Edwards Lied!
Find a Conversation
Edwards Lied!
| Sat, 07-10-2004 - 6:04pm |
"I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country."--John Edwards, "CNN Late Edition," Feb. 24, 2002
He is the person who called Iraq an "imminent" threat. Not Bush


Pages
Sorry, I may have read your post a bit too hastily. IN any case, a CEO doesn't necessarily get fired because of a problem in accounting. He fires the ones responsible for the errors(or they resign before they get fired). To say that Bush ought to get fired because he made some decisions based on faulty intelligence is to imply that any other candidate would have done it differently. As has been repeated here ad nauseum, there is no evidence that Bush's opponents would have done anything differently. They supported his actions wholeheartedly (when it was popular to do so). So the question becomes, why would one fire Bush and replace him with two men who would have made the same decision at the same time?
None of which has been proven false. There HAVE been chemical warheads found-not huge stockpiles, but do you really think the few they found were the only ones? Missile with ranges in excess of UN restrictions WERE found. There IS evidence that Saddam was seeking nuclear materials-so it is very possible he could have had a nuclear weapon in the next few years.
Congress was asked to grant President Bush sweeping authority to use force if Iraq didn’t disarm. Why? Because Iraq posed a serious and immediate threat, but Congress had to fight tooth & nail just to get that National Intelligence Estimate (you know, that one that’s almost completely wrong…) which outlined why. It was finally delivered to them at 10pm the night before their hearings on the subject started. (You know…the hearings that George Tenent blew off because he was meeting with President Bush again…) That ensured no one could read it before asking the intelligence community any questions about it.
It was also supposed to be a complete cross-agency review (you know…because we had some trouble before 9/11 with our agencies not talking to eachother…) but it turns out dissenting views, by agencies like the State Department or the Energy Department (you know…the people who didn’t think those tubes were any good for nuclear centrifuges) were footnoted or ignored. I suppose they could have subpoenaed people and fully investigated the 100 page NIE on their own, but the vote on Iraq was scheduled just 10 days later. Can you even get a subpoena in 10 days? Bush had played them like a fiddle. You're right...he ain't that dumb.
Anyway, in the end Congress rallied behind the President, who told them the vote is "an important signal for the world to see this country is united in our resolve to deal with this threat." Daschle stood with him and said “"There is a great deal of support for pressing Iraq to open its borders and destroy its weapons." So Congress gave the President a big stick to go with his carrot. Than Bush stuck the carrot up Daschle’s bum and ran off to show Rummy his new stick.
Here are some quotes on the subject:
“Committee members have also expressed anger that the C.I.A. refused to fully comply with a separate request for another national intelligence estimate, one that would have provided an overview of the intelligence community's latest assessment on Iraq. Instead, the C.I.A. provided a narrower report, dealing specifically with Iraq's program to develop weapons of mass destruction.
Lawmakers said that Mr. Tenet had assured the committee in early September that intelligence officials were in the midst of producing an updated national intelligence estimate on Iraq, and that the committee would receive it as soon as it was completed.
Instead, the Senate panel received the national intelligence estimate on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program after 10 p.m. on Tuesday night, too late for members to read it before Wednesday's hearing.”
http://www.geocities.com/tom_slouck/iraq/cia_congress_iraq.html
“The chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee asserted today that the Central Intelligence Agency was cutting Congress off from information it needed to carry out its constitutional role as the nation decided whether to wage war against Iraq.
The chairman, Senator Bob Graham, Democrat of Florida, accused agency officials of "obstructionism" and said that "their behavior is unacceptable."
…
"We're trying to carry out a very important responsibility and, given the nature of this classified information, we are the only means by which the intelligence community can communicate to the legislative branch of government," Mr. Graham said. "If they refuse to do so to us, then they are effectively shutting down the people who the Constitution says have the responsibility to declare war and support wars and the intelligence operation that wars require."
…
Moreover, he said, the agency's answers suggested that the Bush administration had already settled on a policy toward Iraq even though crucial intelligence reports on Iraq's capabilities were still incomplete.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/04/politics/04INTE.html?ex=1089864000&en=8e0bdb07643127c9&ei=5070
“Senior Bush administration officials have given Iraq's pursuit of nuclear weapons as the main argument that the United States must act now to oust President Hussein, before the Iraqi leader acquires nuclear arms and alters the strategic balance in the Persian Gulf.
But the administration has not yet prepared what is called a national intelligence estimate, the intelligence community's most definitive written judgment on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. The document contains the coordinated intelligence assessments from the Pentagon, State Department, Central Intelligence Agency and other government entities and any significant dissenting views.
Some Democrats said they wanted to see such an intelligence estimate before they voted on a Congressional resolution backing military action against Iraq.
"What did we learn from Sept. 11? That we had a failure of coordination of America's intelligence capability," said Senator Richard J. Durbin, an Illinois Democrat on the Intelligence Committee. "Now we're being asked to consider going to war and vote on it within days, and we learn that our intelligence community has not coordinated their efforts to put together this critical document that's essential for us to make this decision."”
…
“"There are a variety of documents out there on the overall W.M.D. threat, which includes Iraq," said one American intelligence official, using the initials that stand for weapons of mass destruction.
But Senator John Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, said there was no cross-agency judgment on Iraq's unconventional arsenal. "What I'm looking for," he said, "is the latest compilation that cross-analyzes agency assessments, that really gives you the best, state-of-the-art, up-to-date, full analysis of where they are." The national intelligence estimate represents the consensus of the full range of intelligence agencies produced by a rigorous cross-agency review.
"There's a certain extra credibility that goes along with that process," said Joseph S. Nye, a former chairman of the National Intelligence Council, which writes the national intelligence estimate.”
http://www.geocities.com/tom_slouck/iraq/us_intell_iraq_arms.html
"Give the Senate more time," the silver-haired Byrd implored. "We are being hurried into making a decision that is premature."
"This is a blank check," he said. "Congress is ceding, lock, stock and barrel, its power to declare war - handing it over to a chief executive. Congress might as well just shut the door and put a sign up there that says, 'Going fishing.'"
"As Senate Democratic leaders struggled last night to surmount obstacles Byrd had laid down to prolong the debate, the West Virginia senator took to the floor again. "I'm not stalling," he said. "Here is a question of life and death - can't I get more than 10 minutes?"
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/iraq/bal-te.byrd10oct10,0,2364204.story?coll=bal-iraq-storyutil
We have set ourselves up to be the only country responsible for rebuilding Iraq at the cost of thousands of lives and billions of dollars - in the meantime terrorists are multiplying and wreaking havoc across the globe. Why didn't he concentrate our efforts in Afghanistan and hunt down and kill the terrorists who were actually responsible for 9-11? Nope Bush was stubbornly setting his sights on Iraq and nothing else would do. First Bush said they had WMD, then he switched to "Iraq deserves democracy and we're gonna give it to them." Well we've given it to them all right and they're sick of us.
The quote states Iraq could have a nuclear weapon within the next decade yet the cowboy had to get 'em NOW. Now, when our first priority should have been to stop terrorism dead in it's tracks. He diluted efforts in afghanistan and started a war in Iraq. He gave the muslims reasons to hate us that will endure for generations. This misguided Christian who feels he has a direct pipeline to God is on the verge of starting a Holy War and people who are even more misguided support him - a lot is said in the bible about False Prophets, I vote for Bush. Our troop supply is running low, our young men and women are beginning to question what we are doing over there and Bush (the National Guard slackey) smirks, waves and tells us we're doin' the right thing. The man is not only inept, he's delusional.
I am begging for abuse sometimes, but I can't help myself.
There's an interesting story in today's NY Times about the Senate Intelligence Committee requesting a summary of the NIE given to the President by the CIA. As we all know, President Bush won't read anything longer than three pages, so the CIA had to boil 100 pages down to one-page for him. In doing so, it's believed that all the dissenting opinions of other intelligence agenices (which turned out to be more accurate than those of the CIA) were not included, thus giving a skewed view of intelligence to the President. Is this the CIA's fault? Or should Bush maybe have put his readin' cap on and hunkered down for an hour to read the most important 100 pages he's ever going to be handed in his life? From the times article below: "On Tuesday, a senior intelligence official said of the presidential summary: "We expect people to read beyond one page.'' Have they met George Bush?
The Senate Intelligence Committee wants a copy but the White House is of course claiming executive privilege.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/14/politics/14inte.html
Bush and C.I.A. Won't Release Paper on Prewar Intelligence
By DOUGLAS JEHL
Published: July 14, 2004
ASHINGTON, July 13 - The White House and the Central Intelligence Agency have refused to give the Senate Intelligence Committee a one-page summary of prewar intelligence in Iraq prepared for President Bush that contains few of the qualifiers and none of the dissents spelled out in longer intelligence reviews, according to Congressional officials.
Senate Democrats claim that the document could help clear up exactly what intelligence agencies told Mr. Bush about Iraq's illicit weapons. The administration and the C.I.A. say the White House is protected by executive privilege, and Republicans on the committee dismissed the Democrats' argument that the summary was significant.
Advertisement
The review, prepared for President Bush in October 2002, summarized the findings of a classified, 90-page National Intelligence Estimate about Iraq's illicit weapons. Congressional officials said that notes taken by Senate staffers who were permitted to review the document show that it eliminated references to dissent within the government about the National Intelligence Estimate's conclusions.
"In determining what the president was told about the contents of the N.I.E. dealing with Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, qualifiers and all, there is nothing clearer than this single page," Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, said in a 10-page "additional view" that was published as an addendum to the Senate Intelligence Committee's report on Friday.
A separate white paper summarizing the National Intelligence Estimate was made public in October 2002. The Senate report criticized the white paper as having "misrepresented'' what the Senate committee described as a "more carefully worded assessment" in the classified intelligence estimate. For example, the white paper excluded information found in the National Intelligence Estimate, like the names of intelligence agencies that had dissented from some of the findings, most importantly on Iraq's nuclear weapons program. That approach, the Senate committee said, "provided readers with an incomplete picture of the nature and extent of the debate within the intelligence community regarding these issues."
Among the specific dissents excluded from the public white paper on Iraq's weapons was the view of the State Department's intelligence branch, spelled out in the classified version of the document, that Iraq's importation of aluminum tubes could not be conclusively tied to a continuing nuclear weapons program, as other intelligence agencies asserted. Also left out of the white paper was the view of Air Force intelligence that pilotless aerial vehicles being built by Iraq, seen by other intelligence agencies as designed to deliver chemical or biological weapons, were not suited for that purpose.
The fact that there were significant differences between the white paper and the classified versions of the intelligence estimate on Iraq's weapons first became apparent last summer, when the Bush administration made public more of the classified document.
The full National Intelligence Estimate asserted that Iraq possessed chemical and biological weapons and was reconstituting its nuclear program, but included some caveats and summarized dissents made by the State Department's intelligence branch, among other agencies.
At a background briefing on Friday that coincided with the release of the Senate report, a Senate Republican official noted that intelligence agencies routinely prepared such abbreviated summaries of National Intelligence Estimates for presidents, and that those summaries were routinely covered by the doctrine of executive privilege.
Mr. Bush and his advisers had full access to the classified 90-page intelligence estimate, "Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction," which provided a more detailed and qualified account of the intelligence agencies' views, the Senate Republican official noted.
The main body of the 511-page report that was approved unanimously by the Senate Intelligence Committee made no mention of the summary sent to Mr. Bush. In interviews, Democratic officials said that Republicans on the panel, which meets in closed session, had blocked their efforts to formally request the document from the White House. They also said that Democrats on the panel had tried and failed to persuade Republicans to include in the committee report a description of the one-page summary as having been an inadequate reflection of the full intelligence estimate.
The document is still classified, according to Congressional officials, who declined to discuss it in detail. But in his written "additional view," included as an appendix to the Senate report, Senator Durbin said there was "no reason" that the summary prepared for Mr. Bush "should not be declassified in its entirety and publicly released."
Republican Congressional officials have said there is nothing unusual about the preparation of the one-page summary for Mr. Bush. They say they accept as legitimate the C.I.A.'s refusal to share the document with the intelligence committee, on the ground that documents prepared by the agency explicitly for a president should remain privileged.
Advertisement
Along with members of Congress and other top administration officials, Mr. Bush and his advisers were also provided with the full, classified version of the intelligence estimate, and Republican Congressional officials say it would be misleading to focus on the abbreviated version contained in the one-page summary.
John E. McLaughlin, the acting director of central intelligence, said last week that he believed that the C.I.A. should have included more caveats in the 2002 intelligence estimate, particularly in a section that summarized its key judgments. On Tuesday, a senior intelligence official said of the presidential summary: "We expect people to read beyond one page.''
A one-page President's Summary is routinely prepared as part of any National Intelligence Estimate, according to intelligence officials. Like the National Intelligence Estimate, the summary is produced by the staff of the National Intelligence Council, which reports to the director of central intelligence.
A President's Summary is written explicitly for the president, and is reviewed and endorsed by the chiefs of the 15 American intelligence agencies, who form what is known as the National Foreign Intelligence Board.
The one-page summary is not the only document that the White House refused to share with the Senate Intelligence Committee, according to Congressional officials. Copies of the President's Daily Brief that the committee had sought were also denied to the panel, even though the White House did allow another investigative body, the president's commission on the Sept. 11 attacks, to review those highly classified documents.
A White House official suggested Tuesday that Democrats, having joined Republicans in issuing a unanimous report that did not address the question of the one-page summary, were now, by focusing attention on it, "seeking to rewrite the conclusions." The official said the White House believed that the document should not be made public because it was covered by the doctrine of executive privilege.
In his written statement, Senator Durbin said the C.I.A. had told the intelligence committee that 80 copies of the one-page summary had been distributed to the White House, a fact he called an indication that the document had not been prepared exclusively for the president. He said the summary "contains no intelligence beyond that contained" in the broader intelligence estimate, which was provided to members of Congress and to the committee, "and does not set forth policy advice that should be considered privileged."
A Senate Democratic official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that three members of the intelligence committee staff were permitted by the National Security Council to review the one-page Presidential Summary and to take notes on its contents. But, the official said, the staff members were not permitted to take possession of the document or to publicly describe its contents in detail.
It's my understanding that nearly all of that intelligence was years old, most of it going back to the Clinton administration which the committee was already familiar with. I'll see what more I can find about that.
<>
So you're implying that Bush was behind the Intelligence Committee not getting the report it wanted?
Renee ~~~
Renee ~~~
Pages