Level with us: Come clean on Iraq intelligence flaws, Mr. President

[Barrett808]

If critics of the Iraq war, as well as President Bush himself, are to accept the conclusions of former chief weapons inspector David Kay, an honest appraisal dictates that neither side can be selective in what it chooses to see.

Kay has not found large caches of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. But he has uncovered deep flaws in the U.S. intelligence-gathering capabilities, which led the world to conclude they would be found:

"We have to remember that this view of Iraq was held during the Clinton administration and didn't change in the Bush administration," Kay said on Wednesday on Capitol Hill. "It is not a political 'got you' issue. It is a serious issue of how you could come to the conclusion that is not matched by the (facts)."

The president's critics cannot choose to gloss over the undeniable fact that, working from the same intelligence data, previous administrations - governments around the world, in fact - arrived at precisely the same conclusions as did Bush regarding the threat posed by Saddam Hussein:

"(S)ome day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal," President Clinton said in 1998.

All that noted, however, Bush owes it to the American public to acknowledge the harsh reality of what Kay did not find.

(more)

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/0130fri1-30.html

[Malva Zebrina]

1. All that noted, however, Bush owes it to the American public

All that noted, however, Bush owes it to the American public to acknowledge the harsh reality of what Kay did not find.

Bush does not think he "owes" anything to the American public. He thinks WE OWE HIM something!!

We are nothing but crap in his crass, unintelligent, rich, entitled eyes. He only thinks he "owes" something to the big corporate buddies and he strives day after day to repay them all for their contributions to his "re-election" and to screw the little guy as much as he can in seeking the patent approval of those rich and entitled corporation buddies, and their continued, very generous, contributions.

He could give a shit about this country and the common man. He is all about gaining more money for himself, his frump and the two rather vacant, dumby twins, and nothing else occupies his mind, which is so small it cannot stand more than one subject at a time.

I am certain. Why should it? He has it all and will leave with a lot more than he came withl He has milked us for three years and got what he wanted and will abandon the country in an instant. I honestly do believe he does not care much if he wins the next election. As far as he is concerned, he has been made richer and will have a "library" where all of his costumes with the embroidered "George Bush, President" on them will be there compleat with little cards that explain where he wore that one particular costume.

He got the oil in Iraq and the pipeline in Afganistan. He will go out with that under his belt and like all of his business, the shady business practices, he will continue, after he is out, to lie about the entire thing.

Bush's name will be registered in history as the most despicable president we have ever had foisted upon us by his daddy's Supreme court. He will always be mentioned in the history books with that asterisk after his name. And he and the lump and the two bumbs will go on in their very rich lifestyle believeing they are "special" and "entitled" while they rot at the very core of their souls.

[Greylady]

2. But *This View of Iraq......*

did change with the Bush Administration. Rumsfeld said that they had no new Intelligence but after 9/11 they viewed the existing Intelligence with *New Eyes* anyone remember that? I'm so glad that a little Internet searching can refute the constant misinformation coming from the WH and it's minions.

[maggrwaggr]

3. gee, then why did Colin Powell say Iraq was not a threat?

http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2001/933.htm

<<And frankly have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. >>

I'm gonna post this till I'm blue in the face, or the national media starts picking it up.

Or unless y'all stop me. :)

[jbfam4]

4. good for you

The only constant in this administration is it's inconsistencies.

[DrBB]

5. Yeah, but um, slight difference here

Namely, Clinton didn't use this intelligence data to mount a mega billion dollar unilateral ground war.

Seems to me there's a problem with this statement: "The same intelligence that the previous adminstration and other countries used" yadda yadda yadda. Namely, you're supposed to have a harder look at that stuff and draw your own conclusions before deciding it's sufficient to justify a preventative war. Cuz here's the thing: if it turns out not to have been sufficient, you're going to have to reap the consequences. That's why you're supposed to have a little care, in your own self-interest, and in the interest of your own national credibility.

So, if you go ahead and do it anyway, and it turns out you were wrong, well, guess where the buck stops? Anyone? Do I see some hands up? No not you lefties, let's hear from some new people....