Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
bad62bug

David Kay

Recommended Posts

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/28/sprj.nirq....kay/index.html

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,109701,00.html

 

Despite suggestions from Democrats that the White House pressured analysts to construe intelligence to help President Bush' make the case to go to war against Saddam, Kay said he spoke to many analysts who prepared the intelligence and "not in a single case was the explanation that I was pressured to this."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Deuces Wild

Thanks for the links.

 

The facts obviously show that our intelligence sources failed us.

 

A shame. :mrsgreen:

 

Lets look at what Kay said in that link you provided:

 

Let me begin by saying, we were almost all wrong, and I certainly include myself here.

 

Sen. [Edward] Kennedy knows very directly. Senator Kennedy and I talked on several occasions prior to the war that my view was that the best evidence that I had seen was that Iraq indeed had weapons of mass destruction.

 

I would also point out that many governments that chose not to support this war -- certainly, the French president, [Jacques] Chirac, as I recall in April of last year, referred to Iraq's possession of WMD.

 

The Germans certainly -- the intelligence service believed that there were WMD.

 

It turns out that we were all wrong, probably in my judgment, and that is most disturbing.

 

In my judgment, based on the work that has been done to this point of the Iraq Survey Group, and in fact, that I reported to you in October, Iraq was in clear violation of the terms of [u.N.] Resolution 1441.

 

We have discovered hundreds of cases, based on both documents, physical evidence and the testimony of Iraqis, of activities that were prohibited under the initial U.N. Resolution 687 and that should have been reported under 1441, with Iraqi testimony that not only did they not tell the U.N. about this, they were instructed not to do it and they hid material.

 

I think the aim -- and certainly the aim of what I've tried to do since leaving -- is not political and certainly not a witch hunt at individuals. It's to try to direct our attention at what I believe is a fundamental fault analysis that we must now examine.

 

And let me take one of the explanations most commonly given: Analysts were pressured to reach conclusions that would fit the political agenda of one or another administration. I deeply think that is a wrong explanation.

 

And never -- not in a single case -- was the explanation, "I was pressured to do this." The explanation was very often, "The limited data we had led one to reasonably conclude this. I now see that there's another explanation for it."

 

It was not that. It was the honest difficulty based on the intelligence that had -- the information that had been collected that led the analysts to that conclusion.

 

And let me really wrap up here with just a brief summary of what I think we are now facing in Iraq. I regret to say that I think at the end of the work of the [iraq Survey Group] there's still going to be an unresolvable ambiguity about what happened.

 

The result is -- document destruction -- we're really not going to be able to prove beyond a truth the negatives and some of the positive conclusions that we're going to come to. There will be always unresolved ambiguity here.

 

I do believe we have to understand why reality turned out to be different than expectations and estimates.

 

I told Sen. [John] Warner [chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee] earlier that I've been drawn back as a result of recent film of reminding me of something. At the time of the Cuban missile crisis, the combined estimate was unanimity in the intelligence service that there were no Soviet warheads in Cuba at the time of the missile crisis.

 

Fortunately, President Kennedy and [then-Attorney General] Robert Kennedy disagreed with the estimate and chose a course of action less ambitious and aggressive than recommended by their advisers.

 

But the most important thing about that story, which is not often told, is that as a result after the Cuban missile crisis, immediate steps were taken to correct our inability to collect on the movement of nuclear material out of the Soviet Union to other places.

 

So that by the end of the Johnson administration, the intelligence community had a capability to do what it had not been able to do at the time of the Cuban missile crisis.

 

I think you face a similar responsibility in ensuring that the community is able to do a better job in the future than it has done in the past.

 

Edited by Deuces Wild

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not see why this is a failure of intelligence gathering or analysis. To the best of my knowledge there was never an intelligence annalist on TV saying we need to go to war. These speeches came from politicians and were rewritten/rewritten by speech writers. Remember that the president used the British evidence for plutonium purchases because our analysts had discovered that the reports were false.

 

As for David Kay's assessment of our intelligence analysts I would wonder how many he interviewed and why they would tell him if they were pressured given that he could be expected to go on national TV and repeat what he heard. I think he was hired to look for WMD and that is his expertise. When did he become an expert how intelligence is analyzed and if analysis can be influenced.

 

This opinion is so biased and methodologically flawed one cannot consider it credible. If it is a problem with intelligence and intelligence analysis why doesn't the Pres ask for an independent commission to investigate the possibility? Why do the republicans keep turning down requests for independent panels? Why did the Republican chair respond to David Kay's assertion that there needs to be an independent assessment with something to the effect that 'you don't know what you are talking about'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do have to say I felt better with Kay saying it wasn't a case of senior administration lying to us. However, I still do think they were too fast to go to war, especially without the support of historical allies. I also have to wonder about the credibility of CIA and other intelligence sources at this point, this kind of Maxwell-Smart-level bumbling has got to be hurting the war on terrorism. If I were Bush I would demand an independent investigation of our intelligence community. Whether I would publish the report is another issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The constitution does not say that the president is commander in chief only if he has good information. The decision to go to war was Bush's decision, period. If he did that with bad information, that is his responsibility.

 

Intelligence is intelligence. Some of it is bad and others times it is good. That is the nature of the beast. The fact is that Bush had an incredible amount of confidence in this intelligence. So much confidence that we waged a preemptive war. So much that we publicly called Hans Blix a boob and Saddam a liar. So much that we risked our relations with Germany, Russia and France. So much that we defied the United Nations. So much so that we created the Bush Doctrine for terrorism in the post 9/11 era. So much so that we spent $100's of billions and created the largest deficit in the history of our country.

 

Now go back and listen to Bush's state of the Union address of 2003 to the American people. Go back and listen to Colin Powell's address to the United Nations. Listen to all of the comments made by Cheney and Rumsfeld before the war. All the comments, not just a few. Put all of these comments together and ask yourself, how many of these allegations and assertions were in hindsight true? NONE OF THEM.

 

We cannot just say "My Bad" and move on. As the responsible super power that we are, we need to go back to France, Germany, Russia, the UN, Hans Blix, and everyone else and try to mend the fences.

 

Now here's the one trillion dollar question.

 

If there are no WMD, and if Saddam has been caught, then what are we still doing there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The constitution does not say that the president is commander in chief only if he has good information. The decision to go to war was Bush's decision, period. If he did that with bad information, that is his responsibility.

 

Intelligence is intelligence. Some of it is bad and others times it is good. That is the nature of the beast. The fact is that Bush had an incredible amount of confidence in this intelligence. So much confidence that we waged a preemptive war. So much that we publicly called Hans Blix a boob and Saddam a liar. So much that we risked our relations with Germany, Russia and France. So much that we defied the United Nations. So much so that we created the Bush Doctrine for terrorism in the post 9/11 era. So much so that we spent $100's of billions and created the largest deficit in the history of our country.

 

Now go back and listen to Bush's state of the Union address of 2003 to the American people. Go back and listen to Colin Powell's address to the United Nations. Listen to all of the comments made by Cheney and Rumsfeld before the war. All the comments, not just a few. Put all of these comments together and ask yourself, how many of these allegations and assertions were in hindsight true? NONE OF THEM.

 

We cannot just say "My Bad" and move on. As the responsible super power that we are, we need to go back to France, Germany, Russia, the UN, Hans Blix, and everyone else and try to mend the fences.

 

Now here's the one trillion dollar question.

 

If there are no WMD, and if Saddam has been caught, then what are we still doing there?

Condolizza Rice was talking with Diane Sawyer on Good Morning America (or it was a tape of the interview). According to Rice, the US didn't quite have the facts set in stone, but after the 9/11 incident, they didn't want to take any chances. But again, thinking back to Bush's SOTU Address of 2003, he seemed so sure that Iraq was loaded with WMDs and that they had hardcore evidence. Pffft, what a bunch of baloney.

 

If there are no WMD, and if Saddam has been caught, then what are we still doing there?

Good one there. But not to get into conspiracy theories again, but.......

 

What is in Iraq, that is in no other country the US could possibly help. What is plentiful in Iraq? Starts with an O, ends in an L with only 1 letter inbetween.... take a guess :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::P

 

Seriously, all those speech's about how we must support our troops is nothing but propaganda for Bush to keep up with his support. It is true though, we should support our troops. I mean, after all, they didn't send themselves out there. Of course, as I had read in an article (cnn.com i think), suicide among troops is at a record high. Mr. Bush, they are killing themselves, not the enemy. What drove them to killing themselves? Going to Iraq. Who sent them to Iraq? George W Bush. So doesn't that make good ol' Bush somewhat responsible for their death? Well of course, that could be said about all the troops who have died unnecessarily. If Bush did the same thing and was President of another country, chances are he'd get tried in some sort of Court for War Crimes. Of course, he won't so long as he is President of the United States of America.

 

Someone besides Bush in 2004 please....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Condolizza Rice was talking with Diane Sawyer on Good Morning America (or it was a tape of the interview). According to Rice, the US didn't quite have the facts set in stone, but after the 9/11 incident, they didn't want to take any chances. But again, thinking back to Bush's SOTU Address of 2003, he seemed so sure that Iraq was loaded with WMDs and that they had hardcore evidence. Pffft, what a bunch of baloney.

Why do people insist on relating the two?

 

9/11 and Iraq are not related, were never related, and never will be related.

 

9/11 was an attack by Bin Laden and his cronies. Saddam Hussien/Iraq didn't have diddley squat to do with it before, during or after the fact.

 

The only relation to the two was in the Bush administraions rhetoric, and his followers ignorance!!

 

Get over it people 9/11 and Iraq have nothing to do with each other!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do people insist on relating the two?

 

9/11 and Iraq are not related, were never related, and never will be related.

 

9/11 was an attack by Bin Laden and his cronies. Saddam Hussien/Iraq didn't have diddley squat to do with it before, during or after the fact.

 

The only relation to the two was in the Bush administraions rhetoric, and his followers ignorance!!

 

Get over it people 9/11 and Iraq have nothing to do with each other!

Exactly..... thats what i found to be very stupid. I had seen this episode of 7th Heaven on WB (mom likes to watch it :blink::snooze: ) and it had something to do with a soldier from Iraq. Some girl on the show was talking about how Iraq war should never have been and such. Then i swear some sort of influence from directors was involved, but the guy (soldier) answered back saying "You're naive if you think Iraq and Saddam Hussein was not tied with what happened on 9/11"

 

Im thinkin to myself "No wonder why im usually on the computer when my mom or brother watches this show"

 

I swear... some idiots

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bruce,

 

I have to disagree with your comment as I read it. There is a HUGE relationship between 9/11 and the American invasion of Iraq. In fact, I would dare say that if 9/11 had not happened, we would not have invaded Iraq. My feeling is that 9/11 triggered a rampant PARANOIA in the Bush administration, which drove them to attack Iraq.

 

The same PARANOIA hit a nerve deep inside of America also. People are afraid that another terrorist attack will happen again. Perhaps even more severe than 9/11, and these people therefore support the war. Bush has positioned the war on Iraq as America's centerpiece on its war on terror.

 

The logic is simple. If you are appalled about 9/11, then you hate terror. If you hate terror, then you support the Iraq war. If you support the Iraqi war, then you support Bush. It is the associative property of math. THEREFORE, if you are appalled about 9/11, you support Bush. QED.

 

Although I do not agree with this logic, it is clear in my mind that it is working. In fact, Bush stands a very good chance of getting re-elected based on this simple logic. The connection between 9/11 and the Iraqi war is humongous. In fact, Bush has his entire reelection riding on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is only because the administration worked so hard at convincing people the two were related. 9/11 was "used" by Bush to play on the fears of Americans. It was a well thought out ploy to divert the vengence of Americans in the wrong direction. As a matter of fact he spoke more about Iraq then he did Bin Laden every time he opened his mouth.

 

The "reality is" there is no relation and was no relation other then the one GW Bush fabricated in his feeble mind, the sad part is so many people swallowed the rhetoric it hook line and sinker.

 

Now we have to deal with the aftermath of the ignorance involved.

 

In the mean time the real perpetrator of the crime is free, and loose to continue his terrorist acts. Saddam Hussien/Iraq has never been once implicated or proven to be involved in terrorist acts upon this country or it's people.

 

The relation of 9/11, terrorist acts and Iraq are non-existant. Other then the ones people were mislead to believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Intellegence is run by the Government , they will report what the government wants to hear.

Bush wanted this war with Iraq and he got it . Sept. 11 was just his catalyst for going. If not that; he would have some other reason manufactured. If he's re-elected , we'll have to see who makes up the new Bush team . I would say Colin Powell will not be among them.

Bush just gave daddy a big Christmas present w/ the capture of Saddam .

I don't know what the death toll has been revised to for 9/11 . But over 4000 women and children have been killed or wounded in Iraq.

And no WMD or Al Qaeda. We have been duped, like we were in Vietnam.

The last count on U.S. lives lost in Iraq is over 525 . Why as Americans , can't this be stopped . And why is it a moral thing to rebuild a country that you have destroyed . Sounds more like guilt to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding of the testimony from David Kay was that the intelligence estimates/analysis were wrong in concluding that there were WMD. I do not recall that he said that the analyists were wrong in saying that we were at imminnt and growing risk. I thought we went to war beacuse we were at imminent grave risk of attack. We knew (or at least we thougt we knew) that Saddam had WMD. Until just before the attack saddam had not demonstrated that had no weapons. The attack was not about WMD (at least in my mind) it was supposed to be about an imminent risk. I have yet to hear anything that says that the analyists were using the word imminent. Even Bush's administration says that it was the same intelligence that Clinton had. Clinton never attacked nor did he say imminent risk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our stated reasons why we went to war are :

 

1. WMD

2. The world is better off without Saddam

 

So I reiterate my question, if these are our reasons, why are we still there? GBPF says that we have another motive (Oil) for being there. That would be horrible if it were true. I am sure hoping that we get a good reason on why we are there, and if not, we get out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Deuces Wild

The constitution does not say that the president is commander in chief only if he has good information. The decision to go to war was Bush's decision, period. If he did that with bad information, that is his responsibility.

Perhaps all elected officials who voted for the war and who voiced a strong opinion that Iraq did indeed posess WOMD should be held accountable, including:

 

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction.....So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction

is real"

- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

 

 

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."

- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

 

 

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

 

 

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet

achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

 

 

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

 

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members,

though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the

terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he

succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

 

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available

means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." --

John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

 

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that

difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

 

 

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the

authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

 

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and to our allies."

Former Vermont Governor Howard Dean

September 2002

 

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

 

 

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

 

 

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

 

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War

status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From

a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others..

 

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

 

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." S

- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

 

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."

- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

 

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam

and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." --

Bill Clinton in 1998

 

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

 

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat

to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

 

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons

Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

 

Note: I realize Ritter is not an elected official. I thought his comments are interesting though. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understood that are reason for going there was

1 risk of attacke by WMD or risk that the WMD would be supplied to terrorists.

 

That Saddam was a bad man was never in dispute but I don't recall that being a reason we went to Iraq. If it was acknowledge my ignorance but even if it is a reason it is not justification. There are plenty of bad dictators and deceitful/dishonest politicians that are as bad or worse than saddam. It has never been US policy (in the last 100 years) and i hope it isn't now US policy to attack mean evil people because that is a full time job.

 

We are there now because we broke it and now we must pay for it. I was not in favor of the invasion but we are there now. We cannot leave until some semblance of a govt. it set up. Itis unfortunate that the policy appears to be to leave by July because I think that will just allow either another corrupt dictatorship with risk of terrorism or a corrupt theocracy with terrorism. Because we should not have gone there does not mean we can say"Woops. We're sorry. Here go pickup the pieces and give us a call when the mess is sorted out" We are stuck there. In my opinion we are stuck there until some stable representative democracy is in place. Just like in Japan. We have to decide the form of govt. We cannot allow whatever local power monger to decide what their govt. is going to look like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not bad ....not a single ...I hate the french post ...yet ....!

 

There is one link to 9/11 though , as many Iraqi civilians have died at coalition hands as the number of deaths in 9/11....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DW,

 

I am not sure what the point is behind all of these quotes. Are you saying that all of these people made Bush attack Iraq? Or are you saying that they are equally as culpable as Bush?

 

I reject these arguments. He is commander in chief, he is ultimately responsible for these type of things. Do you not agree? Furthermore, I believe that Bush (and his administration) was the major proponent of the war. I also believe it was the Bush administration that pushed the false information to Congress to bolster their case.

 

CD,

 

The current reason for the invasion of Iraq has nothing to do with WMD. Most people now say "The world is better off now that Saddam is gone." Our reason has been shifting as time goes on. First it was the imminent threat of the deployment of WMD. Next it was WMD. Next it was WMD of mass destruction programs. And now it is Saddam was a bad and evil man. I agree with you that last rationale is insufficient to justify a war BEFORE the fact, but it appears that it is sufficient AFTER the fact. That's our story and we're sticking to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Deuces Wild

DW,

 

I am not sure what the point is behind all of these quotes. Are you saying that all of these people made Bush attack Iraq? Or are you saying that they are equally as culpable as Bush?

 

I reject these arguments. He is commander in chief, he is ultimately responsible for these type of things. Do you not agree? Furthermore, I believe that Bush (and his administration) was the major proponent of the war. I also believe it was the Bush administration that pushed the false information to Congress to bolster their case.

 

Yes, I am saying they should be held to the same standard. The statements show they also believed the Iraq possessed WOMD. They voted to authorize the war based on their beliefs on WOMD. If Bush is guilty for believing wrong information then those Senators are equally as guilty.

 

So we disagree. No problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DW,

 

What is the point of having a commander in chief? I hate to say it, but it is exacty for these type of situations. In war, there must be one person responsible. Do you not agree with that?

 

But let's leave that aside. Given the facts that are emerging, virtually everyone is now stating a new opinion (including the president itself). In light of this new information, should we now relook at the entire situation? Should Congress now get together with the president in light of this new information and figure out what is best for national security?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Deuces Wild

Yes, he is indeed the Commander in Chief and acted on the authority granted him by a vast majority of the Legislative Branch.

 

And I again repeat that those in the Legislative Branch giving him that authority, based on their opinion that Iraq possessed WOMD and were a threat to our security, should be held equally responsible.

 

We need to look at our Intelligence organizations and fix the problem. The blame game and finger pointing will accomplish little.

Edited by Deuces Wild

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our stated reasons why we went to war are :

 

1. WMD

2. The world is better off without Saddam

 

So I reiterate my question, if these are our reasons, why are we still there? GBPF says that we have another motive (Oil) for being there. That would be horrible if it were true. I am sure hoping that we get a good reason on why we are there, and if not, we get out.

I would say that American, Australian & English troops are still in Iraq because it is now "our" responsibility to restore some sort of order and services to the country we almost flattened.

 

It would be irresponsible to leave without at least cleaning up some of the mess. There is also the contributing factor that if we walked out now without forming some kind of ruling body and government then another Saddam would just take over where the old one left off.

 

2c

Kylie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The legislative branch has no independent intelligence gathering or analysis function. They rely upon such information as is gathered by and released by the executive branch. While this may mean that they had access to the same information it does not mean that they did have access to the same information that the president did/does. Afterall the president is still resisting releasing the intelligence of pre 9-11 to the the special legislative committe investigating the pre 9-11 intelligence.

 

While the congress may have some responsibility the chief executive is ultimately responsible. The executive branch commands the military and the military were commanded to take offensive action.

 

Chen- I agree that the administration is changing the reason for our having gone to war. I think that this is the single most despicable and duplicitous act. I can accept an honest but exceedingly embarrassing act like going to war to prevent use of nonexistent WMDs but then to tell me that I misunderstood and the real reason was that he was evil. There was a terrible medical malpractice suit here about 5 years ago. The ortho amputated the wrong foot of a diabetic that had gangrene in the left foot. He tried to argue that while he amputated the wrong foot it was likely that the patient would probably have had to remain in a wheel chair anyway because it was unlikely a prosthetic device could have been used (risk of pressure ulcers in a diabetic etc.) Oddly the jury disagreed. This sounds like about the same thing except with a country. We attack the wrong country (Iraq instead of Bin Laden) and afterwars say "well he needed to go anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Deuces Wild

The legislative branch has no independent intelligence gathering or analysis function. They rely upon such information as is gathered by and released by the executive branch.

Wrong.

 

 

Created pursuant to S.Res. 400, 94th Congress: to oversee and make continuing studies of the intelligence activities and programs of the United States Government, and to submit to the Senate appropriate proposals for legislation and report to the Senate concerning such intelligence activities and programs. In carrying out this purpose, the Select Committee on Intelligence shall make every effort to assure that the appropriate departments and agencies of the United States provide informed and timely intelligence necessary for the executive and legislative branches to make sound decisions affecting the security and vital interests of the Nation. It is further the purpose of this resolution to provide vigilant legislative oversight over the intelligence activities of the United States to assure that such activities are in conformity with the Constitution and laws of the United States.

 

http://intelligence.senate.gov/juris.htm

 

Welcome to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence website.  The purpose of this site is to provide information, about the United States Intelligence Community and about the Committee’s role and activities related to oversight of that Community.

 

Intelligence capabilities are critical to the security of the United States.  Through intelligence, we can find out what is happening throughout the world, beyond what other countries or entities present for public consumption.  Such information can be used to ward off crises by allowing time to avert crises rather than just react to them.  More importantly, intelligence is often the only way to find out the plans and intentions of countries, organizations or individuals who intend to do us harm or negatively affect our interests.  There is no doubt that intelligence is and must be our first line of defense.

 

Although it is important to have a robust intelligence capability, it is also important to have an effective oversight process to ensure that intelligence resources are not misused and that intelligence activities are conducted lawfully.  Intelligence operations and law enforcement activities are governed by laws which are not in all cases the same.  Ensuring that these laws are followed is a key component of our oversight responsibilities and was the primary reason for the creation of the congressional intelligence committees.

 

Because of the sensitivities of intelligence operations and resources, the intelligence budget is classified.  These same sensitivities require that the budget receive an extra amount of congressional scrutiny, and there is a legal requirement that intelligence funding not only be appropriated, but authorized as well.

 

We take these oversight responsibilities very seriously, as does the leadership of Congress.  Members of the committee are selected not by their party caucuses, but by those elected to lead their parties.  All of the Members of the committee are appointed by the Speaker of the House.  We hire a professional staff with experience in intelligence, legal, and legislative matters.  We are very proud of the way the committee’s Members work in a bipartisan fashion on some of the most difficult national security problems faced by the United States.

 

Although many aspects of our work are, and must be, classified, we have endeavored to provide as much insight into the Intelligence Community and our committee as possible.  We hope that you find this website informative and useful.

 

http://intelligence.house.gov/

Edited by Deuces Wild

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This cite (& there are plenty of others) indicates that the legislative branch does not seem to think that the information they get is the same as is available to the president.Legislatue wants to see intelligence on 9-11 If they had/have access to the same information why is the legislature battling the president for release of or access to the intelligence information available to the executive branch?

 

You cite only says that there is a legislative oversight committee. Whicjh has been around ( to the best of my recollection) since the 80's when failed attemprts to kill Castro came to light (among other things). That act (at least that citation and its links) does not say what intelligence must be shared nor when it must be shared. Surely you are not arguing that the president that gets daily intelligence briefings has the same daily information that the legislative oversight committee does when it doesn't meet daily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...