You said: that we agree that there were intelligence failures in the leadup to the Iraq war.

Just to clarify..from my end..there were intelligence failures on Iraq (and elsewhere) that went back well over a DECADE. It wasn’t just a failure in the “run up to the war”. The idea that Iraq had or was developing or hiding WMD was not an illusion created by BushJR to drum up support for a war against Iraq—if that’s the point you are implying with your “run up to the war” bit. The intelligence assesments that Iraq continued to have, hide and develop WMD was not “new” but ongoing, and was relyed on as well by prior admins.

In that regard, I absolutely adhere to the Buck stops here doctrine in this…but for “everyone” and for the entire issues at hand. Not just Bush. I think there was a Buck for the UNSC, and more importantly..for Saddam. I disagree with you entirely that the president didn’t “make an attempt to reasonably inform himself” with intelligence on the matter…given the state of the intelligence that he had available to reasonably inform himself with. That point is expanded if you consider other nations intelligence on Iraq over the years and at the time..not to mention the intelligence that was used by preivous admins. I’m just making the point…that the intelligence that Saddam had WMD, continued to persue efforts to obtain WMD, had WMD progrms AND weapons that he was trying to conceal was not some “new” paradigm in intelligence that happened when Bush Jr took office.

Nor is there any evidence you can point to..that some new paradigm shift in intelligence on Iraq appeared after Bush took office that had the president been mildly curious..he would have discovered. I take that as your opinion…(which is fine). However, pardon me if I do not take your opinion as fact that I have somehow overlooked… That’s just me

We didn’t fly over Iraq, bomb it, then present our faulty intelligence as justification for it. There are plenty of BDS arguments based on this premise. The president brought a case through the UNSC backed by an authorization for use of force from the senate to hold Saddam and the UNSC feet to the fire under resolution 1441 to either settle these disarmament issues once and for all…or Saddam was going bye-bye. It was always understood that the US was coming into this with a resolution for use of force of it’s own. That wasn’t a secret. The charges against Saddam laid out in 1441 were also not new..nor somehow based on our “faulty” intelligence or J wilson’s trip to Niger. It was the same “old’ case.

One can most certainly (and many did) argue that given the situation as it was during the inspections, etc..that it should have been allowed to continue …despite it not necessarily following what 1441 dictated..for any number of reasons. That we should have just changed our position and let things go on for a while. Others argued that this was the entire problem in the past and was the process and very reason every previous resolution and inspection process had failed to bring this to a close. That’s why 1441 language was explicit and why it was decided before ever going into it…that any deviation from those provisions would constitute a “breech” (it was written that way in the resolution).

Now..it is ultimately the presidents call…whether or not to yank that chain..even though he was otherwise empowered and authorized to do so. The buck does stop right there. Any number of arguments could made on “that’ front. But, Blood for oil…Bush lied thousands died..etc..those are campaign slogans and mantras of the nutroots —not that we don’t have a few of them in congress too. I appreciate you not using them (although quoting Jason (Rove’s indicted) Leopold comes a close 2nd).

As much as some people and/or nations wanted Saddam to be in compliance for this to get settled, etc….there was just no way to have someone else make Saddam do anything..nor do it for him. I won’t even mention here Oil for Food and other national interests in Iraq and UNSC voting on issues relating to Iraq. Saddam had to do it. And the Buck stopped there with him as well.

If you’d like to discuss the resolution 1441 or the authorization for use of force…or the senate committe hearing, the ISG group findings or etc….I’m more than happy to oblige. I enjoy it actually.

…wondering if you have even read my posts here?

Could be, if by “here” you mean in some threads. I don’t recall. I definitely did read your post on this thread; but as to others, frankly, I haven’t bookmarked you, or postited myself to keep up to date on your musings. Was I supposed to?

That said (and confessing I still haven’t rummaged around in other threads to see what you’ve written) I’m afraid I may not be following what your main points are, in this thread, in your recent lengthy posting. Still, we apparently agree that there were major intelligence community failures in the lead-up to the Iraq war. We disagree on the degree of culpability of Bush and his closest associates on their own failings (including the failure to reasonably inform themselves on matters of highest state importance). You apparently do not subscribe to the “the buck stops here” doctrine, or don’t take is seriously. So be it. It takes all kinds.

Or that maybe..somehow..if those 16 words weren’t in that speech…we’d have not gone to war?

Of course not, but more to the point, why would you suggest that I’d hold such a position? Did you not read my post (on this thread) ? Did you not see the words (e.g.) What is clear is that Bush, and his cohorts, were “curiously un-curious” about arriving at an accurate understanding of the WMD question, and in communicating a reasonably fair and accurate picture thereof to the American Public (for example).
As you point out, many many aspects of the SOTU re: Iraq turned out to be total hogwash, and the hogwashisity of many of these was reflected in (for example) the NIE itself — in the “dissents”. The Administration, however, was not interested in sussing out the truth, but rather in taking the steps which seemed politically expedient to achieve its goal. That is, war with Iraq. The record really is remarkably clear.
While many in the Bush camp are fond of favorably comparing GWB to Churchill, clearly Bush suffers greatly in any such excercise which is approached with even moderate rigor. He is a fundamentally dis-interested president, with (for example) marked-to-severe deficits in intellectual curiosity and rigor (and elsewhere). (Equally clearly he has his strengths, particularly in the realm of domestic politickin’ (tho how much of these strenghts is Bush and how much Rove is somewhat of an open question in my mind)).
Anyhoo, in response to what is arguably one of the the most bollixed up intelligence failures in US History, and, indeed, with regards to one of the most mis-planned and unthought-thru invasions in our history, how does the man at the top deal with such failures ? Not well. The list is long, but its germ is reflected in Bush’s awarding the Medals of Freedom to Tenet and Franks. Talk about self-satire. Hilarious (at least if you keep the deaths and blood and destruction out of mind).
Hopefully, sensible steps have been taken at bureaucratic levels to effectively address the institutional failings. As to the failings at the political level, well, I guess we’ll just have to wait and see what the electorate does next time around. (I see little evidence that in the current administration itself, any serious re-evaluation and re-adjustment of perspective or approach or seriousness has been undertaken in this regard.)
And so it goes.

I posted a link to Tenet’s actual press statement (the one quoted in the CNN article) a while back. (ie..the original one from the cia website). I used it, along with senate testimony, Tenets actual statements, etc..(including page numbers in some cases).

The entire yellowcake issue…appears to have not only resonated with the admin in the runup to the war…but obviously with Wilson..and everyone else..who continues today..to lump “all” of our WMD issues with Iraq post 9/11…and after over a decade of dealing with him….into 16 words that Wilson debunked..therefore destroying the president’s case for war. As convenient as that is..it’s a ridiculous argument.

In the SOTU, Bush covered “many” things. But, just for the record and review so we’ll have a reference point, this is the relevant portion on WMD in Iraq in the ’03 SOTU :

The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax — enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn’t accounted for that material. He’s given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.

Now..just for the record here..all of those things were in the NIE. I would like for you to just read that ..and recognize that every single one of those things…were WRONG. Dead wrong. Did Tenet issue a press release on why there was no 500 something tons of VX in Iraq, etc? Did he issue a press release on the fact that their alum tube theory was completely false? How about on the mobile labs? Bio toxins? No? Of course, the only reason Tenet had to write a full page press release about “yellowcake” and 16 words of this speech buried between tons of chem and bio and etc..is because of Wilson’s media campaign that it was a lie. That’s why.

NONE of the other things turned out to be true either. If you want to talk about what a humiliating embarassment of the most massive intelligence failure in our history, the president’s curiosity and those 16 words..are the least of it. Some feel compelled to make an argument that is was in fact..the crux of the matter. Or that maybe..somehow..if those 16 words weren’t in that speech…we’d have not gone to war? Take a look at it yourself in context. It’s a ridiculous argument to make.

I won’t even mention..as Tenet you have quoted/linked above outright says, that it was “his” and the intelligence communities job to give the president the best information they had. It was their responsiblity..not the presidents. And if they had concerns..it was “their” responsibility to see that the president was made aware of those concerns in the assesments that they gave him, (which they didn’t by Tenet’s own admission) and as reported and assessed by the senate hearing investigations.

Point two, you have Libby trying to defend Cheney, Fleischer, Rove, and probably Laura Bush. Just because a grand jury found that Libby committed one act of perjury doesn’t mean that there was a big conspiracy to smear Wilson and Plame. And a grand jury indictment doesn’t mean that Libby is, in fact, guilty. So before you go overboard in your statements, pull in your horns a little bit. If evidence on a conspiracy does develope, I will be more than happy to agree with you.

Some Bill’s Bites posts, some things I excerpted and linked but I’m sending you to the original post. I may rearrange the order of the links within this post as I add new things that I think belong above the…

Thanks for the factcheck link. Someone really oughta shoot them a note, because that particular piece is really substandard.

A lotta different points could be made in this regard, but I don’t have the time now to do a bang-up job. You might, however, start with Tenet’s July 11 ’03 statement ( http://edition.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/11/tenet.statement/), and e.g., the June 03 Ford Memo (at, e.g., http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/printer_012307J.shtml).

Personally, I’m not convinced that there’s any smoking guns re: Bush “knowing” that the “16 words” (for example) were false. This is partially because the whole concept of “Bush knowing” (anything) is somewhat problematical, since he really does seem to operate on Colbertian “truthiness” matrix.

What is clear is that Bush, and his cohorts, were “curiously un-curious” about arriving at an accurate understanding of the WMD question, and in communicating a reasonably fair and accurate picture thereof to the American Public (for example). [For example, neither Bush nor Rice read the 2002 NIE, for heaven's sake! These are the people at the top of the ladder, and any responsible exercise of their offices called for much more hands on involvement and pursuit of truth than was forthcoming; hell, this would be the case in circumstances considerably less profound than those that they were proffering up to the Country, its citizens and servicemen (not to mention the Iraqis) -- that is - they were proposing to launch a campaign of mass killing (war). Doesn't get much more serious than that, yet the Administration was interested in "selling" the policy (war), rather than actually justifying it/arriving at it, in good faith, and as a true "last resort". Very sad.]

(That’s not to say that there weren’t numerous “innocent” foul-ups and incompetencies at play, on a “non-political” level as well (e.g., in the intelligence agencies (the CIA especially)).
Finally, tho I suspect (rightly or wrongly) that you’d be wholly uninterested in the following book, you might want to play devil’s advocate for a while, and afford yourself the opppotunity of reading Corn & Issikoff’s Hubris. Quite excelllent, overall.

The only thing Tenet has said about the 16 words was…that the lang was cleared by people in the CIA. That at the time it was cleared, the language was factually accurate. But, that in hindsite this should not have been the test for inclusion in the President’s speech. The CIA backtracked on their own approval of the language..and the WH subsequently withdrew the statement. NONE of that supports the notion that people knew of the CIA concerns all along, were told it was debunked or that the language was not accurate..but used it anyway.

Of course…to the trial of Libby this has no bearing. But, it does present some pretty interesting questions don’t you think?
Yes..what difference does it make that Wilson himself may have known all along that the VP’s office had nothing to do with why he was selected for this trip and that he himself knew that Iraqi’s had sought uranium? ROTFL.

http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html

Do you disagree with them as well Soothsayer?

American Thinker’s Clarice Feldman notes the crumbling timeline in the Plame Game:
“From the outset, Joseph Wilson IV has insisted he was sent to Niger at the Vice President’s behest. As more facts about the trip became known and the …

1. George Tenet advised Bush & Co. to remove the 16 words from an earlier speech because they were misrepresentative. Somehow, they found themselve back into the SOTU speech – slightly altered. It was not an unconscious mistake.

2. When the Grand Jury indicted I. Lewis Libby, it found probable cause (i.e., more likely than not) that he had committed the crimes of lying to federal investigators, perjuring himself before said Grand Jury and obstructing justice. And the Grand Jurors looked at a whole lot of evidence before indicting.

While it is true that he has not been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (as yet, anyway), my dictionary says:

demonstrate: to show by reasoning; explain by example

Arguably, Libby\’s crimes weredemonstrated by Patrick Fitzgerald to the Grand Jury.

Gotta agree with Sooth on this one. Makes no difference, either for the trial-at-hand, or for “the bigger picture”. (Quasi-)-interesting detail, perhaps, but apart from the question of arriving at a punctilious account of the history – it’s meaningless. (Didja even *read* the York piece ?)

AJ, what does it matter if Wilson’s 1999 report on Niger prompted the Vice President’s question? If anything, this should improve Wilson’s credibility with respect to the possibility that Iraq had approached Niger with requests for yummy yellowcake.

Similarly with Byron Yorks’ startling revelation that Plame’s e-mail suggesting Wilson re-visit Niger may have pre-dated by one day the CIA briefing to Cheney that prompted Wilson’s trip.

Plame may well have suggested another trip based merely upon information circulating about the yellowcake document. Perhaps if Cheney had not made his inquiry the CIA would not have deemed the controversy important enough to warrant a special trip; ergo, although Plame had already made the suggestion, it was Cheney’s inquiry that actually triggered it. But – the point is – IT DOESN’T MATTER.

It doesn’t matter with respect to the 16 words in the SOTU, because Tenet had debunked the yellowcake story months before.

It doesn’t matter who or what prompted Wilson’s trip, because the simple underlying facts remain the same:

1. Bush’s SOTY contained a story that was known to be false; and

2. Libby lied to investigators and under oath to the Grand Jury in order to cover-up the anti-Wilson campaign launched and coordinated from Cheney’s office, and including Libby, Rove, McClellan and Fleischer.

You are trying to play Gotcha! style journalism, but wiggle it around as you may, it doesn’t change the essentials of the sordid affair.