Bush admits Iraq intelligence error

Monday 09 February 2004, 23:30 GMT

Bush rarely gives television interviews

US President George Bush has admitted the intelligence he used to justify launching war on Iraq was wrong.

In a rare television interview on Sunday with the American NBC network, Bush said his assertion on 17 March that intelligence leaves no doubt Iraq possesses "some of the most lethal weapons ever devised" was incorrect.

But when challenged by interviewer Tim Russert, the president denied he took the nation to war under false pretenses.

"First of all, I expected to find the weapons," he said. "I based my decision on the best intelligence possible, intelligence that had been gathered over the years, intelligence that not only our analysts thought was valid but analysts from other countries thought was valid.

"And I made a decision based upon that intelligence in the context of the war against terror. In other words, we were attacked, and therefore every threat had to be reanalysed...

'War on terror'

"We remembered the fact that he (Saddam Hussein) had used weapons, which meant he had weapons. We knew the fact that he was paying for suicide bombers. We knew the fact he was funding terrorist groups. In other words, he was a dangerous man."

"I think that when you do hard things, when you ask hard things of people, it can create tensions. I'll tell you, though, I'm not going to change.. I won't change my philosophy or my point of view."

President George Bush

Bush also attempted to justify the fact that no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq 10 months after America invaded the country.

He said Iraqi WMDs could have been destroyed during the war, could still be hidden, or could have been transported to another country.

And when asked why people around the world hold him in such contempt, Bush reacted defiantly.

"I think that when you do hard things, when you ask hard things of people, it can create tensions," he said. "I'll tell you, though, I'm not going to change.. I won't change my philosophy or my point of view.

Poll ratings

"I believe I owe it to the American people to say what I'm going to do and do it, and to speak as clearly as I can, try to articulate as best I can why I make decisions I make, but I'm not going to change because of polls. That's just not my nature."

Bush's appearance was a rare foray for the president into the cut-and-thrust of lengthy television interviews.

It comes as US polls suggest his approval rating has dropped below 50%.

Democrat Senator John Kerry, his likely challenger in November presidential polls, also has a lead of five to seven points over Bush according to two recent polls.

I cant wait for the election. Bush is done, stick a fork in him.

I think Bush has been done for quite some time. Between the war and the economy, he has too many problems that he can neither justify, or have the capability to resolve.

And in the last election, the Green Party had many votes that took away from Gore. In this election, so far, Nader isn't running, that should mean a vast percentage of those votes will go to the Democrats.

Thats right! Put another democrat in office. 1 who will back down at every threat against this nation. Sorry! My vote is for Bush. I'll even bet money he'll win. Any takers?

I love how everybody points out that the WMD havent been found, yada yada yada. Guess nobody that does that comprehends the scale of finding something the size of a small car in an entire COUNTRY that also happens to have mountains and caves and ground to dig in and other stuff.

I dont like Bush much, but all the rabid detractors are funny.

Originally posted by Genom
I love how everybody points out that the WMD havent been found, yada yada yada. Guess nobody that does that comprehends the scale of finding something the size of a small car in an entire COUNTRY that also happens to have mountains and caves and ground to dig in and other stuff.

I dont like Bush much, but all the rabid detractors are funny.

Exactly! People who actually believe that WMD wasn't there are nieve.:eek:

I guess the fact that he gassed the Kurds doesn't matter to some? Ah, those must have been weapons of min. destruction.

i don't like Bush because of his sincere lack of concern for our environment, but all in all...yeh the economy stinks, it's getting better, it's called capitalism...this happens no matter WHO is president...think of it as a new football coach...when it's you first "term" you have to learn to fit your predecessors recruites into your plans as well....so just the same a president will have to deal with his/her predecessors policy changes in their term...Clinton served 2 terms...alot was changed that didn't go into effect until Bush took office...and he is also feeling the effects of his fathers term as well...

People always want to place QUICK blame on someone else for their misfortunes....so it's easy to blame Bush for all that is wrong with this country...not fair...as much as I disagree with alot of his policy I think he is TONS better than Gore would have even thought he could be...now that being said...wait a few years and then we'll see how georgy porgy screwed things up...

i'm neither democrat nor republican...i just want someone who is going to GET THE FREAKIN JOB DONE....RIGHT! i'm so tired of all the bitching and complaining between these two parties it has just become sickening and makes us look like idiots among the world...as if we need more of that...

Originally posted by Sea Ray
I guess the fact that he gassed the Kurds doesn't matter to some? Ah, those must have been weapons of min. destruction.

LOL:D

I won't argue with the WMD argument, because at least at one point it is clear that he did have them - between treatment of the Kurds and the Iran/Iraq war.

The fault that I see that Bush has was his lack of willingness to allow UN occupation and support. Our choice to attack without the UN was our own, and as a sovereign I personally see no issue.

But at the expense of our tax money and more debt, why at first was letting the UN help such a horrible idea after the war was over? Especially since this has proved to be the deadliest part of the theatre.

As far as the economy goes, I'll agree that Bush has practically nothing to do with the fluctuations of capitalism. Clinton was lucky to be in office during the technology boom. Since the Federal Reserve, and Greenspan, are independent and not directly controlled by any branch of government, his decisions are free reign. Something that has been hotly debated since the creation of the Fed shortly after the turn of the 20th century (1913, I think).

For Bush, however, his issued tax refund was nothing more than a ploy to gain favor. I don't believe it did anything to kickstart the economy, nor was borrowing the money to issue the refund wise.

Where has the stigmatism come from that Democrats are weak? Kerry and Clarke are definitely not weak, and as individuals proved to be much more courageous than Bush. JFK and FDR were both democrats, were they weak also?

Originally posted by Jeff_pap31s
Thats right! Put another democrat in office. 1 who will back down at every threat against this nation. Sorry! My vote is for Bush. I'll even bet money he'll win. Any takers?

I was going to reply to this at some length, and then I remembered that bernieunger already covered this very subject in another thread, and far better than I could ever hope to. I hope he doesn't mind my repeating his post:

"Good thing we had a Republican to guide us through WW I. Oops, I'm sorry, a bit of mindslip there. that was a democrat.

But, it's a good thing we had a Republican to guide us through the Great Depression. Oops, I'm sorry, Coolidge and Hoover got us into the depression with their wild and business-friendly economic policies. The country was hopelss until we put a democrat in the office.

But it's a good thing we had a Repulican to guide us through WW II when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. Oops, I'm sorry, that was a Democrat that guided us through that rough era. As I recall, big business (remember Ford?) thought that the Nazis were the good guys. In fact, if the Republicans were in office, there's a good chance we might have entered the war ON THE OTHER SIDE!!!!

Hmmm, the Republicans were in office when we concluded the Korean war in half-baked fashion. They were in office when we bailed out of Viet Nam. They were in office when we failed to put Saddam away the first time, which is why we had to come back the second time - just a settling of old scores if the truth be known.

Good thing a Republican was in office to face down Khrushchev during the Cuban missile crisis. Oh my God! That was a New England Flaming Liberal Democrat. A Republican would have simply hired Halliburten in a secret, no-bid contract to build bomb shelters in Florida and through out the Gulf Coast.

For all the conservative talk show blabber on radio, Gore wouldn't have handled the initial rush to Afghanistan any differently than Bush. We would not have shed blood in Iraq. The intel on WMD might have been interpreted through a less political prism. Our boys wouldn't be dying over there. I don't know if that's balanced by getting rid of Saddam or not. The WMD issue is Bush's Gulf of Tonkin. The talk show blabbermouths are about to be surprised in a big way this November when another New England Flaming Liberal Democrat starts to talk common sense about economy, war, medicine, environment and ethics."

Didn't read the aforementioned thread when I posted my response. That one is pretty good. Vietnam may be a stretch, we were never going to win that war. Johnson is even on recently released White House tapes admitting years before that we didn't have a chance.

Originally posted by XeRo
i don't like Bush because of his sincere lack of concern for our environment, but all in all...yeh the economy stinks, it's getting better, it's called capitalism...this happens no matter WHO is president...
I don't like Bush because he's a freakin IDIOT! I just want someone with at least half a brain. I could care less what party they're with. As long as their views are similar to mine and they can speak in full sentences.

I am no flaming liberal but Bush's record has been nothing short of horrible. I don't doubt that he intends to do what is best but his view of what is best leaves much to be desired. The most glaring inadequacy of intelligence sits in the oval office.

Yeah so I'm reading along, not agreeing with some but at least enjoying the dialogue (except for ungers nonsense again), then I get to the "freaking idiot" quote, in bold no less.

You sir, fit the bill if that is the best you can come up with. I'll repeat my post as well:

Democrats know they can't beat Bush, but they intend to enjoy being hysterical about him throughout the campaign. Calling Bush a draft-dodger, which he is not, will join the Democrats' list of other cogent, reasoned arguments, such as "You're stupid" and "Halliburton!"

- Ann Coulter

Sound familiar folks?

Originally posted by Speed-ER doc
Yeah so I'm reading along, not agreeing with some but at least enjoying the dialogue (except for ungers nonsense again), then I get to the "freaking idiot" quote, in bold no less.

You sir, fit the bill if that is the best you can come up with. I'll repeat my post as well:

Democrats know they can't beat Bush, but they intend to enjoy being hysterical about him throughout the campaign. Calling Bush a draft-dodger, which he is not, will join the Democrats' list of other cogent, reasoned arguments, such as "You're stupid" and "Halliburton!"

- Ann Coulter

Sound familiar folks?

Harping on that harpie Ann "Man-Hands" Coulter again, Speedy? Isn't this the same Ann Coulter who called Christine Todd Whitman "a birdbrain"? Jesse Ventura "a loud-mouth Christian bigot"? And said we should just march over to those Arab countries, kill all their leaders, and convert them to Christianity? (Talk about Christian bigots.) I'm not sure she's a real good source for "cogent, reasoned" anything. (Besides, she's wrong. Bush was unelectable in 2000, and he's even more so now.)

Elaborate a little on bernieunger's "nonsense." Is it factually inaccurate? If so, please enlighten us as to the historical truth.

Originally posted by Sea Ray
I guess the fact that he gassed the Kurds doesn't matter to some? Ah, those must have been weapons of min. destruction.

And that was when we should have gone in, not now...

Originally posted by I, Claudius
I was going to reply to this at some length, and then I remembered that bernieunger already covered this very subject in another thread, and far better than I could ever hope to. I hope he doesn't mind my repeating his post:

"Good thing we had a Republican to guide us through WW I. Oops, I'm sorry, a bit of mindslip there. that was a democrat.

But, it's a good thing we had a Republican to guide us through the Great Depression. Oops, I'm sorry, Coolidge and Hoover got us into the depression with their wild and business-friendly economic policies. The country was hopelss until we put a democrat in the office.

But it's a good thing we had a Repulican to guide us through WW II when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. Oops, I'm sorry, that was a Democrat that guided us through that rough era. As I recall, big business (remember Ford?) thought that the Nazis were the good guys. In fact, if the Republicans were in office, there's a good chance we might have entered the war ON THE OTHER SIDE!!!!

Hmmm, the Republicans were in office when we concluded the Korean war in half-baked fashion. They were in office when we bailed out of Viet Nam. They were in office when we failed to put Saddam away the first time, which is why we had to come back the second time - just a settling of old scores if the truth be known.

Good thing a Republican was in office to face down Khrushchev during the Cuban missile crisis. Oh my God! That was a New England Flaming Liberal Democrat. A Republican would have simply hired Halliburten in a secret, no-bid contract to build bomb shelters in Florida and through out the Gulf Coast.

For all the conservative talk show blabber on radio, Gore wouldn't have handled the initial rush to Afghanistan any differently than Bush. We would not have shed blood in Iraq. The intel on WMD might have been interpreted through a less political prism. Our boys wouldn't be dying over there. I don't know if that's balanced by getting rid of Saddam or not. The WMD issue is Bush's Gulf of Tonkin. The talk show blabbermouths are about to be surprised in a big way this November when another New England Flaming Liberal Democrat starts to talk common sense about economy, war, medicine, environment and ethics."


I have said it before, but "AMEN BROTHER" !!!!!!!

Originally posted by bernieunger
For all the conservative talk show blabber on radio, Gore wouldn't have handled the initial rush to Afghanistan any differently than Bush. We would not have shed blood in Iraq. The intel on WMD might have been interpreted through a less political prism. Our boys wouldn't be dying over there. I don't know if that's balanced by getting rid of Saddam or not.
OK I'll bite. These are OPINIONS. Here are some more:

Gore would have pussy-footed around like his mentor Clinton, not done anything except fire a couple of (ineffective, poorly aimed, collateral-damage-causing) cruise missiles at Afghanistan, then sat back and allowed another terrorist attack ON OUR SOIL, causing the deaths of thousands of non-military Americans with bloodshed IN AMERICA.

Our boys, and girls, and children would be dying OVER HERE.

Saddam is gone because of Bush, you ungrateful people.

Do you like those opinions better? They are JUST AS VALID.

They may have been in office when we bailed out of vietnam, but don't go placing the blame on us. A Dem got us into that mess, plus don't get me started on the cuban missile crisis and the bay of pigs.

Originally posted by Speed-ER doc
OK I'll bite. These are OPINIONS. Here are some more:

Gore would have pussy-footed around like his mentor Clinton, not done anything except fire a couple of (ineffective, poorly aimed, collateral-damage-causing) cruise missiles at Afghanistan, then sat back and allowed another terrorist attack ON OUR SOIL, causing the deaths of thousands of non-military Americans with bloodshed IN AMERICA.

Our boys, and girls, and children would be dying OVER HERE.

Saddam is gone because of Bush, you ungrateful people.

Do you like those opinions better? They are JUST AS VALID.

And very fine opinions they are, too.

The WTC attack happened on Bush's watch. Clinton's staff briefed the Bushies on a potential threat from Osama Bin Laden. They didn't seem much interested. They ignored some pretty good intelligence that commercial aircraft might be used as weapons in a terrorist attack. So concerned was he about the potential for terrorism, Bush took the entire month of August 2001 off. Your assertion that Gore would have allowed a terrorist attack on our soil is, as you say, opinion. The WTC attack happened on Bush's watch. That's a fact.

(I'll yield the floor, doubtless to some variation of the standard "everything is Clinton's fault" argument. The WTC attack. The economy. The deficit. Our moral decline. Bestiality! Dogs and cats living together! Etc.)

Originally posted by Speed-ER doc
OK I'll bite. These are OPINIONS. Here are some more:

Saddam is gone because of Bush, you ungrateful people.



Many american soldiers and good Iraqi people are gone because of bush.

oh yea and one more thing, about 22 soldiers have killed them selves, take them out of Iraq!!!

Just like his father - war with iraq, economy aint great, oil is his intention, and one term of presidency.

I've been waiting to jump back into this thread...kinda like double dutch jump rope back in the 80's...LOL...

Too touch a little on the Jobless-ness, you have to look at the big picture...Clinton era was in the Tech boom where jobs were being handed out to anyone with any bit of experience or will to learn. Corporations were scared of the instream of new technology to automate, quicken, and enliven their companies...Now that people have caught on to the whole idea of technology bettering the system several things have resulted in this:

1) like i pointed out AUTOMATION as a result of technology has decreased the needed human labor force because a job that took 30 people to accomplish now is handled by a couple servers and workstations operated and maintained by 5 people.

2) Technology has become more specialized...for those of us in tech careers this is just as good as it is bad. It makes you valuable to people using the technology you specialize in but also in turn limits your learning abilities to other industry tools. Therefore, in the case you are having to look for a job, makes it harder to find a fit in your particular niche. Technology in itself has become so complex it's not just a server with workstations, and a few tape backups, etc...So many software apps are doing the job of people now it's just more cost effective for a company to expend $100,000 developing and buying programs, instead of paying 2-3 people $50000 or 33,000 a year to perform the same function...it's more like a one time investment than an annual cost..upkeep on specialized sofware packages is so much cheaper than employees.

That is just a tiny tiny bit of the whole jobless ness, YES some of it is related to things the present administration is doing or has done, BUT you cannot blame the whole entire situation on them.

As for the war in Iraq. Maybe they lied about the weapons intelligence. But they knew they HAD them...i mean how could they not considering all that went on over there in the past several years. Logically thinking...that section of the world may not agree with each other but when it comes to deciding partnership amongst themselves or with the US, their differences become almost moot. I guarantee what WMD they had over there are still there...hidden, either still somewhere in Iraq or a neighboring country...

and yes the sad thing about WAR is people DIE..yes they die...I have many friends still in active duty as well as relatives in the military and when taking OATH you pledge to defend this country with YOUR LIFE! Obviously the administration thought there was a significant threat that needed addressing...so unlike others they addressed it...

Some state that the 9/11 attacks happened on Bush's watch, well yes they did, but like someone else stated info was given to them by Clinton's administration...if THEY knew about it then WHY THE HELL did they try to push the responsiblity for doing something about it onto someone else...it IS just like the USS Cole incident and the 1st WTC attacks...all happened under a presidency that was more concerned with trying to coin a new meaning for sex than doing what we put him in place for....

Am I dissappointed in some of Bush's decisions...YES , did i like Clinton ..NO...am I republican.. NO, Am I a democrat ..NO...I'm for the guy who is going to do what he said he was going to do and stand by his decision and not back down because some statistic says that people don't like him very much anymore...That's a LEADER...someone who will take the initiative and move forward with a decision and not back down until the job is done...Now if there are motives beyond what his publicized intentions were than let the repremanding begin..but as of now there is no proof of ill-intent to over take Iraq's oil and make good for Bush's buddies...until all the political bickering subsides between these two parties this country will always be at a stalemate...

like Speed-ER-doc has stated ...the arguing is fun though...

Originally posted by Speed-ER doc
Yeah so I'm reading along, not agreeing with some but at least enjoying the dialogue (except for ungers nonsense again), then I get to the "freaking idiot" quote, in bold no less.

You sir, fit the bill if that is the best you can come up with.

Sorry doc, but I am entitled to my opinion and am sticking to it. GW is an unintelligent dolt. Did you not see his latest interview? He couldn't even speak without stuttering, pausing, mindless repetition and spewing out useless dribble.

I am not a Democrat just bashing him. I don't consider myself associated to any political party. My point is that I would prefer and vote for someone with some sign of intelligence - of which GW does not have.

There's a difference between being unintelligent and not speaking well spontaneously in public. I truly enjoy hearing others' opinions, but I prefer to hear well-reasoned points rather than "freaking idiot" in bold. I don't see Bush as a modern-day Chance the Gardener (did you see the movie 'Being There' with Peter Sellers? Great flick.

I agree with one of the previous posts that the country is more divided now than perhaps ever. The Bush-haters certainly seem firm in their opinions. I think it's going to be an interesting few months.

"The former UN chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, weighed into the controversy over weapons of mass destruction yesterday when he accused Tony Blair and George Bush of behaving like insincere salesmen who "exaggerated" intelligence in an attempt to win support for war."

The Costs of the War in Iraq [01.20.2004]
$96,628,519,212
Civilian Casualities 9,852
Coalition Casualities 599
Total # of Casualities 21,451
The war in Iraq costs each tax payer $1252; no weapons of mass destruction have been found.

:o

And now, as Paul Harvey would say, 'the rest of the story'.

Excerpts from David Horowitz' book - an interesting read, and something you won't hear in the mainstream media.

*****************************************
In 1996, an American Muslim businessman and Clinton supporter named Mansoor Ijaz opened up an unofficial channel between the government of the Sudan and the Clinton Administration. At the same time, "the State Department was describing bin Laden as ‘the greatest single financier of terrorist projects in the world’ and was accusing the Sudan of harboring terrorists." According to Mansoor, who met with Clinton and Sandy Berger, "President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir, who wanted terrorism sanctions against Sudan lifted, offered the arrest and extradition of bin Laden and detailed intelligence data about the global networks constructed by Egypt’s Islamic Jihad, Iran’s Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas. Among the members of these networks were the two hijackers who piloted commercial airliners into the World Trade Center. The silence of the Clinton administration in responding to these offers was deafening."

President Bashir sent key intelligence officials to Washington in February 1966. Again, according to Mansoor, "the Sudanese offered to arrest bin Laden and extradite him to Saudi Arabia or, barring that, to ‘baby-sit’ him—monitoring all his activities and associates." But the Saudis didn’t want him. Instead, in May 1996 "the Sudanese capitulated to US pressure and asked Bin Laden to leave, despite their feeling that he could be monitored better in Sudan than elsewhere. Bin Laden left for Afghanistan, taking with him Ayman Awahiri, considered by the U.S. to be the chief planner of the September 11 attacks…"

One month later, the US military housing complex in Saudi Arabia was blown apart by a 5,000 lb truck bomb. Clinton’s failure to grasp the opportunity, concludes Mansoor, "represents one of the most serious foreign policy failures in American history."

According to a London Sunday Times account, based on a Clinton Administration source, responsibility for this decision "went to the very top of the White House. Shortly after the September 11 disaster, "Clinton told a dinner companion that the decision to let bin Laden go was probably ‘the biggest mistake of my presidency.’" But according to the Times report, which was based on interviews with intelligence officials, this was only one of three occasions on which the Clinton Administration had the opportunity to seize Bin Laden and failed to do so.

*****************************************

To learn more (if you can handle the truth), go to:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/696535/posts

Brilliant article, thanks for the link. I tried to make some of the same points in an earlier discussion, but nowhere near as eloquently or with as much supporting data.

I liked one of the reply letters:

Great article with one exception. We were not defeated in the Mog. While it is true that we lost 18 members, we killed more than 700. That is far from being "defeated".
If given the opportunity, we would have exacted the retribution deserved, and turned the Mog into a cemetary. Instead we were forced to come home with our tails between our legs due to the cowardace of the Klintoon administration and the apathy of the American people.

RLTW!!
Semper Suo!


6 posted on 06/07/2002 6:07:03 PM PDT by bat-boy

Clinton let bin Laden go on purpose as far as i know, being a CIA asset and all..