Bush takes responsibility for invasion intelligence

[Psalm25Gomer]

This was one of those.."Am I dreaming or am I really seeing this???" things for me..

I never thought I'd see the day when President Bush actually take the blame....other than a few mispronounced words.

Your thoughts?


http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/14/bush.iraq/index.html

[wbthornton]

Sheesh. All of this talk about so called "wrong intelligence." It's the same intelligence that was floating around for years. Clinton had it. Other world leaders had it. Everyone KNEW that Hussein had WMD. And WMD has been found......just not all of it. It's out there. It will be found. It might take a while, but it will be found. ;)

[kiwimobro]

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2005/POLITICS/12/14/bush.iraq/story.bushspeach4.01.jpg

"I have a plan!" :rolleyes:

"I have a pain" :p

[wbthornton]

But does Bill Clinton "feel his pain?" :p

[kiwimobro]

But does Bill Clinton "feel his pain?" :p
I dunno, I just thought it looked like the poor man had some beans for lunch and finally at 6 pm was able to relieve some of the pressure ;)

[rossid]

You know when my trust in his policies gets shaken he does something like this which IMHO takes a lot of guts.

[wbthornton]

I dunno, I just thought it looked like the poor man had some beans for lunch and finally at 6 pm was able to relieve some of the pressure ;)
ROFL :p

[cheewiee]

To me.. Bush seems like a Good man, who is surrounded by bad folk... well not bad folk.. but folks without much sense...

I think he has shown WAY TO MUCH Loyalty to people who do not desirve it... ROVE... and not enough loyalty to people who do... Powell...

But regardless of all that, Everyone except for a very small minority believed Saddam had WMDs.. Only like 9 members of congress even dared to read beyond just the overview of the CIA's assement of Husseins WMD's prior to voting for war...

Everyone took it for Granted that since Hussein is a bad bad man, that he was still persuing WMDs... We find out now that alot of his postering and such was just to keep his generals believing that he had WMD's at his disposal, to use against them *IF* they ever thought about a coup...

Either way, the result is millions of people showing exuberance for democracy... So now the question remains, do we take the neocon authorian mentality of Might for Right.... or do we force people to take freedom and democracy for themselves?

[kiwimobro]

force people to take freedom
HUH?
oxymoron!
:confused:

[cheewiee]

HUH?
oxymoron!
:confused:

Do we force people to take freedom for themselves... IE Do nothing in countries like Zimbabwe, and Venezuala.....

Or do we step in with our blood, sweat and tears and provide it for the whole workd?

[Gandalf]

Or maybe there's a good balance somewhere in between conquering every nation with an oppressive government and being completely isolationist :)

[blacksheep]

I don't believe that Bush whent to war concerned over WMDs. WMDs is what he used to sell it. He whent to war because he genuinly believed Sadam was and is a bad man. "Bush takes responsiblitly for invasion intelligence" is a missnomer. No one man can take responsibility for it. Intelligence is a big prediction game anyway and is only correct on a very good day about 50% of the time. I know. All this frett about the government listening to our phone calls. Well God does also.

[kiwimobro]

I wonder if not being allowed to pray in schools might be considered oppressive?

[Psalm25Gomer]

I don't believe that Bush whent to war concerned over WMDs. WMDs is what he used to sell it. He whent to war because he genuinly believed Sadam was and is a bad man. "Bush takes responsiblitly for invasion intelligence" is a missnomer. No one man can take responsibility for it. Intelligence is a big prediction game anyway and is only correct on a very good day about 50% of the time. I know. All this frett about the government listening to our phone calls. Well God does also.


I've heard people say that Bush (jr) just wanted to follow in the footsteps of "dear old dad".




btw...in no way do I put down the President...although I strongly disagree with how things are....I DO pray...for our government.

[coldcupofjoe]

I wonder if not being allowed to pray in schools might be considered oppressive?

I've wondered that too.

[Grank]

the guy had weapons he shouldn't... went against the U.N.s wishes many times... supported the very same terrorists that attacked us (on out soil)... used chemical weapons on his own people... he posed a very serious threat to us as a country... why shouldn't we have taken him out? To not take him out of power would be invite another attack upon us. I didn't see anybody say'n anything negative when bush said he would take the fight to the terrorists and not liet up till they were gone.

As for what we do in iraq... most of them think they are better off than they were. What matters though is that we protect our people back home so if we have to rig an election or what not to get a person in office that is pro america than so be it. No sense in let'n another despot take power.

[Pouye]

the guy had weapons he shouldn't... went against the U.N.s wishes many times... supported the very same terrorists that attacked us (on out soil)... used chemical weapons on his own people... he posed a very serious threat to us as a country... why shouldn't we have taken him out? To not take him out of power would be invite another attack upon us. I didn't see anybody say'n anything negative when bush said he would take the fight to the terrorists and not liet up till they were gone.

As for what we do in iraq... most of them think they are better off than they were. What matters though is that we protect our people back home so if we have to rig an election or what not to get a person in office that is pro america than so be it. No sense in let'n another despot take power.

You're making sense to me...

Rock

[coldcupofjoe]

so if we have to rig an election or what not to get a person in office that is pro america than so be it. No sense in let'n another despot take power.

So you would rig an election and foil democracy in another country so you could feel all warm and snuggly inside knowing that there was another country that liked us?

Don't get me wrong, I tend to like America but I do believe people should be allowed to make their own decisions. If we go in and take out one despot and they put another in place thats their own dang fault. If the Iraqi people put another despot in power, oh well. We gave them a shot at democracy if they want another they'll have to fight for it themselves.

[webo]

Or maybe there's a good balance somewhere in between conquering every nation with an oppressive government and being completely isolationist :)


You've nailed it.

[Grank]

So you would rig an election and foil democracy in another country so you could feel all warm and snuggly inside knowing that there was another country that liked us?

Don't get me wrong, I tend to like America but I do believe people should be allowed to make their own decisions. If we go in and take out one despot and they put another in place thats their own dang fault. If the Iraqi people put another despot in power, oh well. We gave them a shot at democracy if they want another they'll have to fight for it themselves.

no, i would only rig an election if it would save american lives in the long run. we have enough people that volunteer to give their life for our country that they don't need to attack civilans but thats not the case is it? If putting somebody pro-america in office is the only way to keep our country safe than i would not hesitate to do it. Thats one less country we have to send our own people in to look for terrorists.

i disagree about letting them handle things themselves... if they could keep their country together it woudn't be in shambles now. Why take the risk of have'n somebody eventually rise to power who hates us as well? I'd keep troops in iraq like we do in germany, japan, and korea... i, personally, would do whatever it takes to keep anybody back home from being hurt.

[ObiShawn]

if they could keep their country together it woudn't be in shambles now.Not entirely true. "They" had no say so in the matter. "They" were under a dictatorship, there was no "they."

Now the people have the vote, before they didn't. Since they now have the vote, they can keep history from repeating itself.

[gzusfreq]

Since they now have the vote, they can keep history from repeating itself.

But will it? Only time will tell.

[Grank]

Not entirely true. "They" had no say so in the matter. "They" were under a dictatorship, there was no "they."

Now the people have the vote, before they didn't. Since they now have the vote, they can keep history from repeating itself.

no... it is true... they let it fall into tyranny... we started with less than they did...

[Grank]

But will it? Only time will tell.
it won't... we won't let it...

[webo]

Here's the best quote I've read about the original subject of this post. It's from Wisconsin Sen. Russell Feingold: "The president believes that he has the power to override laws that Congress has passed. This is not how our democratic system of government works. The president does not get to pick and choose which laws he wants to follow. He's a president, not a king."

King Dubya. Doesn't sound too regal.

[wbthornton]

I wouldn't put much stock in anything Russ Feingold says.


Of course the Supreme Court thinks they have the constitutional power to overturn laws too. :rolleyes:

[Gandalf]

Feingold must be more informed about Bush's views on the Constituion than Bush is... I've yet to see any evidence that this disregard is any more than an empty accusation personally.

[ICarlson99]

Feingold's also not on the Senate Intelligence Committee which got briefed every 45 days (which is how long the Executive authorization lasted before Bush re-authorized, which he's done about 30 times). And Senators like Harry Reid (being the minority leader) were DIRECTLY briefed.

When you believe the Constitution says whatever you want it to say at any given time, no wonder Feingold can speak so authoritatively on what the President is allowed to do (especially since the Senate gave him the authority). He just doesn't like it, ergo, it's must be "unconstitutional").

The only useful thing Feingold (accidentally) said was that he saw the intelligence reports before the war and came to a different conclusion, thus voted against the war. Yet somehow, all the other Dems were fooled or didn't get to see "all" the data.

Glad to see Bush getting out front on this finally - his press conference today was a beauty.

[webo]

Even staunch conservatives are appalled at Bush's latest foulup. Read George Will today.

[Gandalf]

I'm not saying that I think taking advantages of loopholes in the law is a good idea. I was just pointing out that Feingold's quote is about the worst you could've picked to support your case. Bush isn't placing himself above the law. He's just taking actions the law doesn't explicitly deal with, even if it forbids analagous actions in different circumstances. Using loopholes and making one's self out to be a monarch are entirely different. Feingold's using a specific disagreement to frame a personal attack, as politicians are wont to do.

If you make the discussion about specific issues - parts of the Patriot act, erosion of liberties, etc. - then I and many others may agree with you on some points, or at the least your case may have merit. But, when you make it about Bush himself, you have to expect people to defend the President. It's a natural response. There's not a big conspiracy where Bush is trying to destroy the world. You disagree with him on some policies; that's not the same thing. When people frame it to be the former, they can't expect much support even on the individual issues on which people agree with them.

It just seems like you'd be much easier on yourself as far as the discussion's concerned if you didn't react as if he'd just insinuated you were a devil worshipper when he brings up a point about the Democratic party being anti-Christian. Wouldn't it be more effective to simply try to understand his position, and try to explain your own, rather than assuming the worst of his intentions in posting, and responding accordingly? I'm not saying you've done anything out of line here, or trying to attack you - please don't take my posts the wrong way... just wondering why the strong response if you don't even consider yourself a member of the specific group that he was attacking (the Democratic party)?

[ICarlson99]

Even staunch conservatives are appalled at Bush's latest foulup. Read George Will today.

Yes, what a horrible foulup to listen in on Al Qaeda calls to the US mainland. :rolleyes:

And yet, if something does happen here, the same people bemoaning this will be the first ones complaining about why it wasn't prevented. Ridiculous.

George Will is a conservative libertarian, not a "staunch" conservative. Unless that's how you define "staunch" conservative, in which case, most conservatives and Republicans aren't "staunch" conservatives - which also makes it irrelevant.

[ICarlson99]

And Bush isn't doing anything different than Clinton did (Project Eschelon), or that any other president has done before. Doesn't make it any more right or wrong, but people feigning indignation that this is some audacious behavior is absurd.

To acknowledge that it's a necessary tool is only to acknowledge that we're dealing with a new form of enemy which requires new forms of tools ourselves.

Now, if this tool is being used to spy on Moveon.org or something, then it's a problem. I don't think Americans are going to lose sleep over the President authorizing wiretaps on incoming Al Qaeda calls. In fact, I think they'd be more upset if we WEREN'T wiretapping those calls.

Incidentally, I find it amazing that the same groups of people that were so outraged over the Valerie Plame "outing" (which marginally affected our national security at best) have no problem splashing confidential reports of detentions in allied countries (Washington Post) or highly classified programs to spy on Al Qaeda (NY Times) all over the front page. Both of these have MAJOR impacts on national security and our effectiveness in prosecuting these wars. Total hypocrisy.

[webo]

It just seems like you'd be much easier on yourself as far as the discussion's concerned if you didn't react as if he'd just insinuated you were a devil worshipper when he brings up a point about the Democratic party being anti-Christian. Wouldn't it be more effective to simply try to understand his position, and try to explain your own, rather than assuming the worst of his intentions in posting, and responding accordingly? I'm not saying you've done anything out of line here, or trying to attack you - please don't take my posts the wrong way... just wondering why the strong response if you don't even consider yourself a member of the specific group that he was attacking (the Democratic party)?

I think you're in the wrong thread.

[Gandalf]

I think you're in the wrong thread.
Quite right - sorry for bringing that thread up in this one... they kind of run together after a while.

Have a good day :)