Failed Intelligence and the GOP

[JMHX]

WASHINGTON - Congressional Republicans on Wednesday rejected Democratic calls for a formal investigation into intelligence on Iraq (news - web sites)'s weapons programs, contending that such a probe could harm intelligence agencies' work.

Full Story: http://story.news.yahoo.com/ne...0030611/ap_on_re_mi_ea/us_iraq

I was surprised more people haven't been enraged by the fact that the 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' - or any real sign they were ever there - has so far been absent and no comment made about it.

Now, discuss.

[AngryArab]

i think bush fucked up saying "we belive they have weapons, we dont need visual proof, we have all the proof we need"

[mysecondstar]

i don't know about failed intelligence. you can't say too much because it may compromise security and you can't say too little because no one will believe you. so, basically, they are stuck between a rock and a hard place.

[RoboTripper]

But they did find WoMD! Oh wait, when Bush guaranteed that we'd find WoMD (and then claimed that "we have found them"), he REALLY meant evidence of WoMD programs. And there are two very sinister-looking trailers that surely had no other use than WoMD production. Oops...

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4686547,00.html

[RoboTripper]

New evidence of WoMD!

http://www.whitehouse.org/news/2003/061303.asp

[aviewaskewed]

At 6/16/03 08:23 PM, Crack_Smoker wrote: New evidence of WoMD!

http://www.whitehouse.org/news/2003/061303.asp

lol...that was great.

Anyway, yeah it is a little surprising, and borderline disturbing that Bush found no weapons of mass destruction...but than I hear people rationalizing it as "well he could have had them at some point, isn't it good that we got rid of him?" Well, I'm fine with ousting a rotten dictator like Saddam...but we went to do it for a specific reason...weapons of mass destruction..and at that point it behooved us to find some evidence of them, lest we look like trigger happy liers who just wanted to use our might, to make right. We haven't found that evidence...I pity the next guy to come in after Bush...and have to deal with the ramifications of Bush's "war on terror"

[YellowJacketofGT]

Interesting that you would try to pin this on the GOP. First of all, Clinton came out in 1998 first to say that Saddam had WMD, and many democrats believed him, swore that the intelligence was good, and therefore didnt complain when we just started shooting cruise missles at him. Secondly, many major democrats, after seeing our intellegence, voted for the war as well, claiming that the intellegence was a good enough reason to be going in. Thirdly, Saddam's already proven that he had them from day one of the war. Remember, when he shot 2 SCUD'ss (those things he claimed NOT to have) and 2 Al Samud 2's (the ones that still break the UN rules but he tried to weazel into keeping, then hide). And lets not forget the numerous empty, movable bio trucks, giant wastelands full of radioactive materials, and other such interesting finds that are reported from the not so liberal news sites on the internet/radio that are actually doing reporting and not Bush bashing. Not that I agree with Bush for obviously waiting until prime election time to release this. But that's how politics go... just dont blame the GOP when you dont know what's going on.

[RoboTripper]

At 6/16/03 10:58 PM, YellowJacketofGT wrote: stuff

Well, I think he was blaming the GOP for not allowing an investigation into the misuse of intelligence, not for starting the war. And it is true that Democrats (as well as the majority of the public) signed on for the campaign, but there were several items that the GOP White House presented which were false and seemed designed to manipulate.

For instance, an Al-Queda-Iraq link was presented with no backing, known forgeries were referred to as evidence that Iraq was trying to obtain nuclear capabilities, and (in the UK) Blair claimed to have evidence that Iraq could launch a WoMD attack in 45 minutes. And the chem/bio threat was obviously overstated. So it should be understandable that many people feel misled, even though most believed all along that Iraq had some sort of program in place. Playing on people's fears is a dirty way to do things.

As for the Scud missiles, it was reported early in the war that they were fired at coalition forces, but this claim was later retracted. No Scuds were fired by Iraq during the war, and none have been found since. Regarding your other "interesting finds" and the Bush coverup, I actually could see that happening, but given the current situation you must forgive me if I insist on hard evidence.

[YellowJacketofGT]

At 6/17/03 12:06 AM, Crack_Smoker wrote:

stuff

The SCUDS are still an up in the air topic. Yes, no one knows which answer is true, but since even if they ARENT SCUDS they are still those wonderfully "I didnt have these, I swear it" ALSAMUD-II, I dont really care anyway.

Here is an article that clarify's this issue:
"his [saddam's] possession of huge quantities of chemical and biological toxins, as well as his persistent efforts to acquire a nuclear capability, has been widely acknowledged. Indeed, they have been insisted upon by everyone who has seriously addressed the matter for at least the past 12 years: two entire generations of U.N. weapons inspectors, the whole Clinton administration and even the government of France.

The basic facts are not in doubt. Saddam long ago publicly admitted having tons of sarin (the toxin that killed 12 people in a Tokyo subway in 1995) and VX nerve gas, and significantly failed to explain what had happened to them in his infamous response, late last year, to the United Nations' demand. What was Bush supposed to think, if not that Hussein still had them?

Faced with this minor embarrassment, the Bush critics have displayed a certain understandable amount of confusion. Some of them have tried to minimize what Saddam is universally agreed to have possessed: OK, maybe he had a little sarin and VX, but nothing like the quantities Bush charged to justify the attack. The trouble is, there was nothing minimal about the quantities specified by the United Nations in the 1990s, and even admitted to by Saddam. We are talking about tons.

So another pack of Bush critics has played the minimization game in a slightly different way. Maybe Saddam did have the arsenal he was charged with, but was the threat to the United States "imminent"? Note that we are a long way, now, from the accusation that Bush "lied." Instead, we have had planted on us the idea that war against Iraq was justifiable only if Saddam's use of his weapons of mass destruction was "imminent." Under the grim rules of modern warfare, however, how prudent would it have been to wait until Saddam had constructed, say, a nuclear weapon and his use of it was "imminent"?

That would be sheer madness.

Saddam had the means of waging chemical and biological warfare, and was on his way to nuclear capability. He probably held off using the first two because even France warned that doing so would justify his overthrow. But where, today, are these weapons?

In theory, he could have destroyed them. But if he was willing to do that, why not do it in full view of the U.N. inspectors and accept the accolades of a grateful world? Then again, he may have succeeded in spiriting them, or some of them, out of Iraq – though the difficulties of that course make it unlikely.

More probably, he simply hid them – as he has, thus far, hidden himself. But he, and they, will be found, as America's grip on Iraq tightens, and deepens. These things take time."

It's not like we DONT know he had them. As stated above, alot of people knew. The fact that this man was going on for these many years with stuff like this is what made it so very dangerous. And since Saddam even warned to attack by "unconventional means" if we crossed the Eurphrates River (which was probably not followed through with because then his blind follwers would be forced to wake up) clenches it right out. It wasn't a matter of "if", but "when". And just because Saddam is twisted and probably started moving things and hiding things (Even more than before) since he knew that, yes, war would definintely be coming soon (one could argue almost 4 months to prepare), it's unfair to think that the inspectors which had a grand total of 8 cumulative years to find these things could INSTANTLY be found.