Only Crazy People Think The Bush Administration Deceived America Into War
Tweet
Never mind the evidence
A January 2003 CIA report raised doubts about claims that al Qaeda sent operatives to Iraq to acquire chemical and biological weapons — dramatic assertions that were repeated weeks later by then-Secretary of State Colin Powell to the United Nations in making the case for the invasion of Iraq.
Not surprisingly, the fake president is going to use a speech that should be honoring the troops for Veteran’s Day to “hit back” at Democrats over Iraq. If it’s anything like the other 3,422,612 speeches he’s given on Iraq I don’t expect anything new or substantive.
RELATED: Most Americans Say Bush Not Honest. Wonder why?
34 Responses to “Only Crazy People Think The Bush Administration Deceived America Into War”
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
What Time Is Super Bowl 2012 (Super Bowl XLVI)?
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
And that speech will be covered as something new and important, when it is nothing but the ultimate dog-bites-man story.
From the realted link:
Many of those who approve of Bush’s job performance cited his Christian beliefs and strong values, the second biggest reason for support after backing his policies.
IOW, the 38% of Americans who still support this clown are those who buy into the Jehovah-talks-to-George shit.
Summary:
- In February 2002, about a year before the invasion, a “a senior military trainer for al Qaeda in Afghanistan” said that al Qaeda operatives had gone to Iraq to try to get weapons. At the time, some analysts, though apparently not all, thought that he was lying.
- Two years later, a year after the invasion, the informant recanted his claim.
That hardly rises to the level of “The Bush Administration Deceived America Into War.” Used faulty intelligence? Apparently yes. Deceived America? Not supported by the facts.
BD…
He ignored anything that contradicted that intelligence…
Virtually all intelligence, good or bad, has contrary indications of some sort that must be weighed and evaluated to decide upon an ultimate assessment. If the balance tips one way, then has the info on the other side been “ignored,” or has it simply been outweighed by contrary indications? I will not repeat the endless dog-chase-tail debate I had on this subject a few days ago, but the fact is that Bush was presented by his principle intelligence provider with an assessment that Iraq had WMD.
Let’s let go of the phrase “deceived America” for just a second and see what we end up with.
Bush used faulty intelligence and then turned it into a case for war. He ignored anything that contradicted that intelligence and then left those details out when he told the American public why we needed to invade Iraq.
The result? Thousands of dead and wounded Americans and Iraqis, not to mention soldiers from other countries, who apparently went over not because of “deception,” let’s say, but a “mistake.”
A businessman who makes an egregious blunder costing his company thousands upon thousands of dollars gets fired. Why does a man whose blunder (again, if not “deception”) cost thousands upon thousands of lives get to still play at respectability?
BD,
You guys can try and rewrite hsitory forever and it won’t work. How do you know Bush ignored anyhting that contradicted any intelligence. Do you think intelligence is always precise and never contradictory ? Usually, senior analysts wind up having to make educated guesses as to what a situation is – based often on conflicting data and data sources. And then that data is passed to policy advisors who interpret it and then advise the president – who has to make a decision at some point and does not have the luxury of hindsight. Its never perfect – witness the Clinton Libyan bombing. You hate Bush and so you take the same set of circumstances every president has to deal with and somehow try to make it appear Bush did something especially wrong. Nope. Won’t cut it. Criticize the decison all day, if you wish; criticize the war, if you wish; but don’t conflate complexity and murkiness with dishonesty and bad intentions.
Dugger
Hate’s an awfully strong word, Dugger. The few people in my life who have earned my hate have had to do a lot worse to me than Bush has done. Do try to remember that the next time you toss that word at me so cavalierly.
I disagree with Bush and think his policies have led this country down a dangerous track. Your shorthand for that is “hate.” But that’s your word, not mine.
Your parsing of words like “deceive” and “ignore” doesn’t change the fact that the intelligence was faulty and our government took us to war over it.
…and no, just the mention of the words “Veteran’s Day” in the above post doesn’t count. I would really like to see you acknowledge the sacrifice of our men and women who have/are serving in a post devoted to them. How about it Oliver?
Oliver,
Since I know that you are a “big” supporter of our troops (just not the war) how about some acknowledgment for them on Veteran’s Day in a post. We have alot of troops in harms way right now and I know you will join me in thanking all those who have served their country in the past to keep this the greatest nation on earth.
THANKS VETERANS!
Dugger –
Here’s the difference. There were conflicting positions on just about every major piece of pre-war intelligence: the aluminum tubes, the mobile weapons labs, Hussein’s links ot al Qaeda, Iraq’s attempt to purchase uranium. Yes. Every president has to make decisions based on contingent intelligence but there’s a couple of differences here. The Bush administration never once gave the American people the impression that there was contrary evidence. I wonder, even, how many Senators and Congressional leaders knew that there was conflicting evidence. Apparently, not a lot did. But here’s another difference: We had inspectors on the ground in Iraq. They were there to confirm or debunk the intelligence and it was beginning to look like they weren’t going to find anything, certainly not stockpiles of munitions or nuclear facilities. Rather than let those inspectors complete their jobs, Bush decided to go to war before they could finish their inspections. That isn’t a decision I can recall any president in my lifetime making: The decision to fore go evidence in favor of guesswork. How can you justify this decision? The only way the Bush administration could justify it was to play up the idea that Hussein was an immediate and direct threat to the United States which was never true at any point. This country has been led into war by lies on numerous too many times in its history: The Spanish American War and Vietnam being the two most obvious examples. Isn’t it about time we, as a people, started holding our leaders accountable for this crime?
>>You hate Bush and so you take the same set of circumstances every president has to deal with and somehow try to make it appear Bush did something especially wrong.
Something especially wrong? What the HELL are you smoking? When you commit the sons and daugheters of America, you had better damn well measure 252 times before you cut.
He either lied (impeachable) or he made one of the biggest mistakes in the history of our nation, as did the Congress who voted to support this quagmire. Not Clinton….not Reagan….not Bush I….the CURRENT President.
Yes, we hate Bush, Dugger. That’s all this is. I guess it has NOTHING to do with the fact that we have 2,000 dead troops on our hands, and no end in sight. It has nothing to do with the fact that when no WMD were forthcoming, they “spun” the rationale for the war every which way to soften the blow. It has nothing to do with “Mission Accomplished.” It has nothing to do with Libby, and Rove, and that whole coverup.
This war has Vietnam written all over it. Lies piled on top of lies until the pile is so high that the American public is finally waking up and saying no more.
WE CAN NOT WIN THIS WAR. We have ALREADY LOST.
Come up with an exit strategy to try to save a little face, and get the hell out. Bring our boys home. Anything short of that dishonors them and the memories of those who gave the ultimate sacrifice in the service of our nation.
I don’t know why you’re holding on the way you do, but I find it almost grotesque.
JK
Zorro;
I will join you in saying thanks to the troops. They are fantastic and give me hope that the young in this country are not all spoiled, self-centered materialists. They represent the best of what we have to offer.
I also understand words are not sufficient and support continued, UNCUT
veterans benefits when they return home.
Rewriting history is pretending Saddam and his WMD’s weren’t created by the USA in the first place by a better Republican administration than this one. Not that “better” is saying much.
BD,
I try not to get personal (except I failed recently with JadeGold) so if I unfairly targeted you was a hater, I do apologize. I do think the left in general hates Bush and do not back away from that at all. And I do think it has become fashionbale, not just acceptable, to hate Bush on the left. But that cannot (on my part) e applied to any individual on the left w/o that individual having given true evidence of it.
And I think some ‘parsing’ is called for because when you say they used faulty intelligence, you never specify ‘untintentionally’. You leave the context unspecified – which is virtually every president has probably used faulty intelligence, that generally most intelligence is faulty to one degree or another.
JK,
Your rant is mostly nonsense.
frame,
No. There is almost always conflicting intelligence – not just on this war. The whole process of intelligence is at its core making educated guesses about what is right and what isn’t. And the president doesn’t do that. He has ‘experts’ to do that. You are conflating dueling news reports with intel. We don’t know what the intel said or says. And some senators of both sides see a lot of classified and if there were some magic way for a high-up executive to know more than intel professionals (as you seem to think Bush should have) then they also ‘should have’. And I don’t buy the argument Bush acted prematurely. Thre is always ALWAYS something pending that you can wait for. Nothing is ever fully resolved in the way of intelligence. At some point, one has to act.
I have no problem with criticizing the wisdom of the war, or the President’s judgment. I think some is due, actually. But I think it is destructively foolish and naive to believe that there was some ultreior motive that prompted lying and duplicity, some oil cabal or other such nonsense behind the bipartisan decison to go to war. Why can’t you just criticize the decison on its merits rather than guessing at the motives – of an admitted political opponent.
Dugger
For all those conservatives who support our veterans, could you please respond to a recent press release from the 1.3 million-member, non-profit advocacy group, Disabled American Veterans:
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=56522
Contact: David E. Autry of Disabled American Veterans, 202-314-5219
WASHINGTON, Nov. 10 /U.S. Newswire/ — A proposal to end the long-standing practice of veterans groups addressing a joint session of the House and Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committees is an insult to all who have fought, sacrificed and died to defend the Constitution, according to the Disabled American Veterans (DAV). And in a strongly worded letter to House Veterans’ Affairs Committee Chairman Steve Buyer (R-Ind.), the DAV has urged him to continue the joint hearings as an invaluable tool in formulating public policy toward America’s veterans.
Chairman Buyer recently announced that veterans service organizations will no longer have the opportunity to present testimony before a joint hearing of the House and Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committees.
“The tradition of legislative presentations by veterans service organizations dates back to at least the 1950s. And the timing of this announcement — just before Veterans Day — could not have been worse,” said DAV National Commander Paul W. Jackson.
For several decades now, these joint hearings have been held each year to allow the elected leaders of veterans groups to discuss their organization’s legislative agenda and foremost concerns with the lawmakers who have jurisdiction over federal veterans programs. Senators and Representatives who serve on those committees also get the rare opportunity to address the hundreds of constituent members from these organizations’ who make the annual pilgrimage to Capitol Hill.
“The right to fully participate in the democratic process is a cornerstone of our nation,” said Commander Jackson. “Eliminating these joint hearings is an insult to the men and women who have fought, sacrificed and died to protect our Constitutional rights, including the right to petition the government.”
This important dialog between veterans and their elected representatives is crucial to the democratic process and a unique opportunity for the men and women who’ve put their lives on the line for America. Many of the veterans who take part in the hearings view it as their patriotic duty, as well as a fundamental right.
More info on the issue here:
http://thinkprogress.org/2005/11/10/veterans-day-outrage/
Dugger –
I should note that I’m finding it increasingly difficult to take you seriously in the wake of the Fiztgerald indictments as you continute to cling to your own unsubstantiated beliefs in the face of Fitzgerald’s own statements and evidentiary findings. You seem like a reasonable guy, so I’m at a loss to understand why you seem so willing to piss away your credibility over this issue. Just once, I’d like to see you respond directly to Fitzgerald’s own words and findings. Here, once again, are two of the most relevant:
1: The indictment returned today alleges that the efforts of the grand jury to investigate such a leak were obstructed when Mr. Libby lied about how and when he learned and subsequently disclosed classified information about Valerie Wilson.
2: Valerie Wilson s cover was blown in July 2003. The first sign of that cover being blown was when Mr. Novak published a column on July 14th, 2003.
Again, tell me Fitzgerald doesn’t really mean what he’s saying in both these direct quotes.
Dugger –
Nice try, Dugs, but I never onced guessed at Bush’s motives or suggested they were “ulterior” in the above post. I am criticizing the decision on its merits: He went to war prematurely, it turns out, based on faulty intelligence. Indeed, you add another reason why this war was wrong. It sounds to me like you’re saying the intelligence community decided what intelligence was solid and only gave that intelligence to the president. Given what we now know, that sounds like the president wasn’t given all the information he needed to make an informed decision about taking this nation to war. That’s pretty fucked up Dugger don’t you think? Don’t you think the president should know if there’s a dissenting voice somewhere? Don’t you think the president should have demanded to know if there was some analyst somewhere saying hold up, wait a second, this may not be accurate? War should always be a last resort. Until the president has EVERY relevant piece of information and analysis, how can he make a last resort kind of decision like that? How can you say that Bush didn’t act prematurely? Inspectors were on the ground but they weren’t allowed to complete their job. It’s a little lame to say that “there is always something pending” when in this case the something pending was evidence that would have prevented the war. The one mechanism we had in our control for preventing war, Bush cut short. He couldn’t have waited a month or two more weeks in the name saving this country and the world from a potential disaster, the likes of which is now unfolding? The only argument to support Bush’s decision to go to war is to argue that Iraq was an immediate, direct threat and that more time would have put America at risk. Are you arguing that even the intelligence we had at the time suports that notion?
Don’t forget that 133 members of Congress, representing millions of citizens, voted not to give Bush the de facto go-ahead to invade Iraq. Bush did not convince everyone, and they stated so at the time they cast their nay votes.
Now, the Cheney Administration is essentially blaming Democrats for trusting Bush (talk about a lame excuse). But there were many who did not beleve the administration’s exaggerations in the first place.
I have to laugh at Dugger, the body count apologist. My rant is nonsense?
All you’re doing is intellectualizing a bunch of right-wing B.S.
So Bush didn’t either lie, or make accept mistaken intelligence in leading us to war? It HAS to be one or the other. No grey area on this one, Dugger. Why don’t you grow a pair and answer the question for crying out loud? You can be SUCH a damn “wishy washy” weenie.
>> At some point, one has to act.
You hypocrites sure weren’t saying that when Reno busted down the doors in Waco.
JK
To further illustrate, in the hierarchy of threats we now have:
1. An immediate threat
2. An imminent threat
3. A before imminent threat
4. Before before imminent threat
And I presume only Dick Cheney knows the difference between each one.
“… better to attack BEFORE they were an imminent threat …”
So what you’re saying then is that there was no real reason at all for attacking Iraq. Because if our conditions for pre-emptive war is to attack a country before it becomes a threat, well, isn’t that potentially every country on the planet? Or is there some particular window within which Iraq fell that countries like Syria, Iran, North Korea and China are only at present heading towards? Plus I think if you look around you can find plenty of evidence of Cheney and others on Sunday talk shows dancing around the adjectives of “imminent,” “immediate,” “grave and gathering” etc. to imply exactly that: Iraq was an immediate threat so we needed to attack.
Re: Wilson, the question is not whether Fitz charged Libby with the crime of leaking classified information. The facts are that Fitz knows Libby leaked classified information about Valerie Wilson but didn’t charge him because he couldn’t prove intent. I don’t know how many times I have to directly quote Fitz contradicting everything else you just wrote. So I’ll take that “IMO” as the measure against which to judge all your future arguments: You prefer your opinions to the facts. Thanks for finally settling that for me.
frame
We don’t know if the intelligence is faulty becasue we don’t whta the intelligence actually was. At least I don’t. Liberal news reports say its faulty. Maybe you believe they know. And why and how can you asume the Pres did not hear dissenting voices. I just stated my belief, based on my own experience, that there are always dissenting voices, dfiffering takes and differing positon on a given issue. Do you know otherwise or were you just asuuming ill of Bush?
“The only argument to support Bush s decision to go to war is to argue that Iraq was an immediate, direct threat and that more time would have put America at risk”
Really! The only argument? Seems to me I read that the Admin argued that they felt that if war appeared necessary, better to attack BEFORE they were an imminent threat, before they had nukes. Those arguments make sense to me – as arguments. Sure you’re right about that ‘only” . See what I mean. You always knee jerk into Bush doing something wrong and never consider sane alternatives.
And I have no idea what you are talking about re Fitz. He didn’t indict on leaking despite that being his primary puprpose. That would suggest he could not make a case against any one for leaking. Yet we know Val’s CIA job was tossed about here and there. Ever once, just once, wonder why? I suspect quite strongly that it was becasue there was no leak in the period we are talking about. The Plame CIA cat had already been out of the bag for sometime IMO.
JK,
Rant is appropriate. Didn’t see much evidence of thought behind your post. Lot of emotion, though. Unless you consider the mind reading “Bush lied” thought. Now I can’t read minds and if you can and know Bush lied, why congratulations.
Your wording is a little garbled but I don’t think Bush lied and have never seen anything I consider a lie. But if you (posssibly) meant to write could he have accepted or used faulty intelligence, then the answer is: yes, that may have have happened, but we don’t know. And there is a world of diffrence between accepting what George Tenet says is fact and trusting it (even though it ultimately turns out to be bad intelligence) as opposed to somehow knowing the CIA is wrong and still going with their bad data. Maybe you are suggesting the Clinton appointed Tenet also lied?
Its just like JC OJ conspiracy. When you start to think about how many random people had to be in on that conspiracy it gets ridiculous. Same here.
Dugger
Virtually all intelligence, good or bad, has contrary indications of some sort that must be weighed and evaluated to decide upon an ultimate assessment.
The point Scratch misses or is ignoring, is the CIA knew–before the war–this intelligence source was suspect. Additionally, this supported the earlier conclusions of the DIA who believed the source wasn’t credible.
Let’s not forget AWOL George agrees that was should be a last resort. If that’s true–doesn’t it make sense to ensure your evidence is pretty overwhelming and not based on rather shaky intel.
Somebody used the analogy of a CEO above. Most successful CEOs will base their critical decisions on solid, demonstrable evidence. The unsuccessful CEOs will always suspend their misgivings in hope of a promised return.
frame,
“So what you re saying then is that there was no real reason at all for attacking Iraq. Because if our conditions for pre-emptive war is to attack a country before it becomes a threat, well, isn t that potentially every country on the planet?”
No. Im’ not saying that at all. I do have doubts about the wisdom of the war. I’m merely reiterating wht the Admin, exclusive of the ‘Bush lied” type paranoia, has said. I’m also saying what I believe could be logical arguments for the war, but not necessarily correct ones and ones not predicated on Republican or Bush venality.
There are strong cases for and against preventitive war. To a large extent, what we did in Germany WWII was preventive war- insofar as this country was concerned.
The concept of preventive war is a little more than your simplistic reduction. One would make practical determinations based on need for war to begin with, potential human and dollar cost etc. The Admin and Congress, including Sens edwards, Kerry and Rockefeller, decided that the conditions were right in Iraq. Afterwards, liberals have decided that Bush lied but that their senators were merely mistaken.
Dugger
C’mon JK. The big people are talking. And banging your head against the wall is going to send one young man to bed early, with a big TIME OUT.
See, the big people said it was possible for the intelligence to be faulty, but for them not to know its faulty. Sometimes ssomething called judgment is involved. And we don’t what the intelligence is or was, because its classified and it might be murky anyway. And just about all adults in both parties are on record as saying there were WMDs and that Saddam needed to go. Even the previous adminstration and many Bush haters. You’ll understand when you get big. The world is not like a Mike Moore fairy tale.
Dugger
Dugger, how is possible that you remain so unemotional about 2,000 American troop deaths?
JK “Spock”
>>But if you (posssibly) meant to write could he have accepted or used faulty intelligence, then the answer is: yes, that may have have happened, but we don t know.
DUGGER. WE DON’T KNOW??????
THERE ARE NO WMD.
(Bangs head against wall.)
I am done with you. (I miss Frank.)
JK
To a large extent, what we did in Germany WWII was preventive war- insofar as this country was concerned.
More fractured history from Dugger.
Of course, Dugger fails to note several important facts:
1. Germany declared war on the US first;
2. In reality, Germany had engaged the US for several years before 1941 by attacking US merchant shipping and sinking a USN destroyer in Oct ’41.
“And just about all adults in both parties are on record as saying there were WMDs and that Saddam needed to go.”
Okay. If we start with the premise it’s still true that everyone in both parties was wrong. Why? Does anyone on the Right really care to know that answer? Because here’s the deal: We know now that there were plenty of people in the intelligence community that had grave reservations and doubts about the veracity of much of the pre-war intelligence.
I grant you the desire to always err on the side of caution when American lives are at stake. I agree with that. But how does that enter into it if Hussein was not an immediate threat? If he wasn’t an immediate threat, certainly there was time to verify some of this intelligence, weigh evidence, hear out both sides in order to make a sounder, fact-based decision about which interpretation of the data we should go with.
Dugger asserts, however, that Iraq wasn’t an immediate threat. It was only threatening to become an immediate threat. But the distinction doesn’t really matter, does it, because in both cases it was decided that immediate invasion was the only course of action. Indeed, no matter how far out the intelligence might have pushed Hussein’s alleged threat to the US, a year, two years, a decade, the time for further analysis and inspections was over. Action had to happen immediately. So right there, the Right is playing it fast and loose. No matter how we describe Hussein’s threat, his threat always demands immediate action and immediate action automatically curtails any further investigation into whether or not the threat to the US was real.
Dugger and the Right further assert that there’s no way we can ever achieve absolute certainty in any intelligence issue. I agree with that. But is absolute certainty really what we’re talking about here? What we’re really talking about is why, when faced with two opposite interpretations of data, the interpretation that supported the rational for invasion was always given credence over other interpretations. Which brings us back to the err on the side of caution principle. But again, this only really holds water if time really had run out and that action had to be taken immediately. Of course, the Right set it up so that there was no way you could describe the degree of Iraq’s threat, that didn’t justify immediate action which immediately curtailed any attempt to even move toward greater certainty (not absolute certainty, just a little greater certainty) about the pre-war intelligence.
This isn’t the reason of adults, Dugger, it’s the circular thought process of the insane.
Damn, bravo, Frame!
frame,
You are all wet. It takes along time to plan a military operation, so a big operation is never an “immediate” thing. It has to be planned months ahead to be done right. It takes a lot of time and money to preposition supplies (many will have to go by boat), munitions, support personnel etc. So you at some point, way ahead, in a major operation (as Iraq was), have to commit to to a date. That date should be a date that suits you (it will help save American lives) – not the enemy. Arguing about the timing of the invasion of Iraq is a loser. Argue about the necessity if you want and the wisdom, but the timing loses for you.
“always given credence over other interpretations”
And you have no idea of this is true. You just pulled it out of your nether regions because it suits your bias of “bad Bush”. You have no idea what interpretations were and were not given credence. Be honest. You assumed evil on the part of Bush.
It always get down to never really arguing the merits of the war but rather the “motivations” of the Republicans (only).
Dugger
In RE: The DAV Press Release*
From the Army Times
* They are a tad more than an “advocacy group”; they’re an organization of Disabled Veterans. No, I have nothing against them — I’m a life member.
Dugger –
Once again you miss the point. Indeed, I’m not even sure what your point is. Why did we invade Iraq when we did? Why not wait a little longer to get even more prepared? It was Rumsfeld who said you go to war with the army you have, not the army you want. If there was no urgency why not wait until we had the army we wanted? Why not give it a few more months to get more equiptment in place to deal with more possible contigencies like, say, a guerilla style insurgency?
Bush’s sooner rather than later argument about the timing of the invasion was designed to preclude all discussion about necessity. That’s my whole point. We were told that we had to go to war before the next smoking gun was a mushroom cloud. The urgency of that claim however cut short the search for any evidence to support that claim. If there was no urgency in the timing, why not let the inspections continue? Here’s my point Dugger: Iraq wasn’t going anywhere. As you put it, it wasn’t even a threat. It was only threatening to become a threat. So why not give the inspectors more time? It’s hilarious and sad that you bring up saving US soldiers lives. What could have saved more American lives than letting the inspections continue until we discovered what we now know: Iraq had no WMDs and no active WMD programs?
And I certainly do know it’s true that the analysis supporting invasion was always given credence over analysis because we did indeed go to war in the face of contradictory evidence. How could the BUsh administration have given equal weight to the opposing analysis and still decide to go to war? I even give the Bush administration the benefit of the doubt that it might have found both sides equally compelling but it ultimately decided to err on the side of caution and invade. I am not arguing that Bush had evil intentions. I’m simply pointing out that every way that the Bush and the Right has of looking at the intelligence and Iraq leads to one conclusion: invasion. The only thing that could undercut there reasoning is if the inspectors were allowed to complete their work. For some reason, we absolutely, positiviely had to go to war before they could finish. Tell me why.
From the rest of that article Frank. Way to selectively cut and paste with a bad link:
http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-1246012.php
“But Buyer s plan to end the joint hearings isn t sitting well with some veterans groups, who learned of the plan from him during a meeting at the Army War College at Carlisle Barracks, Pa.
The Paralyzed Veterans of America called Buyer s rationale disingenuous, at best. For four years now, the veterans groups have presented budget testimony in February, allowing ample time for input while Congress is still shaping the budget, according to a Nov. 9 letter PVA wrote to Buyer. Moving up the testimony to where it is so close to the release of the president s budget would not give the groups the chance to address the administration s initiatives.
It is patently evident that the intent of this charade is to eliminate criticism of current and anticipated budget and policy initiatives and to marginalize veterans voices, PVA Associate Executive Director Douglas K. Vollmer wrote.
Moreover, the leaders of the veterans groups testify before the joint session on issues that go beyond the budget and are unique to their respective memberships, Vollmer wrote.
The Disabled American Veterans said hundreds of veterans make the annual trip to Washington for the joint session, giving the lawmakers the rare opportunity to address them in person, according to a DAV news release.
The right to fully participate in the democratic process is a cornerstone of our nation, Disabled American Veterans National Commander Paul W. Jackson said. Eliminating these joint hearings is an insult to the men and women who have fought, sacrificed and died to protect our constitutional rights, including the right to petition the government.
Democrats on the House Veterans Affairs Committee said they will demand Buyer change his mind and hold joint hearings.
But not all groups are unhappy with the plan to end the joint sessions. The Retired Enlisted Association s executive director supported it.
We should be in at the beginning, said TREA s president, retired Air Force Master Sgt. Mark Olanoff, in a new release issued by Buyer s office. This is good.
“It takes along time to plan a military operation, so a big operation is never an immediate thing. It has to be planned months ahead to be done right.”
The other interesting point here is that our preparations for war and the Congressional vote to give the president the option of war was what forced Hussein to allow inspectors back in. Right? So once the inspectors were back and doing their job, why did we not allow them to finish their job? Just tell me, what the administration’s rational was for cutting short the inspections in favor of an ultimatum and invasion? Do you remember what it was?