Originally posted by JaTo:
So, if the source of the intel is in question here, why all the yammering at Bush and other Republican lawmakers? Why hasn't the same vitrolic been turned towards a large number of the Democratic party as well, since the bulk of them in the House and Senate supported the invasion?

Were GWB and Cheney working for the CIA during the mid 90's? Did they cut budgets, reallocate HumInt (actually, slash the Hell out of it), rely on ISI (Pakistani) intel far too much, ignore Afghanistan and the rise of the Taliban for the most part, condone "toothless" resolutions in the UN on Iraq, etc.? Or was it others before them that laid the groundwork?

For those that blame Bush, Sr. on Bin Laden's aggression towards the US by putting troops in Saudi Arabia, did you NOT get the memo that Bin Laden has publicly stated that his design for 9/11 and attacks on the US began back when Israel invaded Lebanon in '82, where Israel had US backing on that particular excercise?

That's only about a decade difference between when we rolled tanks into Saudi. What say you now?

The events that led up to 9/11 and the intel snafu that Iraq has become is perhaps the biggest publicly-known screwup that the CIA and other intelligence agencies have suffered; it's been a complete watershed moment for the clandestine services community though it's being completely missed by many here in order to further push their bumper-sticker politics and mentalities. Yes, all of this happened on Bush's watch, but I certainly didn't hear the Left shouting much of anything different during the months leading up to the invasion.

Everybody got it wrong on Iraq and it was due to the quality and veracity of the intelligence we had on-hand.

This ENTIRE debacle can happen again and it could have just as easily happened with a Democrat in office; presidential decisions are ONLY as good at the intel provided. Why is this so bloody hard to understand? Do you think Gore or Kerry would have told Tenet to "f**k off" when he said that the case for WMD was a "slam-dunk"? Please count the number of executives that have sat in the Oval Office that have blatanly ignored their DCI and the proclomations put forth by the CIA on issues of grave importance...

To parallel: is it Kennedy's fault that the CIA inflated their estimates on the aggrivation that Cuba's population had towards Castro in order to push the Bay of Pigs coup? Yes, it happened on his watch and as much as I consider him a mediocre leader, I don't lay blame on the Bay of Pigs at his feet; Richard Bissell wears that badge...

The events that led up to the invasion are NOT a failure in executive leadership; they are a failure in intelligence. The post-war environment in Iraq is a bit of both, though.



The President has been a liar about the war on terror since we've been attacked. He refers to Iraq and 9/11 as if they are the same. Anyone with a brain knows they are not. He used the fear of the American public teamed with bogus intel that was known at the time to come from known liars to attack a country that had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. We've had a minor military campaign in Afghanistan to look for the actual attackers of the US, while the major campaign is elsewhere. We still have not had much success with OBL.

Maybe OBL's hate for the US began in 1982 with Lebanon for the US, but that is not the reason he attacked the US. The backing the US has given Israel has placed us in the sights of most radical Muslims in the middle east and disliked by the average Muslim, that's not new news at all. OBL has never issued a fatwa in regards to that, it was the "occupation" of their holy peninsula. After that was issued the embassy bombings in Africa happned, the attack on the USS Cole, 9/11 attacks, ect all happened because of said fatwa, not the invasion of the Lebanon invasion of 82. It was also the millions Muslims OBL claims to have died because of the US and the UN in Iraq, and many other excuses to serve his agenda.
Apparently you've never read the announcement of the inauguration of the World Islamic Front, which set the stage for the al-Qaeda's terrorist attacks..... not one mention of Lebanon.

I guess when our VP (The first time in history for either the President or the Vice President to do that, BTW) went to the CIA to get the intel he needed to go any further with their march to war, and badgered people until he got SOMETHING (which was ALL from questionable sources) so they could proceed with their plans doesn't mean much to you. They most definitely knew the intel they were acting upon was shotty at best, but something is better than nothing....right?

For all the people who wanted to resign from Dubbya's cabinet or even his advisors when they saw what he was going to do, is another sign of who's to blame. They had to wait so it didn't discredit his actions, but that ended their personal friendships and professional relationships with him.

The only reason the US relied on the ISI was solely because of the relations that were created during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, after dumping billions through them to the mujahideen leaders of THEIR choice. Intel in the Peshawar region has always (keyword there, as it still is today....) been craptastic at best. That's the area OBL has been in for decades, and is likely to be as we speak. Since the intel community was so shotty from the mid-90's, where is Dubbya going to point fingers to now that it's no better in key area's now?


2005 Ford F150 SuperCab FX4 1964 Chevrolet Impala SS 1998 CSVT: 354HP/328TQ @ 10 psi, now gone