billvon 3,119 #151 February 9, 2004 >You just want Bush to take responsibility for the mistake right? Yep. His responsibility; his error. It is his responsibility to evaluate all the intelligence available to him and lead the country accordingly. He made a mistake. Learn from it and move on. Why is that so hard for some people to do? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #152 February 9, 2004 Quote>You just want Bush to take responsibility for the mistake right? Yep. His responsibility; his error. It is his responsibility to evaluate all the intelligence available to him and lead the country accordingly. He made a mistake. Learn from it and move on. Why is that so hard for some people to do? I agree 100%. The longer we point fingers and deny there's a problem, the longer it will take to fix. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #153 February 9, 2004 QuoteYou could have stopped after the first sentence. Quote"the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Yeah, well that's what the administration did....even though they knew it wasn't true they spouted off this crap anyway. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kmcguffee 0 #154 February 9, 2004 QuoteHow many countries and US administrations took their nations to war while relying on said beliefs while insinuating that it was part of a war on terror and that Saddam was a "grave and gathering danger"? Why are you changing the argument? We were talking about who was at fault for the faulty intelligence. Care to comment further on that? "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #155 February 9, 2004 QuoteQuoteHow many countries and US administrations believed that Saddam had WMDs? How many countries and US administrations took their nations to war while relying on said beliefs while insinuating that it was part of a war on terror and that Saddam was a "grave and gathering danger"? Just the fact that Iraq was firing missles at U.S. aircraft in the "No Fly Zone" is an act of war and would have justified an invasion. To say Iraq and SH was not a gathering threat is naive. We couldn't have kept a military presence indefinitely. I can only imagine what would have happened if the US had just pulled out and left the problem to the UN. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
benny 0 #156 February 10, 2004 Quote Why are you changing the argument? We were talking about who was at fault for the faulty intelligence. Care to comment further on that? Umm, no. The point is noone else took the shoddy intelligence and made it out to be absolute fact and reason for invasion of a sovereign nation. Intelligence isn't exact, one report says this, the other says that, I think those reports are usually worded with a lot of mights and maybes. Never go to a DZ strip show. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kmcguffee 0 #157 February 10, 2004 QuoteHis responsibility; his error. It is his responsibility to evaluate all the intelligence available to him and lead the country accordingly. He made a mistake. Learn from it and move on. Why is that so hard for some people to do? Do you understand the difference between responsibility, as it applies to leadership, and fault for a mistake? Bush evaluated all of the intelligence given to him and made a decision based on that intel. He is responsible for the decision. Now, the fact that some of that intelligence was incorrect was the fault of the intelligence gatherers and analysts who provided the faulty intelligence. You, and others, want Bush to take the blame that the intelligence was faulty or to state that he deliberately evaluated the intel incorrectly. "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
benny 0 #158 February 10, 2004 QuoteYou, and others, want Bush to take the blame that the intelligence was faulty or to state that he deliberately evaluated the intel incorrectly. Oh he really doesn't have to admit he did it deliberately.... a simple "I'm a complete and total dumbass and puppet of neoconservative thinktanks and the American people are suffering because of that" will suffice. Never go to a DZ strip show. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #159 February 10, 2004 QuoteThe basis for President Bush's African uranium claim was known at the time to be forged and not credible.10 "Top White House officials knew that the CIA seriously disputed the claim that Saddam Hussein was seeking uranium in Africa long before the claim was included in Bush's January address to the nation," according to the Washington Post.11 Secretary of State Colin Powell became alarmed at the level of intelligence distortion. When he read the first draft of his speech to the UN -- prepared for Powell by Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff -- he was so upset that he lost his temper, throwing several pages in the air and declaring, "I'm not reading this. This is bullsh--."12 QuoteYou, and others, want Bush to take the blame that the intelligence was faulty or to state that he deliberately evaluated the intel incorrectly. Yeah...wonder why. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,119 #160 February 10, 2004 >Do you understand the difference between responsibility, as it >applies to leadership, and fault for a mistake? Yes. The person with the power to make the decision is the person responsible for it, and is also responsible for making sure his directives are carried out, his intelligence is correct etc. Responsibility is directly related to power; those with more power have more responsibility. No one I can think of has more power than the president of the US. >You, and others, want Bush to take the blame that the intelligence > was faulty or to state that he deliberately evaluated the intel > incorrectly. He was responsible for deciding which intelligence to believe and what to do about it. There was intelligence that claimed (for example) that Hussein attempted to buy uranium; there was other intelligence that claimed that wasn't true. Powell believed it wasn't, Bush believed it was. He was wrong on that count; he chose to believe the wrong intelligence. He should admit that he was wrong and move on. Claiming that nothing is ever his fault, no way he could have handled it differently, means that in the future if he has known-questionable intelligence he will make exactly the same mistake. Admit the mistake and move on. For crying out loud, everyone makes mistakes, even presidents. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kmcguffee 0 #161 February 10, 2004 Quoteshoddy intelligence The problem with intelligence is you don't know whether it is shoddy or gold until after you have committed to it. By your reasoning we should never act on intelligence. Why would we want to collect it then? "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
benny 0 #162 February 10, 2004 QuoteQuoteshoddy intelligence The problem with intelligence is you don't know whether it is shoddy or gold until after you have committed to it. By your reasoning we should never act on intelligence. Why would we want to collect it then? Well that's a real good way to take a quote out of context there chief... Did you read the rest of that post or did you stop there? There were probably various views on what was happening in Iraq. Bush decided he'd take one and present it to the American people as fact. He took us to war on those "facts". He chose wrong. Never go to a DZ strip show. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #163 February 10, 2004 QuoteYou, and others, want Bush to take the blame that the intelligence was faulty or to state that he deliberately evaluated the intel incorrectly. YES. As a manager I am DIRECTLY responsible for the decisions of my subordinates. I am DIRECTLY responsible for their performance. I try to hire people who know more than I do and will do an exemplary job. I would hope that the leaders of the country would follow the same ethic, and not blame the people that they put into those positions of responsibility. Instead they will play the blame game and weasel out of that responsibility just like they have been doing since their college days. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #164 February 10, 2004 QuoteQuoteHow many countries and US administrations took their nations to war while relying on said beliefs while insinuating that it was part of a war on terror and that Saddam was a "grave and gathering danger"? Why are you changing the argument? We were talking about who was at fault for the faulty intelligence. Care to comment further on that? How do you know ALL the intelligence was faulty? All you know is that the intelligence Bush allowed Congress to see and the intelligence Powell showed the UN (that was contradicted by Hans Blix, the guy on the spot) and the intelligence Bush acted on was faulty. Blix most certainly provided accurate information, but the Right belittled it and vilified the UN inspectors. There are some interesting threads on dz.com from last January - March. YOU participated. Amazing how much the righties have backpedaled since then. And then there's the all-time record deficit to worry about. The one that Bush called small and short-lived in 2002.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Muenkel 0 #165 February 10, 2004 Did I mention that I was voting for Bush this year? Chris _________________________________________ Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #166 February 10, 2004 QuoteDid I mention that I was voting for Bush this year? Chris That's funny, I thought you were looking for a job.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #167 February 10, 2004 QuoteThe words "Bush" and "intelligence" should not appear in the same sentence. Like "teeth" and "penis". The man is too dumb to eat a pretzel, and that really tells me all I need to know about him. Food problems run in that family. When GWB's father attended a state visit in Japan in January 1992, he responded with a projectile vomit into the lap of Prime Minister Miyazawa. Maybe it has something to do with Skull and Bones secret rituals.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #168 February 10, 2004 QuoteMaybe it has something to do with Skull and Bones secret rituals. I wonder what we should expect from J. Kerry? He's a member as well..... Anyway... Does anyone have any idea how many boots on the ground we (the US) had v. the UK had? What sort of intel did the CIA receive? What sort did the Brits receive? Is there a generally more reliable source (as in telephone interceptance v. people overhearing/well placed spies?)? I find it fascinating that we are arguing who's at fault without exploring the differences in intel capturing and relating of it to superiors. Just wondering if anyone had an idea of the answers to the above, or are we all just utterly uninformed and have no way to determine the intel which was used? (aside from someone deciding to not read something because it's BS...heresay at best). And lastly, Benny, just out of curiousity...why do you believe Saddam Hussein was not a "gathering threat"? ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JDBoston 0 #169 February 10, 2004 IMHO, it would be pretty pointless for uninvolved laypeople to try and debate the effectiveness of various intelligence gathering methods. Anyway, one of the most important determinants of what gets listened to is the known/perceived reliability of the source, i.e. the person it came from, based on previous intel they've provided and other factors. I.e. it's something that NO ONE outside the CIA, and probably only a few people within it, could ever have first-hand knowledge of, or an intelligent opinion on. Unfortunately that does make it tough to form an ironclad opinion about the validity of intel from the outside, but I guess that's just how it is. This debate seems to come down to the same thing as all other political debates, which is the fact that most people have a purely emotional allegiance to a certain point of view for personal reasons, and then cherry-pick a few known facts that suit them and call it a logical argument. On BOTH sides. People aren't interested in truth. They're interested in being right. The shitty thing in this case is that there will probably never be definitive proof one way or the other - making the debate something of a waste of time, but on the flip side, enabling it to go on pretty much forever. My $0.02, Joe Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #170 February 10, 2004 QuoteQuoteMaybe it has something to do with Skull and Bones secret rituals. I wonder what we should expect from J. Kerry? He's a member as well..... Anyway... Does anyone have any idea how many boots on the ground we (the US) had v. the UK had? What sort of intel did the CIA receive? What sort did the Brits receive? Is there a generally more reliable source (as in telephone interceptance v. people overhearing/well placed spies?)? I find it fascinating that we are arguing who's at fault without exploring the differences in intel capturing and relating of it to superiors. Just wondering if anyone had an idea of the answers to the above, or are we all just utterly uninformed and have no way to determine the intel which was used? (aside from someone deciding to not read something because it's BS...heresay at best). And lastly, Benny, just out of curiousity...why do you believe Saddam Hussein was not a "gathering threat"? ciels- Michele The CIA has been ineffective as an intelligence gathering organization for many years. While Intel. is somewhat subjective and open sometimes to varying degrees of interpetation, the fact is there were failures. Much of the problem is due to the Clinton Admin. under the cover of Robt. Torreccelli devastated the CIAs Intel gathering abilities. Now the lefties want to scream "Bush Lied" when the truth is their own guy was responsible for the CIAs Intel problems. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1072169/posts http://www.cpanj.com/capitalreportpages/campaigncorner/july2002/FORRESTER%20LASHES%20OUT%20AT%20TORRICELLI%20OVER%20SPY%20POLICY.htm Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #171 February 10, 2004 QuoteEver hear about "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth"? Yeah, thats the same sentance that Clinton ignored right?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #172 February 10, 2004 QuoteHmmm You love throwing that lefty label around.. thats good.. anyone to the left of the CCC and KKK to you Ultra Rightie guys are Lefty liberals Seems I am in good company with MOST of the country. Actually Im not that far right, I am just not as far left as you "give it away" folks. You as a lefty, are just bashing to bash since he is not "your" man. If you would notice I only bash Clinton on the facts....I don't bash his economic policies since some were good. But you can/will not do that. You lefties would rather bash Bush on everything...even if you have no PROOF. So you just ramble and rattle...you have no argument since you can't PROVE anything. If you could PROVE it...Hell I'd join you in calling for his head on a stick....But you can't. So continue to yell, scream, cry whatever...You are wasting your words without PROOF. Just like you lefties always do...Condem without proof, then lie when caught. Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For your info, I got a BJ Saturday. But I didn't lie about it under oath -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hmm ok MR PROOF.. wheres the VIDEO.. otherwise it didn't happen Im not under oath, and frankly I don't care if you belive me anyway. Video however is available for 49.99"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #173 February 10, 2004 QuoteI'd be quite happy to have a trial, as long a Bush doesn't get to hand pick the judge(s) and jury and his prosecutor Ok become President and make that happen...Its a free country."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ian84 0 #174 February 10, 2004 QuoteVideo however is available for 49.99 I'll take one.....uhh....for a friend Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkydiverRick 0 #175 February 10, 2004 QuoteDid I mention that I was voting for Bush this year? Chris Me too. never pull low......unless you are Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
