Originally posted by Red1998SVT:
You are still missing Red's point. Bush went around asserting that the EVIDENCE for an imminent threat from WMDs in Iraq was "slam dunk." Bush was privy to ALL the evidence, he knew it was thin as tissue, and yet he boldly asserted that it was "slam dunk". He lied.

Back again for another thrashing?

Wrong. Tenet said that the case of possession of WMDs was a "slam dunk".

I can't state it any more succinctly:

1) Every intel agency around the GLOBE had pretty much the same information on Iraq, in that it possessed WMD. The CIA wasn't alone in this.

2) UN 1441, along with a decades worth of other UN resolutions wasn't being fulfilled in good faith by Iraq.

3) To this DAY, there are TONS of nerve/blister agents and biotoxins missing. NOBODY knows where they went, but EVERYBODY knows that Iraq was specifically told to account for them.

You're certifiably nuts if you think Bush ran into Iraq KNOWING that there would be no WMD.

I would imagine that Bush was privy to the intel that we had "in-hand" on Iraq at the time, which pointed to an unacceptable risk of keeping Hussein in power with the potential capabilities that he was thought to have possessed. That risk was largely based in part of the "shell game" that was being played with UN inspectors for decades, in addition to tons of missing toxins...

Again, where did Bush lie? Please point this out.

Originally posted by Red1998SVT:
Like Bush, you are trying to divert blame to the CIA. But Bush can't divert blame by saying that Tenet "concluded" that the evidence was slam dunk too.

The CIA does hold some blame here, but again, it goes back to when their budgets were slashed and HumInt was cut in the Middle-East during the '90s, in addition to a number of other issues that have recently reared their ugly head. You can be sure that them in conjunction with the FBI are on the verge of some major changes in the way they approach threat evaluation, as intel on two very pertinent issues in the last 4 years has proven to be spotty and incomplete at best...

...but of course, I forget. This is all GWB's fault! I mean, it was him instead of the Clinton administration that started gutting the CIA's budget and crippling HumInt in the region.

Finally, what do you not understand about a decision being only as good as the intelligence you have behind it?

Bush telling Tenet to shove off after being told that the case on WMD was a done deal would have been insanely reckless.

Originally posted by Red1998SVT:
We pay the president to make an independent decision on the evidence, not to mindlessly accept the conclusions of others.

Odd, since this is a conclusion that the CIA held since the mid 90's, as well as a number of other intelligence agencies around the planet. One has to be an absolute SUCKER if you think any US President is going to dig through the basement at Langley with staff pukes and hash it all out; it's expected that they do a thorough job in the FIRST place.

Originally posted by Red1998SVT:
If Bush claims he should be allowed to rely on the CONCLUSIONS of the CIA director, (i.e. the president is not responsible for reviewing and analyzing the EVIDENCE himself), then he is not fit to be president.

I disagree, in that no sitting President that I'm aware of has ever drove to Langley to engage in reviews of what would end up being THOUSANDS upon THOUSANDS of pages of reports, dossiers and transcripts.

There's a reason that the CIA exists and there is a reason they try to keep politics at arm's length: to provide POLITICALLY neutral information to assist the US leaders in making decisions.

This is PRECISELY why no President has any business doing "case work" at the CIA, as you seem to be so ignorantly suggesting.

Originally posted by Red1998SVT:
Are you still trying to equate the Senate vote with support for Bush's premature and unilateral invasion?

Point 1: The invasion wasn't unilateral.
Point 2: The Senate had pretty much the same access to the same intel that the President was getting, which is why they voted to authorize force.

Originally posted by Red1998SVT:
Please read the resolution. It condones the use of force in Iraq. But it does not declare support for Bush's reckless invasion. Bush decided whether to actually invade, when to invade, and how to invade. And he blew it.

Actually, O Solomon the Wise, the invasion was considered to be one of the greatest military successes in the history of warfare.

No historian or politician (not even Kerry himself) has come out and said otherwise.

Now, tell me ONE more time how Bush blew the invasion?


Originally posted by Red1998SVT:
I do. I studied constitutional law and the federal legislative process in law school at the University of California, Davis. I took the bar exam and practiced law in federal courts for 12 years. I know how the process works.

Really?

Originally posted by Red1998SVT:
Do you? You rudely imply that I don't know how the legislative process works, but I see you didn't bother to explain why you think so.

Apparently better than you, as I at least understand the checks, balances and informal procedures built within the various levels of government to hopefully prevent a US President from going in and making a call on unfiltered information and politically manipulating it from the start...

Originally posted by Red1998SVT:
Once again, you raise a point that is irrelevant to the issue at hand. What does the Senate's power to override a veto have to do with the circumstances we are discussing?

The Senate has more powers than that to merely "advise and consent". The points I made clearly show this. Why people want to forget that the Senate and the CIA have just as much skin in the game on Iraq as the Executive branch does is beyond me...

...wait, I forgot it was an election year for a split second. It has more to do with politics and spin than fact.

Originally posted by Red1998SVT:
No veto was exercised, and no override vote was taken. The only senatorial power exercised in the Iraq war vote was the power to advise and consent. Your constant diversions from the topic are getting tiresome.

Then might I suggest doing some research before making false claims and putting forth overtly inadequate ideas? I'm beyond tired correcting fallacy after fallacy that has continually cropped up in this thread.

I patently refuse to belive that the legislative branch of the US government as a whole is a puppet or a metaphorical "yes man" for a US President.

FACTS:

1) Congress held the power to SHUT down the White House request for AUTHORIZATION of force to invade Iraq if Hussein didn't abide by UN resolutions stating that he fully accounts for WMD. They didn't, as the measure passed 77-23.

2)The fact that the Bush administration was charged with giving updates every 2 months to Congress on the progress of the invasion, as well as 48 hours of notification before any military action is taken should show that our legislative branch is a bit more than a group of 2-bit lackeys or puppets.

Comments?

JaTo e-Tough Guy Missouri City, TX 99 Contour SVT #143/2760 00 Corvette Coupe