06-12-2003, 11:12 PM
I searched back for the old Iraq debate thread and could not find it so I'm making a new topic with a new question I feel is pertinent to this particular situation:
I read an article in the LA times while at work which caught my attention, but I also found a free copy at the New York Times for you Lurkers to examine.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/06/11/...main/index.html
My question is did President Bush knowingly 'taint' Iraq information, and if so, why? Obviously, this question will never be answered by us humble folk here at the LL, and even speculating about it may seem pointless in light of this possible controversy which 'professional' investigators are looking into, however I feel the importance of declaring how I feel on this subject and perhaps explore others opinions as well.
Personally, I never liked President Bush, and that might make my opinions of his actions jaded in comparison to a neutral party, as I tend to knit pick at details I dislike about his presidency. I will try to keep an open mind, however.
I find it hard to swallow the Bush Administrations claim that the CIA knew Sadam Hussein had WMD, when in fact the CIA never said anything like that. In fact, the article goes on to say that the CIA was not only pretty sure that Iraq had not WMD, but had destroyed their factories that could produce WMD.
IMO, someone is either lying or there is some serious misinformation that needs to be addressed. Was it misinformation or was there an ulterior motive to this war with Iraq? But why lie? As Occhidiangela is so fond of pointing out, there were more factors that WMD, and most people's fingers first point to oil if not WMD. I don't claim to know a lot about trade and commerce, the political atmosphere in Iraq, or even how oil factors into the mix of things, but IMO there does seem to be a lot of commonalities between oil, money, power, and Iraq lately. Whoâs in charge of setting up the new Iraq, and wont let the UN help? America, of course. I just don't know. It all seems very... strange to me, but like I said before, I have a jaded attitude, so I'm open to other opinions. What am I trying to say? Iâm not sure! I guess Iâm trying to figure it out and something just doesnât feel right to me.
I read an article in the LA times while at work which caught my attention, but I also found a free copy at the New York Times for you Lurkers to examine.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/06/11/...main/index.html
Quote:WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The head of the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee said Wednesday that his panel will hold closed-door hearings next week as part of its ongoing review of U.S. intelligence on Iraq.
The hearings won't be a formal joint inquiry sought by Democrats. The move comes amid questions about whether the Bush administration manipulated intelligence data to bolster its case for war in Iraq.
U.S. Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kansas, made it clear he has seen no evidence any intelligence data was slanted or politicized, but he said allegations from anonymous officials saying they were under pressure to "skew their analysis" were serious and "must be cleared up." (Full story)
"I can tell you, however, that the committee has yet to hear from any intelligence official expressing such concerns," Roberts said. "If any officials believe, however, that they have been pressured to alter their assessment, they have an obligation, and I encourage them to contact the committee."
He said criticism of the intelligence agencies has been divisive and could hurt national security.
The Bush administration has come under fire from some Democrats and critics abroad because no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq. U.S. and British statements before the war asserted that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was harboring and developing such banned weapons.
Roberts said his panel would work with the Senate Armed Service Committee. But a joint formal investigation, he said, would be premature.
He said his committee is reviewing intelligence documents supplied by CIA Director George Tenet.
Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner, R-Virginia, said his panel also is reviewing the CIA material.
"The evidence that I have examined does not rise to give the presumption that anyone in this administration has hyped or cooked or embellished such evidence to a particular purpose, and I regret that those allegations have been made," Warner said.
Meanwhile, CIA Director George Tenet appointed former U.N. weapons inspector David Kay to advise the agency on how to find Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, CIA officials said.
Kay, 63, will be based in Iraq, the officials said. He will be in charge of "refining the overall approach for the search for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction," one official said.
The Pentagon's new Iraq Survey Group -- about 1,400 experts from the United States, Britain and Australia -- will "provide direct support" to Kay, according to the CIA announcement.
Kay worked for the International Atomic Energy Agency and for the United Nations Special Commission as a weapons inspector in Iraq in the 1990s.
My question is did President Bush knowingly 'taint' Iraq information, and if so, why? Obviously, this question will never be answered by us humble folk here at the LL, and even speculating about it may seem pointless in light of this possible controversy which 'professional' investigators are looking into, however I feel the importance of declaring how I feel on this subject and perhaps explore others opinions as well.
Personally, I never liked President Bush, and that might make my opinions of his actions jaded in comparison to a neutral party, as I tend to knit pick at details I dislike about his presidency. I will try to keep an open mind, however.
I find it hard to swallow the Bush Administrations claim that the CIA knew Sadam Hussein had WMD, when in fact the CIA never said anything like that. In fact, the article goes on to say that the CIA was not only pretty sure that Iraq had not WMD, but had destroyed their factories that could produce WMD.
Quote:NEWS | June 12, 2003 [sorry, I couldnât get the entire headlines, but I did read them yesterday]
CIA Rejects Blame for Bush's Iraq Uranium Claim
By REUTERS (Reuters) News
IMO, someone is either lying or there is some serious misinformation that needs to be addressed. Was it misinformation or was there an ulterior motive to this war with Iraq? But why lie? As Occhidiangela is so fond of pointing out, there were more factors that WMD, and most people's fingers first point to oil if not WMD. I don't claim to know a lot about trade and commerce, the political atmosphere in Iraq, or even how oil factors into the mix of things, but IMO there does seem to be a lot of commonalities between oil, money, power, and Iraq lately. Whoâs in charge of setting up the new Iraq, and wont let the UN help? America, of course. I just don't know. It all seems very... strange to me, but like I said before, I have a jaded attitude, so I'm open to other opinions. What am I trying to say? Iâm not sure! I guess Iâm trying to figure it out and something just doesnât feel right to me.
"The true value of a human being is determined primarily by the measure and the sense in which he has attained liberation from the self." -Albert Einsetin