PDA

View Full Version : Bush Admits Faulty Iraq Intel



Hardrock69
12-14-2005, 04:55 PM
WASHINGTON, Dec. 14, 2005


Quote

"It is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. As president I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq."
President Bush


(CBS/AP) On the eve of landmark elections in Iraq, President Bush on Wednesday accepted responsibility for going to war despite intelligence that "turned out to be wrong."

But, he insisted, the decision to oust Saddam Hussein was still correct.

"It is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. As president I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq," the president said in the fourth of a series of speeches defending his Iraq strategy. "And I'm also responsible for fixing what went wrong by reforming our intelligence capabilities. And we're doing just that."

The president called Thursday's parliamentary elections "a watershed moment in the story of freedom," reports CBS News White House correspondent Mark Knoller, though he conceded it won't stop the insurgents and terrorists.

"They know that as democracy takes root in Iraq their hateful ideology will suffer a devastating blow, so we can expect violence to continue," Mr. Bush told the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington.


But with public opinion still running against his mission, Mr. Bush still was left defending his decision to go to war nearly three years ago.

"We are in Iraq today because our goal has always been more than the removal of brutal dictator," Mr. Bush said. "It is to leave a free and democratic Iraq in his place.

"My decision to remove Saddam Hussein was the right decision. Saddam was a threat and the American people and the world is better off because he is no longer in power," the president said.

As he usually does, Mr. Bush asserted that the Iraq of the future, with a functioning democracy and thriving economy, would be a model for other nations in the turbulent Middle East. But he added a specific reference to the inspiration that a free Iraq could provide to reformers in the region's two governments most hostile to the United States ― Syria and Iran.

The president is banking on a successful election to signal that his war plan is working. If the voting establishes a successful government, it eventually could lead to the withdrawal of U.S. forces.

The president could use some more good news in Iraq. With the violence showing no sign of waning, most Americans are unhappy with his handling of the war and some lawmakers are questioning how long the troops should stay.

Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., a vocal critic of the war, said it's time to put the Iraqis in charge.

"Our American troops have become the targets in Iraq and that's why I'm saying they're actually better off solving this themselves," Murtha said.

Mr. Bush has been pushing back aggressively against the negative image of his war mission with a series of four speeches in recent weeks. Thursday was the last in the series.

Answering critics who have said he had offered no clear definition of victory in Iraq, Mr. Bush offered a succinct summation.

"Victory will be achieved by meeting certain objectives: when the terrorists and Saddamists can no longer threaten Iraq's democracy, when the Iraqi security forces can protect their own people, and when Iraq is not a safe haven for terrorists to plot attacks against our country," he said. "These objectives, not timetables set by politicians in Washington, will drive our force levels in Iraq."

CBS News chief White House correspondent John Roberts (video) says Republicans have been pressuring the president to be far more open about the situation on the ground in Iraq. They say the Democrats have been making a lot of headway in recent weeks with their attacks – attacks that have gone unanswered – and they say it's up to the president to be a little more forthcoming. That way he can win back some of the public trust, which polls show he has been losing substantially in the last few weeks.

In the Senate, 40 Democrats and one independent signed a letter to Mr. Bush on Wednesday in which they urged him to be more frank with Iraqis and the American public.

The administration, the letter said, should "tell the leaders of all groups and political parties in Iraq that they need to make the compromises necessary to achieve the broad-based and sustainable political settlement that is essential for defeating the insurgency in Iraq within the schedule they set for themselves."

Mr. Bush, the letter said, also must present "a plan that identifies the remaining political, economic, and military benchmarks that must be met and a reasonable schedule to achieve them."

Mr. Bush got a better reaction from a group of House Democrats he hosted for a briefing on Iraq before the speech. They were complimentary of the president's strategy and his recent doses of candor about the situation there. The briefing was given by military commanders via videoconference from the field and top administration officials at the White House.

"There was a dose of reality that I have not heard before," Rep. Steve Israel, D-N.Y., told reporters outside the White House afterward. "Frankly I found it refreshing."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/12/14/politics/main1124298.shtml

NATEDOG001976
12-14-2005, 09:17 PM
So he fucked up! We still got rid of Saddam, Iran should be next!

ELVIS
12-14-2005, 09:20 PM
I agree...


http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/9882/dancingkitty5py.gif

Cathedral
12-14-2005, 10:01 PM
I also agree, people make mistakes and i have issues with Bush myself...Iraq however was never one of them.
Saddam had WMD, he has used WMD, everyone knows he had WMD...it was Saddams responsibility to prove he had destroyed his arsenal which he failed to do....then he got his ass removed.

Could the war have been prevented even if he had?
That we'll never know, but we do know that the Iraqi's are now free to speak their minds and go to the polls to vote for their choice of leaders.
I take comfort in knowing that not a single one of our fallen soldiers died in vein.
I find it cold hearted that so many people on the left don't give a damn about the Iraqi population or the hell they had to endure under Saddam and his sons.
Save the "well what about other countries that blah blah blah blah blah", they're next on the list, and it's a pretty long list after that.

We'll send a message to the world that if you attack us as you did on Sept. 11th 2001, we'll hunt you across the globe and persue you until the end of time to bring your ass to justice, guarenteed.

I think it is clear that the dirty money fuckers of the U.N. will not deter us from acting in our own best interests nor will our so called Allies who's motivation NOT to act was because of billions in kickbacks from a program that essentially left Iraqi's hungry and starving to death.

Nickdfresh
12-14-2005, 10:07 PM
Originally posted by NATEDOG001976
So he fucked up! We still got rid of Saddam, Iran should be next!



Originally posted by ELVIS
I agree...


http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/9882/dancingkitty5py.gif

Grate, when do you tough-talking internet pussies enlist? Oh, yeah, we'll just involuntarily extend the people that you hide behind and **support**;)

NATEDOG001976
12-15-2005, 07:55 AM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Grate, when do you tough-talking internet pussies enlist? Oh, yeah, we'll just involuntarily extend the people that you hide behind and **support**;)

I support the war and the troops, I am not a bush backer though. The next election I will have an open mind and vote for the best candidate regardless of the party.

Warham
12-15-2005, 08:20 AM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Grate, when do you tough-talking internet pussies enlist? Oh, yeah, we'll just involuntarily extend the people that you hide behind and **support**;)

I know it might be a stretch to say this, but isn't joining our armed forces voluntary?

ELVIS
12-15-2005, 08:31 AM
Ummm...

YES!!!

Hardrock69
12-15-2005, 10:38 AM
Originally posted by Cathedral
...it was Saddams responsibility to prove he had destroyed his arsenal which he failed to do....

Uhhh...Scott Ritter had certified that all WMDs were destroyed and accounted for by the late 90s.

Regardless of what Saddamite theoretically had to do, Scott Ritter ensured it was done anyway.

Now Chimpy admits he based his war on faulty intel. Meaning they knew there were no longer any WMDs, and they sent 2000+ (and counting) American soldiers to their deaths.


He is certainly willing to kill people if it means implementing his foreign policies (Read: CFR policy).

scamper
12-15-2005, 11:07 AM
What is the qualifies as a WMD? just curious

Nickdfresh
12-15-2005, 11:30 AM
Originally posted by Warham
I know it might be a stretch to say this, but isn't joining our armed forces voluntary?

Oh, so let's destroy the "all-volunteer Army" by running it into the ground? Great, so much for "transformation." :rolleyes:

And when your enlistment contract expires, and you are "involuntarily extended," uhm, no, that's not voluntary...

Nickdfresh
12-15-2005, 11:31 AM
Originally posted by scamper
What is the qualifies as a WMD? just curious

NBC in military speak...

-or-

NUCLEAR, BIOLOGICAL, CHEMICAL weapons...

scamper
12-15-2005, 12:30 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
NBC in military speak...

-or-

NUCLEAR, BIOLOGICAL, CHEMICAL weapons...

thanks

Warham
12-15-2005, 03:04 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Oh, so let's destroy the "all-volunteer Army" by running it into the ground? Great, so much for "transformation." :rolleyes:

And when your enlistment contract expires, and you are "involuntarily extended," uhm, no, that's not voluntary...

At what time in our history have we EVER run our military into the ground? I'm sure you can come up with some precedent. World War II? Vietnam? The Civil War?

Nickdfresh
12-15-2005, 04:37 PM
Originally posted by Warham
At what time in our history have we EVER run our military into the ground? I'm sure you can come up with some precedent. World War II? Vietnam? The Civil War?

From 2003--

It's a very big fear among many analysts. You can't fight a prolonged, two-front WARs with an all-volunteer Army.

What's a matter WARHAM? You act like this thing is over. We still have a good one-year of misery no matter what plan we adopt.

Warham
12-15-2005, 04:43 PM
Nothing wrong with me. I think our military is doing a splendid job in Iraq.

I wonder how our troops feel about Murtha saying they are a 'broken'. Dan Rather should go over there and ask a few of our boys what they think.

Nickdfresh
12-15-2005, 04:50 PM
Originally posted by Warham
Nothing wrong with me. I think our military is doing a splendid job in Iraq.

I wonder how our troops feel about Murtha saying they are a 'broken'. Dan Rather should go over there and ask a few of our boys what they think.

We're not talking about "the job," or individual troops, this is about the system which sends a small percentage of the population to bear the burden others' rhetorical banter places on them...

**There are courageous MARINEs in RAMADI who have a high percentage of vehicles that no longer work, and have lost most of their armor to roadside bombings and ambushes**

Again, the biggest complaints I've read about from troops is simply that the IRAQ WAR is not in the public consciousness, and that it's not enough to just place a yellow-ribbon on one's bumper, or shout "troops out!" People just don't know enough, we're waging a clinical war using WWII rhetoric of heroism and all that, but without the homefront culture of sacrifice. This War is about selfishness...

Warham
12-15-2005, 04:52 PM
How do you suggest people sacrifice?

Nickdfresh
12-15-2005, 04:54 PM
Originally posted by Warham
How do you suggest people sacrifice?

They could start by not bitching about their taxes every ten minutes...

By carefully reading about the various problems, and maybe learning a little about IRAQ and how it came to be...

And maybe, just maybe start to consider some hard choices regarding the consumption of oil, and considering paying the added expense of synthetic gas production, increase funding research into alternative energy sources, and use less gasoline and heating oil...

Anything to get us the hell out of that part of the world by decreasing dependency on dino-fossil fuels...

Warham
12-15-2005, 05:00 PM
I'm not sure who's been bitching about their taxes. If Bush came out tomorrow and said everybody needs to pay more, then I would be the first one in line. But apparently it's not needed, and the tax cuts have had a good effect on our economy.

I'd also like for us to start drilling for oil in our own country, but certain special interests aligned with treehuggers usually stops those efforts. Humanity will always use oil. Even if every car in the world didn't use oil, we'd still need it for plastics, etc, so alternative energy can only take you so far.