Welcome to PatsFans.com

Boy King ignored Senate warnings before invasion

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by PressCoverage, May 25, 2007.

  1. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    Bush Ignored Senate’s Pre-War Intelligence Warning of Post-War Fiasco »

    Yesterday, a White House correspondent candidly asked Bush why the American people should trust him as “a credible messenger on the war,” in light of the major mistakes he has made since first invading Iraq:

    Q: The majority in the public, a growing number of Republicans, appear not to trust you any longer to be able to carry out this policy successfully. Can you explain why you believe you’re still a credible messenger on the war?

    BUSH: I’m credible because I read the intelligence, David. ​
    Watch it:

    Today, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence released pre-war intelligence that warned the Bush administration in early 2003 that invading Iraq could create massive internal strife, giving extremist groups like al Qaeda new opportunities to expand their influence.

    The U.S. intelligence community’s pre-war clairvoyance is notable. While there was originally no link between al Qaeda and Iraq, they accurately predicted how a U.S. invasion would ignite Islamic sentiment against the U.S., allowing terrorists networks like al Qaeda to resurge elsewhere and disrupt regional stability. Some highlights of the report:

    “A stable democratic government in postwar Iraq would be a long, difficult, and probably turbulent challenge.”

    “Al Qa’ida probably would see an opportunity to accelerate its operational tempo and increase terrorist attacks during and after a U.S.-Iraq war.”

    “Rogue ex-regime elements could forge an alliance with existing terrorist organizations or act independently to wage guerilla warfare against the new government or Coalition forces.”

    “A US-led defeat and occupation of Arab Iraq would boost proponents of political Islam and would result in ‘calls for the people of the region to unite and build up defenses against the West.’”
    “Funds for terrorist groups probably would increase as a result of Muslim outrage over US action.”​

    But like several other reports, the Bush administration dismissed these predictions. “The committee also found that the warnings predicting what would happen after the U.S.-led invasion were circulated widely in government, including to the Defense Department and the Office of the Vice President.”

    Four years after the invasion, these predictions have become reality. Al Qaeda is resurging in Afghanistan and Pakistan, partly funded by allies in Iraq. Anti-U.S. sentiment in the Middle East continues to rise.

    Does Bush really “read the intelligence?”

    Read the intelligence report HERE.
    Last edited: May 25, 2007
  2. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,045
    Likes Received:
    113
    Ratings:
    +196 / 7 / -23

    If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.
    - Sun Tzu
  3. mikey

    mikey Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    2,422
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0

    QUESTION: The majority in the public, a growing number of Republicans, appear not to trust you any longer to be able to carry out this policy successfully. Can you explain why you believe you’re still a credible messenger on the war?

    BUSH's Answer: I’m credible because I read the intelligence, David. [/quote]


    What a MORONIC response.

    The guy is a certified buffoon.

    .
    Last edited: May 25, 2007
  4. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    he didn't read any gawddammed intelligence... he was spoonfed by Cheney and others... this president doesn't read much of anything... certainly not the dossiere he received on 8/6/01...
  5. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,189
    Likes Received:
    231
    Ratings:
    +351 / 6 / -8

    "All the intelligence I need is in the Book of Revelation..."
  6. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,844
    Likes Received:
    150
    Ratings:
    +317 / 4 / -2

    One question, if the senate warned him about all that was going to go wrong, why did they still vote for the war, as opposed to against giving the authority for it?
  7. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    gosh... 23 senators voted against giving the authority for it...

    regardless, what does that have to do with them providing warnings (all of which have come true), and then the administration saying for years "it was impossible to predict... (blah blah blah)?"
  8. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,672
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    RW,
    Are you just conducting an exercise in debate tactics?
    I agree with you that Congress is just as responsible as the president regardless of who originated the whole insane project without a plan (Bush). I think most of those who oppose the war agree too. The point of the thread is that this imbecile ignored warnings that were clear and it could be reasonably said that he did so on purpose. Forget about deflecting blame for a minute. The focus here is on the actions of the President, who has a special individual responsibility, don't you think?
  9. scout

    scout Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    7,702
    Likes Received:
    26
    Ratings:
    +37 / 0 / -2

    #15 Jersey

    Furthermore, it was Bush's intentions to go to war with Iraq regardless of anyone's opinion, input, consequences, proof, or justification. In Bush's first cabinet meeting he stated he was just wanted an excuse to attack Iraq. Prior to his presidency, Bush mentions to his biographer (true or false, you make the call) that a war would give him enormous power. Blame Congress if you choose, but the ultimate authority led them down that road.
  10. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,045
    Likes Received:
    113
    Ratings:
    +196 / 7 / -23

    I get all the news I need from the weather report...
  11. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    39,217
    Likes Received:
    130
    Ratings:
    +365 / 1 / -9

    What that means is, Bush knew more about it than Cindy Sheehan or the NY Times.
  12. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,045
    Likes Received:
    113
    Ratings:
    +196 / 7 / -23


    Thank you for the profound interpretation, thank god for folks like you Harry, without you we would never understand much of anything.
  13. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    39,217
    Likes Received:
    130
    Ratings:
    +365 / 1 / -9

    I understand that.
  14. mr3putt

    mr3putt Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2007
    Messages:
    1,525
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Because they feared the Rove attack if they did not. These sheep tested the winds of public opinion at the time and determained the risk of failure was more acceptable than the certainty of being voted out.

    War fever...plain and simple.
  15. PatsWSB47

    PatsWSB47 Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2007
    Messages:
    7,793
    Likes Received:
    71
    Ratings:
    +116 / 0 / -1

    #12 Jersey

    I have a strong feeling that you can find senate "warnings" about any past conflict. There were "warnings" about going to Afghanistan and entring World War Two for that matter. The warnings were ignored in those cases. The outcomes were better, so there is no drudging through history to find an "I told you so" Hind sight is 20-20. And RW is correct. These guys who knew it all back then( blah, blah, blah) and are now saying "I was duped"(blah, blah, blah) into voting for the war. I don't know how they can have it both ways.
    Last edited: May 28, 2007
  16. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0


    oh bullsh!t... there was no warning to a threat of widespread, uncontrollable civil war in Afghanistan... regardless, that country is where we were attacked from, so save it on the vague rhetoric...

    WW2 is a totally irrelevant comparison, because it was a completely necessary endeavor.... You see, the Axis was a serious threat to major industrial and western nations.. Iraq was not, never was, never was going to be... David Kay and Hans Blix and their teams told us all that, plain as day...

    and would you bushies please stop squawking the company line that "they all voted for it"... when in fact we all know 23 senators DIDN'T vote for it, and 133 congressmen DIDN'T vote for it...
    Last edited: May 28, 2007
  17. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,844
    Likes Received:
    150
    Ratings:
    +317 / 4 / -2

    Moron Alert!

    [​IMG]

    So you don't see anything wrong with people warning of grave dangers and then, they themsleves ignoring their own warnings and voting for in support of the war? What a dope. Talk about sheep.

    baaaaaaaaaa...... :D
  18. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,844
    Likes Received:
    150
    Ratings:
    +317 / 4 / -2

    The actions of the president go without saying. I don't think I need to express that he is to blame, and that he is to blame far more than any other individual in government. He is the guy holding the torch. My point is the irony in citing a story that says the very people who voted to give this president the authority, warned him, yet still themselves supported the action for which they were concerned. No one in here, or very few people give the president a mulligan for his war, but lots and lots seem to do so for the frauds in the senate. Call a spade a spade is all I'm saying. Of course, it's easy to try to excuse the very people most in here are planning to vote for. It's hard to be honest about the people who voted for action, and are in the running, whereas it's far easier to blame everybody else. Gw's culpability is plain as day.
  19. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,844
    Likes Received:
    150
    Ratings:
    +317 / 4 / -2

    Newsflash, GW, even if he wanted to, could not go to war without approval from the congress and senate. Obviously, if he didn't want to go to war in the first place, he never would have sought such approval, but to give a free pass to the enablers is comical, and disengenuous. It's like giving a gun to someone you know is going to murder with it, and later saying "I warned him that if I gave him the gun he was going to kill someone, but he didn't listen to anyways". GW is hugely at fault here. He is the president, and he was the person calling for action. I can't say it enough times that he is culprit #1.
  20. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,844
    Likes Received:
    150
    Ratings:
    +317 / 4 / -2

    Putt, that is my point. They are culpable. Are they as much to blame as the person who put forth the marching plan to attack? Obviously not. They are up there though, especially if they are all coming out with these "I told you so's". These people are entrusted to make important decisions, and if they can't, they shouldn't be in office. I'm constantly amazed by how many people are willing to give these jokers a free pass. It's why I give credit to those who voted against the war, but very little to those who voted for, and are now of the finger in the wind position.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>