Battle looms over whether Iraq threat was oversold

[truthisfreedom]

http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20031025.ubush1025/BNStory/International/

Battle looms over whether Iraq threat was oversold

By PAUL KORING
From Saturday's Globe and Mail


Washington — A bitter partisan battle is brewing over where to lay the blame for grossly misjudging the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq: with the White House or with the spies.

At stake is whether the U.S. public, Congress and allies abroad were misled into backing U.S. President George W. Bush's decision to wage war on Iraq, as Democratic presidential contenders contend.
<snip>
Democrats want to delay the report at least until the spring, after the special team looking for Iraqi nuclear, germ and poison-gas-warfare programs makes its findings known. So far no such weapons have been found.
That would relaunch the issue of whether Mr. Bush deliberately overstated the case against Iraq in the middle of his re-election campaign.
<snip>
"If the majority declines to put the executive branch at risk," he added, "then they are going to have a very difficult minority to deal with."

[Born Free]

1. "If it feels good do it"

That was the logic behind the bush team invading Iraq - it felt good, and now they are happy. Their only arguments now are it's a better world without Saddam. This same logic could have been used with the Clinton scandal because surely the blow job felt good.

[caledesi]

3. Very good BF. "It felt good." nt

[underpants]

7. Now they are selling it with their "end justifies the means" crap

How many ways have they tried to sell this?

Pre-war:WMD,Imminent threat, ties to terrorism

In war:Liberating the Iraqis, this popped up when the sandstorms hit and slowed the march and there was no concrete gains being made. They needed to say something and they didn't want it to be "we didn't plan on the sandstorms".

Post war:The world is better off without Saddam.

[radfringe]

2. I'm conflicted

yes - it's turning into a partisan battle

it's good because this won't allow repugs to sweep it under a rug and it "taints" the whistleass

it's bad because the story will be about the partisan battle and NOT on the real issue - that of leaks, lies and deliberate manipulation of information - all of which puts us all at risk

I'm also concerned about the Dem's ability/convictions to see this through. Too many times we've seen a DEM stand up and speak out, only to have him/her sit back down and shut up a day or so later

The Dems have to be careful on their message - if it's one of "get bush" then it's just short-lived headlines and nothing will happen

The message has to be that leaks and deliberate manipulation of US intelligence puts us all at risk, that this risk crosses all geo-economic-political barriers.

[teryang]

5. Right, legitimate criticism is now labeled

...as mere partisan carping. This is the new "Hill & Knowlton- like" disaster response PR/psy war media strategy to overcome a completely natural and response to an emerging dictatorship predicated on endless war.

"Get bush" is a legitimate message because he is a threat to the Constitution. There is a tidal wave of resentment against the current junta at home and abroad. The most articulate and reasonable spokesman against this unstable and dangerous regime are now being smeared as ideological "haters of bush."

Bush and the venal movement that supports him is the greatest threat to world peace since WW II. The world's great powers China and Russia are re-arming themselves against him in anticipation of his continued illegitimate and destabilizing rule. He is the most corrupt leader in American history but this goes naturally with dictatorship. The Straussian ideologues who support his obscurantist neo fascist drivel are the new totalitarian party- vanguard of the mindless.

[underpants]

8. The "politicizing the war"spin has already started

My head was actually spinning yesterday when I was watching a Dem advisor (not the normal knucklehead one's they usually have on) oon Fox News's "Big Story". He pointed out that it was the White House and the Repubes who used the actual war on terror to cover all discussion of failed policy during the '02 midterms and that W used the Iraq war to boost his numbers. He pointed out that the 70% who were for the war once it started equalled the 70% who wanted UN involvement before W&Co. dove in head first. The Host was saying that it was the CIA who relied on single source informants to support the war, the are "political animals" who know what their boss (Prez) wants and they do what is needed for job preservation.The word "beaurocrat"was mentioned several times. No mention of the OSP though.

[Maeve]

15. I'm not quite so conflicted

Dubya vs the CIA...I'm betting on the spooks and they are every bit as devious and ruthless as the BFEE.

The enemy of my enemy just might be my friend. Pass the popcorn.

[rogerashton]

4. Even if it were true,

and I don't for a moment believe it was, the fact remains:

The man in charge of US intelligence, and responsible for its failures, was the CEO of the United States.

IT HAPPENED ON HIS WATCH!!

[cthrumatrix]

6. All that being said..... you have to be able to "vote" shrub out......and

last time I read all the issues with BBV/computerized voting ... I feel that this time around will be for "all the marbles"

I simply can't imagine four more years of "wreckless thievery, plunder, deception & greed"

Mind you.... I also believe that "the puppet masters" would replace shrub with somebody else THEY can control. This is why I find the sudden surge in Clark to be of interest...maybe becuase he "is owned" in the same way. I already think that Kerry/Gep are in the same boat.

That leaves Dean by default and electibility....maybe that's why he's ahead.

[Zhade]

18. Agreed.

I would be prepared for violent unrest if Bush gets reselected next year. Like it or not, riots - at the very least - will happen.

My question is, should "we" get rid of Bush next year, will we forget about all the rest of the systemic problems in our government?

I hope not. I truly hope not.

[DrBB]

9. No it doesn't

Another wishful-thinking headline from beyond our borders. Whenever I see one of these LBN posts, my first act is to scan for the URL. When I see that headline in the NYTimes or WPost, then I'll start to get excited.

"If the majority declines to put the executive branch at risk," he added, "then they are going to have a very difficult minority to deal with."

Well, wouldn't that be nice to see. I'm not holding my breath. Noting that Rockefeller--who is one of the better ones--also says this:

Mr. Rockefeller, the committee's vice-chairman, denounced any rush to judgment. "I'm not going to characterize it as a whitewash," he said. "I'm going to characterize it as a very incomplete matter."

Yeah, well. You do wanna at least consider calling it a whitewash though, John, at some point, yes?

[Wickerman]

10. Its time for Dems to evaluate the net impact

What have we got for 340 (?) dead soldiers? 160, give or take billion spent?

We have a Dept of Defense and a Secretary of State that aren't playing the same game let alone in the same ballpark.

A treasury that is blown to hell with little hope to recover anytime soon.

An itelligence agency that is openly maligned for poor intelligence on one hand, later in the day the Prez* says he was satisfied with his intel.

Agents outed for the first time in history

And in Iraq and the middle east?

A situation that is nearly crisis. Terrorism is rampant, instead of a few hundred Al Queda we now can thank Bush* for 1,000s of new recruits.

We have lost the hearts and minds of Iraqis and surrounding countries - never had them to begin with, but at least they saw us as only scary, not pathologically dangerous.

Not to mention the missions were never accomplished - we aren't safer at home - and Osama and Saddam are free to travel the planet.

The cynical (and who isn't with this admin?) can argue that this is what the BFEE wanted all along, perpetual war (profits) and fear for the US public (job security for the party of war - the Repugs), but I sure as hell don't think that the average American wants this.

The end evaluation should be that Bush* failed. It should be delivered by the Dems in a short and simple soundbite - Bush was tasked with leading the war on terror and failed on all accounts and has actually dramatically worsened the situation.

[LeftistGorilla]

11. OVERsold?

what an UNDERstatement...

[Jack Rabbit]

12. I don't give a two-bit damn what any congressional report says

Any congressional report on any subject contains findings based on partisan spin, not scientific evidence.

I, Jack Rabbit, private citizen, am satisfied that Bush and his aides lied and lied deliberately about Saddam's military capability prior to the war. I am satisfied that they had intelligence before them that would have made any administration made up of reasonable and honest men and women pause before executing acts of war. I am satisfied that they cooked and cherrypicked the intelligence to make what they knew was a false case for war.

[leesa]

13. It's very clear where the fault lies. How long will they deny it?

If they continue to pretend that the conservatives are not responsible, then the rest of the world, who know who is responsible, will continue to refuse to trade with the US.

[rocktivity]

14. "Oversold"? "Overstated?" "Misjudged?"

How about "fabricated?" "Conspired?" "LIED??????"

(The)...draft (of the report), apparently prepared by staff under the control of the Republican chairman, fingers the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency and other security authorities, faulting them for overstating both the threat of weapons of mass destruction and Baghdad's links with terrorism.
Careful, guys, this can be taken two ways. Obviously, they're playing for the the "Bush, the babe in the woods" angle. You know--evil, vengeful Dems to the left of him; secretive, scheming Repubs to the right, and him totally unaware. But this could also mean that the security agencies knew that the Bush regime was invading no matter what (as indicated by PNAC), and were therefore "expected" to provide the evidence that the Pretzel-Dunce "needed."


rocknation

[stickdog]

16. What battle?

The only battle here is the battle between truth and lies.

[Zhade]

17. In other news: Weather Forecasters Debate If Sky Is Blue

*ahem*:

DUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

[radfringe]

19. implications are more damaging

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=590520&mesg_id=591995&page=