, too, but that doesn't show a damn thing about Bush or Clinton, and it sure as hell wouldn't have prevented Clinton from taking actions without notifying the Congress, first (he didn't tell them about the strikeshe was launching in Afghanistan or Sudan, did he?).

Ooooh, he decided to launch a few missiles at Afghanistan without telling Congress. This is a far cry from actually performing an invasion without telling Congress and you know it.

[The Kernel]

Darth Wong wrote:

If by "further" you mean "pushed the intel people to exaggerate the evidence and thus defraud the American people", then yes.

This is the second time in this thread I will ask.... " Do you have any proof of this claim"??????????????

I already showed you the evidence the first time you asked for it. READ THE DAMN DOCUMENT!

[The Kernel]

Kernel, that's just BS. While it's true the Republicans wouldn't cooperate at all with Clinton on domestic issues, he never really had a lot of trouble with them on foreign policy, with the possible exception of Somalia.

Wrong, the Republicans conducted several highly visible public attacks on Clinton during the entire conflict. Have you heard Tom DeLay's or Trent Lott's statements on the matter?

[Joe]

I'm sure they did, and you would have a point if I hadn't cited Somalia as the exception.