PDA

View Full Version : Bush Takes on Critics of War


gunns
11-11-2005, 12:30 PM
Bush takes on critics of Iraq war
Friday, November 11, 2005; Posted: 3:09 p.m. EST (20:09 GMT)


(CNN) -- President Bush Friday accused critics of the Iraq war of distorting the events that led to the U.S. invasion, saying Democrats viewed the same intelligence and came to similar conclusions.


"While it's perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began," the president said.

"Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war," Bush said. "They also know that intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein."

"These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America's will," Bush said.

The president also cited a bipartisan investigation that found no political pressure to change prewar intelligence.

However, that panel, which was headed by Federal Circuit Court Judge Laurence Silberman and former Republican Sen. Charles Robb, only examined the intelligence community's prewar assessments of Iraq's weapons programs, not how the intelligence was used

Democrats respond
Democrats responded immediately -- and angrily -- to Bush's comments.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, responded to Bush's speech in a statement, saying that the commander-in-chief missed an opportunity to lay out "a clear strategy for success in the war in Iraq."

"Attacking those patriotic Americans who have raised serious questions about the case the Bush administration made to take our country to war does not provide us a plan for success that will bring our troops home," Reid said.

"The American people are demanding a comprehensive plan and the benchmarks by which to measure our success for the war in Iraq," Reid said. "The president's continued refusal to provide that plan does nothing to support our troops or their families."

In a statement, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, noting that a majority of House Democrats voted against the resolution that authorized the war, faulted the president for politicizing Veterans Day.

"On Veterans Day we should come together to honor those who have served in our Armed Forces. Instead, President Bush is using Veterans Day to try to bolster his political standing on the war in Iraq rather than honor our nation's men and women in uniform.

"The president does a disservice to the troops and the American people when he tries to silence those asking questions about putting our men and women in uniform in harm's way," Pelosi said.

Continuing the war
Bush reiterated his argument that the United States must continue to fight to prevent Iraq from becoming a failed state from which terrorists would launch attacks on other nations to implement their radical ideology.

Bush, speaking at a Veterans Day event in Tobyhanna, Pennsylvania, referred to a letter he said was written by Ayman al-Zawahiri, al Qaeda's No. 2 leader. The letter, according to Bush, said the group's goal is to force the United States to leave Iraq, just as it had departed from Vietnam, Beirut and other engagements, after suffering heavy casualties. (Read a report on al-Zawahiri's letter)

The authenticity of the letter has been questioned by some terrorism experts. (Full story)

"They believe that America can be made to run again, only this time on a larger scale, with greater consequences," Bush said.

"The terrorists regard Iraq as the central front in their war against humanity," the president said. "We must recognize the Iraq war as our central front against the terrorist."

If the terrorists drive America out of Iraq, Bush said, they could develop weapons of mass destruction, intimidate Middle East regimes friendly to the West, attack the United States and "blackmail our government into isolation."

"Some might be tempted to dismiss these goals as fanatical or extreme," Bush said. "They are fanatical and extreme but they should not be dismissed."

Comparing the terrorists to Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot, Bush said "evil men obsessed with ambition and unburdened by conscience must be taken very seriously and we must stop them before their crimes can multiply."

Staying in Iraq
Bush also dismissed critics who say the U.S. invasion of Iraq has strengthened the terrorists.

"No act of ours invited the rage of killers and no concession, bribe or act of appeasement would change or limit their plans for murder," Bush said. "Against such an enemy, there is only one effective response: We will never back down, we will never give in, we will never accept anything less than complete victory."

The president said the U.S. forces -- along with Iraqi partners -- are implementing a strategy he described as "clear, hold and build."

"We're working to clear areas from terrorist control, to hold those areas securely, and to build lasting democratic Iraqi institutions through an increasingly inclusive political process."

About 2,500 people had been expected to attend the event, including veterans and their families and members of the state's congressional delegation.

The speech was meant to "directly take on some of these false attacks that have been recently brought up by some Democratic leaders," a White House official said Thursday.

National security adviser Stephen Hadley told reporters Thursday that the thrust of Bush's speech "is to continue to talk to the American people about the war on terror, the nature of the enemy, what is at stake (and) the importance that we see it through to success."

'Campaign-style' strategy
Earlier this week, senior White House officials told CNN they were working on a "campaign-style" strategy to respond to stepped-up Democratic criticism that Bush officials manipulated intelligence in making the case for war, an accusation the administration repeatedly has denied.

The intelligence debate intensified following the October 28 indictment of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, who resigned the day he was indicted.

Libby was charged with obstruction of justice, perjury and making false statements to federal agents investigating the leak to reporters of the identity of CIA undercover agent Valerie Plame. Her husband, former ambassador Joe Wilson, had publicly challenged a key element of the administration's case for war.

In his briefing Thursday, Hadley detoured from the president's upcoming four-nation Asia tour to defend the administration's rationale for invading Iraq and to rebut charges that intelligence had been manipulated.

Hadley told reporters the intelligence used to support the war had been developed over a "long period of time."

2003 CIA report raised doubt
"We all looked at the same intelligence, and most people -- on the intelligence -- reached the same conclusion," Hadley said, referring to the present and previous administrations and to Congress.

Adding to the intelligence dispute is a January 2003 CIA report that raised doubts about claims that al Qaeda sent operatives to Iraq to acquire chemical and biological weapons. (Full story)

In January and February 2003, President Bush and then-Secretary of State Colin Powell made dramatic assertions that Iraq had ties to al Qaeda and argued for military action to prevent Baghdad from providing its suspected stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction to terrorists.

Powell repeated the claim before the United Nations in making the case for the invasion of Iraq.

No such stockpiles turned up after the U.S.-led invasion, and the independent commission investigating al Qaeda's 2001 attacks on New York and Washington found no evidence of a collaborative relationship between the two entities.

CNN obtained a CIA document Thursday that outlined the history of the claim, which originated in 2002 with a captured al Qaeda operative who recanted two years later.

The CIA report appears to support a recently declassified document that revealed the Defense Intelligence Agency thought in February 2002 that the source, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, was lying to interrogators.

Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, this week released the DIA report in alleging the administration cited faulty intelligence to argue for the March 2003 invasion of Iraq.

alkemical
11-11-2005, 12:45 PM
Both parties are too blame - but saying "just recently the claims of wrong info..." - is wrong - it's been going on for a while now - The reason why it's a big deal is because of the whole 'leak' that happened -

enjolras
11-11-2005, 01:03 PM
Its really frusturating to hear all of the talk about 'everyone reached the same conclusion..blah blah' because that's such a small part of the issue.

The larger issue, and the one that needs to be look IMHO, isn't the intelligence itself but the process at which the intelligence was arrived at. We've heard several accounts from low level CIA analysts and staffers that suggest that the quality of the intelligence was bad because the culture created by the administration above them only allowed for one conclusion to be reached. It appears that the leadership guided the intelligence community to the conclusion that they wanted... things like Cheney (and his staff) paying personal visits to lower level CIA staffers (unheard of before), pressure from high level CIA directors to see things a certain way, and the overall lack of objectivity in the analysis that has been highlighted over the past couple of years. THOSE are the questions surrounding the war.. the intelligence at face value may have pointed to something but the bigger breakdown and the bigger problem was how the intelligence process was rigged in the first place.

alkemical
11-11-2005, 01:04 PM
Good post -

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
11-11-2005, 06:09 PM
Bush just lies, and lies, and lies, doesn't he?

If Bush were honest for two seconds, he'd say "the Democrats looked at the same intelligence which was distorted, trumped up, cherry-picked, skewed, fixed around the policy, and served up for public consumption by Colin Powell to the U.N. And it was I - not the Democrats - who decided that invading and occupying Iraq was the appropriate response."

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
11-11-2005, 06:49 PM
How Did We End Up With Bush Anyways?

During the 2000 presidential campaign, the Republican platform contained the following statements:

* Sending our military on vague, aimless, and endless missions rapidly saps morale. Even the highest morale is eventually undermined by back-to-back deployments, poor pay, shortages of spare parts and equipment, inadequate training, and rapidly declining readiness.

* A comprehensive strategy for combating the new dangers posed by weapons of mass destruction must include a variety of other measures to contain and prevent the spread of such weapons. We need the cooperation of friends and allies."

* Nor should the intelligence community be made the scapegoat for political misjudgments.

The Republican prophets who wrote those comments should get a job in a circus because they were able to predict exactly what would happen in the Iraq war under the Bush administration, with its endless missions, back-to-back deployments, inadequate training, poor pay, shortage of equipment, no cooperation of friends and allies, and blaming the CIA for misjudgments, and on and on and on.

We were told us that Iraqis would welcome us and thank us for getting rid of Saddam. Immediately before the war, in a March 16, 2003, interview, Dick Cheney said, "I really do believe we will be greeted as liberators."

I am still waiting for someone to tell me why the Iraqis would thank us. Saddam may be gone, but innocent Iraqis have suffered the same human rights violations at the hands of the occupying forces that they did years ago under Saddam.

They live in fear of torture every day; in fact more so than when Saddam was in power. Incidents of rape, murder and kidnapping have skyrocketed since we arrived to "save" them. The number of violent deaths went from an average of 14 a month in 2002, to 357 a month in 2003, the year we went to "save" them.

Iraqis still don’t even have the basic necessities that they had with Saddam in power. Water and electricity continue to operate at lower levels than they did before the war.

Joblessness is at a record high. Over half the workers in the country are either without a job or working for less than a living wage, due to the fact that the gang of profiteers made sure the reconstruction contracts went to US companies, rather than Iraqi firms.

Why would Iraqis thank us? Or the lucky ones that have managed to stay alive that is.

- Evelyn Pringle

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
11-13-2005, 08:27 PM
On Bush's lie that Congress saw the same intelligence
the administration did before the war

How long will we have to hear this lie repeated by the MSM?

How long will Bu$h and his cronies keep droning on about how Congress had the same intel they did?

Fact: Bu$h pulled Congressional security clearances just after 9/11.

DIRECT LINK: http://thinkprogress.org/wp-images/upload/bushrestrictedintel.pdf

Only an extremely, extremely limited number of Congressmen and Senators (we're talking a max of 8 people, committee chairmain and the top minority party people in those committees for instance) had privileged access to the "more secret intel". Everyone else in Congress didn't. Those 8 people were sworn to secrecy and the rest of Congress (like for instance, John Kerry) were not privileged to receive those reports. Even those 8 did not receive intel before it was pre-packaged for their consumption from within the Executive Branch, so they couldn't see the CIA's warring with the OSP and Cheney's office unless those disagreements made it into the final product. I say this in general; the National Intelligence Estimate case is a particular, documented case and I defer to people who know the really tiny details about it.

The access most certainly was not anywhere near the same.

LINK: http://www.thinkprogress.org/2005/07/26/bush-pulls-security

MORE HERE:

Administration had access to intel that wasn’t shared with Congress

ANALYSIS

By Dana Milbank and Walter Pincus

Updated: 12:30 a.m. ET Nov. 12, 2005

President Bush and his national security adviser have answered critics of the Iraq war in recent days with a two-pronged argument: that Congress saw the same intelligence the administration did before the war, and that independent commissions have determined that the administration did not misrepresent the intelligence.

But Bush and his aides had access to much more voluminous intelligence information than did lawmakers, who were dependent on the administration to provide the material. And the commissions cited by officials, though concluding that the administration did not pressure intelligence analysts to change their conclusions, were not authorized to determine whether the administration exaggerated or distorted those conclusions.

Continued: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10009710

bendog
11-14-2005, 07:27 AM
I think everyone, in the cia, the pentagon, the soldiers on the ground, the mossad, Jordan, Russia, France, etc was shocked there were no artillary shells with mustard gas. But to think bushii just made a mistake on whether Saddam had a program close to smallpox or a nuke .... fantasy.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
11-15-2005, 05:44 PM
http://www.bartcopnation.com/dc/user_files/11971.gif

The thug tries to intimidate everyone into silence as usual.

What does a bully do when he is caught red-handed stealing lunch money from some hapless child?

"He owes me the money from last week. It was his idea to pay me. RIGHT TWERP?"

http://www.bartcopnation.com/dc/user_files/11975.gif