PDA

View Full Version : Bush Commision: US Intelligence On Iran Faulty At Best



blueturk
03-09-2005, 02:02 PM
Well, Bush DID learn something from the false WMD fiasco in Iraq.He learned that his intelligence sucked. Unfortunately, it still does.


Wednesday, March 9, 2005 · Last updated 10:00 a.m. PT

Bush panel to critique U.S. intelligence

By KATHERINE SHRADER
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

WASHINGTON -- The upcoming report on weapons of mass destruction is expected to take a critical look at U.S. intelligence on weapons proliferation in some of the most troublesome regimes for the U.S. intelligence community, including Iran and North Korea, individuals familiar with the process say.

The commission, formed by President Bush in February 2004, is expected to wrap up its report near the end of this month. The nine-member body has been operating under extraordinary secrecy, meeting with officials as senior as Bush and his national security team behind closed doors. The activities come in contrast to the Sept. 11 commission's high-profile, public sessions.

Commission spokesman Larry McQuillan said the commissioners have yet to approve a final report. He said the panel was meeting Wednesday and Thursday.

Because of the secrecy and classified nature of the discussions, individuals involved in the weapons inquiry declined to comment on the record.

Yet the commission is known to be critiquing issues relating to intelligence on weapons proliferation in Iraq before the 2003 invasion, as well as current knowledge on Iran and North Korea, which are accused of developing covert nuclear programs.

When asked Wednesday whether U.S. intelligence is solid enough to make judgments on Iran's nuclear program, an issue for the commission, Bush said the United States must work with its allies, "which believe that the Iranians want a nuclear weapon and which know that Iran possessing a nuclear weapon would be very destabilizing."

The commission is also expected to reach conclusions on the threat from transnational terrorist organizations who are seeking weapons of mass destruction, such as al-Qaida, and the motivations of regimes that pursue - or pretend to pursue, as was the case in Iraq - weapons of mass destruction.

The panel led by Republican Laurence Silberman and Democrat Charles Robb is also looking at issues of improved congressional oversight and the management of intelligence agencies. Bush has asked the commission to look at the merits of the new national intelligence director's post and a center focused on tracking the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, created in an extensive intelligence reform bill he signed in December.

The commission has brought on dozens of consultants with experience including satellite imagery, diplomacy, terrorism, congressional oversight, electronic surveillance and traditional human spying, drawing on their experiences at more than a dozen U.S. intelligence agencies.

The panel is expected to release a declassified version of its findings and recommendations, which will look strikingly different from the classified version prepared for the White House.

Congress will also get a copy of the findings and recommendations, as ordered in the intelligence reform law.

The commission was established in response to a political and public outcry for an investigation into the flawed weapons estimates on Iraq following the January resignation of the top U.S. weapons inspector there, David Kay. He told Congress that "We were almost all wrong" about Saddam Hussein's weapons programs.

In an interview before joining the panel as a member, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., set the bar high in talking about the mission for any weapons commission.

"We need to not only know what happened (with the Iraq intelligence), but know what steps are necessary to prevent the United States form being misinformed ever again," he said.

Since then, senior U.S. intelligence officials have repeatedly defended the work of the intelligence community and have sought to remind the public and policy-makers that intelligence isn't evidence, but best estimates.

The Bush administration used those estimates on Iraq's weapons programs as part of its justification for overthrowing Saddam. Now, the administration is increasing the volume and seriousness of its rhetoric on Iran.

Bush has labeled Iran "the world's primary state sponsor of terror." Last month, he called suggestions that the United States is preparing to attack Iran "simply ridiculous," but quickly added that "all options are on the table."

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice recently said the Iranian people deserve better leaders than "unelected mullahs," but like Bush has stopped short of demanding their ouster.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/printer/ap.asp?category=1151&slug=Intelligence%20Commission

LoungeMachine
03-09-2005, 03:19 PM
Bitch, Cry, Whine

You're so negative

You want the terrorists to win

You hate America



-This message brought to you by the Neocon Shitbags Of DLRArmy

BigBadBrie Treasurer

Cathedral
03-09-2005, 03:48 PM
Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Bitch, Cry, Whine

You're so negative

You want the terrorists to win

You hate America



-This message brought to you by the Neocon Shitbags Of DLRArmy

BigBadBrie Treasurer

You ok there, Lounge?

Think Green my brotha', and if we're lucky Bush will find a way to get thrown out of Washington.

I voted for the guy, twice, so i'm feeling a little shafted right now.
The only explanation i can give is that we wanted a Republican back in there too bad, and in the process we got ourselves a Conservative version of Kerry.

If i don't see a better option on the table in '08 there will be an Independant counting my vote.

To My Fellow Registered Republicans:
Is this Administration really what we wanted, i mean really?
I don't see much of what i voted for going on, do you, and if so, please explain it to me because i need clearification on what exactly is going on in Washington.
I am forced to ask myself, "Who the fuck do we think we are?"

kentuckyklira
03-09-2005, 04:05 PM
Any sentence with "Bush", "learn" amd "intelligence" in it is very suspicious to me!

Big Train
03-09-2005, 05:19 PM
Lounge, you'd think you would be happy that they are coming to this conclusion.

Any sentence about Germany without beer in it is a waste of time...

BigBadBrian
03-09-2005, 05:43 PM
Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Bitch, Cry, Whine

You're so negative

You want the terrorists to win

You hate America



-This message brought to you by the Neocon Shitbags Of DLRArmy

BigBadBrie Treasurer


Damn, I really pissed him off. :)

Happy dreams tonight sweetcheeks. ;)

blueturk
03-10-2005, 12:56 AM
Originally posted by blueturk

...senior U.S. intelligence officials have repeatedly defended the work of the intelligence community and have sought to remind the public and policy-makers that intelligence isn't evidence, but best estimates.
[/URL]

Here are some "best estimates". Maybe it's just me, but they sound a lot like "lies".

August 26, 2002—Vice President Dick Cheney told the Veterans of Foreign Wars, “There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies and against us.”

September 18, 2002—Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told the House Armed Services Committee, “We do know that the Iraqi regime has chemical and biological weapons. His regime has amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons—including VX, sarin, cyclosarin and mustard gas.”

October 7, 2002—President Bush declared in a nationally televised speech in Cincinnati that Iraq “possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons.”

January 7, 2003—Rumsfeld told a Pentagon news briefing, “There’s no doubt in my mind but that they currently have chemical and biological weapons.” This certainty was based on contemporary intelligence, he said, not the fact that Iraq had used chemical weapons in the 1980s.

January 9, 2003—White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said, “We know for a fact that there are weapons there.”

February 8, 2003—Bush said in his weekly radio address: “We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons—the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.”

March 16, 2003—Cheney declared on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” referring to Saddam Hussein, “We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.”

March 17, 2003—In his final prewar ultimatum, Bush declared, “Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.”

March 30, 2003—On ABC’s “This Week” program, 10 days into the war, Rumsfeld reiterated the claim that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, adding, “We know where they are.”

Cathedral
03-10-2005, 01:19 AM
That graph disturbs me because of the number of people who didn't bother to vote at all.

What is wrong with people, and why do they not care at all?

Trippy!

FORD
03-10-2005, 02:02 AM
Originally posted by Cathedral
That graph disturbs me because of the number of people who didn't bother to vote at all.

What is wrong with people, and why do they not care at all?

Trippy!

It's sad. And it drives home the fact that (even not accounting for Diebold fraud) you have about 20% of eligible voters deciding an election, and given the current state of the media, doing so entirely uninformed.

Josef Stalin is laughing his ass off in Hell tonight at what we are becoming :(

Cathedral
03-10-2005, 02:10 AM
Becoming?
From the looks of it we are already there.

That seriously puts a lot of this stuff in perspective for me.
It makes me want to go postal on every person i meet in the future that says "I never vote" but only after they have spent an hour bitching about the government.

It screams a message at me, and that is that we don't have a government that is representative of the american people.

How can anyone see that graph and not be distressed about the state of affairs in our homeland?

It makes me want to cry, seriously.

blueturk
03-10-2005, 03:21 AM
Get over it. If you think voter turnout for the last election was bad, look at the low numbers that put Dubya in the White House the first time.

History and Government—U.S. Elections
Presidential Election of 2000, Electoral and Popular Vote Summary
Principal Candidates for President and Vice President:
Republican—George W. Bush; Richard B. Cheney (winner)
Democratic—Albert A. Gore, Jr.; Joseph I. Lieberman
Green—Ralph Nader; Winona LaDuke

George W.
Bush Albert A.
Gore, Jr. Ralph
Nader Electoral votes
Popular
vote % Popular
vote % Popular
vote % R D G
Alabama 941,173 56% 692,611 42% 18,323 1% 9
Alaska 167,398 59 79,004 28 28,747 10 3
Arizona 781,652 51 685,341 45 45,645 3 8
Arkansas 472,940 51 422,768 46 13,421 1 6
California 4,567,429 42 5,861,203 53 418,707 4 54
Colorado 883,748 51 738,227 42 91,434 5 8
Connecticut 561,094 38 816,015 56 64,452 4 8
Delaware 137,288 42 180,068 55 8,307 3 3
DC 18,073 9 171,923 85 10,576 5 21
Florida 2,912,790 49 2,912,253 49 97,488 2 25
Georgia 1,419,720 55 1,116,230 43 13,4322 1 13
Hawaii 137,845 37 205,286 56 21,623 6 4
Idaho 336,937 67 138,637 28 12,2922 2 4
Illinois 2,019,421 43 2,589,026 55 103,759 2 22
Indiana 1,245,836 57 901,980 41 18,5312 1 12
Iowa 634,373 48 638,517 49 29,374 2 7
Kansas 622,332 58 399,276 37 36,086 3 6
Kentucky 872,492 57 638,898 41 23,192 2 8
Louisiana 927,871 53 792,344 45 20,473 1 9
Maine 286,616 44 319,951 49 37,127 6 4
Maryland 813,797 40 1,145,782 56 53,768 3 10
Massachusetts 878,502 33 1,616,487 60 173,564 6 12
Michigan 1,953,139 46 2,170,418 51 84,165 2 18
Minnesota 1,109,659 46 1,168,266 48 126,696 5 10
Mississippi 572,844 58 404,614 41 8,122 1 7
Missouri 1,189,924 50 1,111,138 47 38,515 2 11
Montana 240,178 58 137,126 33 24,437 6 3
Nebraska 433,862 62 231,780 33 24,540 4 5
Nevada 301,575 50 279,978 46 15,008 2 4
New Hampshire 273,559 48 266,348 47 22,198 4 4
New Jersey 1,284,173 40 1,788,850 56 94,554 3 15
New Mexico 286,417 48 286,783 48 21,251 4 5
New York 2,403,374 35 4,107,697 60 244,030 4 33
North Carolina 1,631,163 56 1,257,692 43 — — 14
North Dakota 174,852 61 95,284 33 9,486 3 3
Ohio 2,351,209 50 2,186,190 46 117,857 3 21
Oklahoma 744,337 60 474,276 38 — — 8
Oregon 713,577 47 720,342 47 77,357 5 7
Pennsylvania 2,281,127 46 2,485,967 51 103,392 2 23
Rhode Island 130,555 32 249,508 61 25,052 6 4
South Carolina 785,937 57 565,561 41 20,200 1 8
South Dakota 190,700 60 118,804 38 — — 3
Tennessee 1,061,949 51 981,720 47 19,781 1 11
Texas 3,799,639 59 2,433,746 38 137,994 2 32
Utah 515,096 67 203,053 26 35,850 5 5
Vermont 119,775 41 149,022 51 20,374 7 3
Virginia 1,437,490 52 1,217,290 44 59,398 2 13
Washington 1,108,864 45 1,247,652 50 103,002 4 11
West Virginia 336,475 52 295,497 46 10,680 2 5
Wisconsin 1,237,279 48 1,242,987 48 94,070 4 11
Wyoming 147,947 68 60,481 28 4,6252 2 3
Total 50,456,002 47.87% 50,999,897 48.38% 2,882,955 2.74% 271 266

Seshmeister
03-10-2005, 07:40 PM
Does that graph not include kids to young too vote though? Is that not the total population of the US rather than the potential elctorate?

It's still a very valid point and I think everywhere should adopt the Australian 'fine you for not voting' rule but I hate to see an overstretch of data when it's not needed.

Or maybe I'm wrong?

Cheers!

:gulp:

Seshmeister
03-10-2005, 07:42 PM
Oh and how cool would it be to have a business card that said Bush Commisioner?

Or maybe not...:)

DLR'sCock
03-10-2005, 09:18 PM
Our voter turnout is at abotu 50% for Presidential elections overall. Local elections only get about 10%, and the off years get maybe 20%....

Act local, think global!!!