It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bush May Back Iraq Intelligence Panel

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2004 @ 08:55 PM
link   
Just ran across this.
Bush and his administration is considering backing a proposed Independent Investigation of Iraq Intelligence failures. The porposed commission will fully ascertain "IF" the United States did or didn't use faulty intelligence in 'its' considerations to war in and with Iraq.

Excerpts:

"Until now, President Bush (news - web sites) has reacted coolly toward the idea of a new commission, refusing to endorse it publicly. But his administration is under mounting election-year pressure to agree to an independent inquiry about Iraq's alleged arsenal of banned destruction.

"I want the American people to know that I, too, want to know the facts," the president said.

David Kay, the former head of the inspection team, has said the administration's intelligence on Iraq was "almost all wrong" and that the information on which Bush's war decision was based was erroneous.


The Senate Intelligence Committee chairman cited "a world intelligence community failure" for the inability to find banned weapons so far.

David Kay, the former head of the inspection team, has said the administration's intelligence on Iraq was "almost all wrong" and that the information on which Bush's war decision was based was erroneous.


The Senate Intelligence Committee chairman cited "a world intelligence community failure" for the inability to find banned weapons so far.

David Kay, the former head of the inspection team, has said the administration's intelligence on Iraq was "almost all wrong" and that the information on which Bush's war decision was based was erroneous.


The Senate Intelligence Committee chairman cited "a world intelligence community failure" for the inability to find banned weapons so far.

Kay has urged an independent look at the intelligence. That idea has won the support from Democrats in Congress and on the presidential campaign trail. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., also supports the idea.

A full-blown investigation of Iraq intelligence failures could pose election-year risks for Bush. No one could be certain where it would lead, who it would touch or what it would uncover."

Source:
story.news.yahoo.com.../ap/20040131/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_intelligence_commission


Questions:

Is this a smart move or gambit by Bush and his administration?

Whether it is a smart move or not, will this help "clear the air" on the United States reasonings for going to war with Iraq?

How deep should the independent investigation committee be allowed to dig? Will past administrations and policy(s) be brought into the investigation process?

Will the investigation conclude prior to this years elections or after? How long will it take for an independent investigation into such matters take or last?




regards
seekerof

[Edited on 31-1-2004 by Seekerof]




posted on Jan, 31 2004 @ 09:03 PM
link   
very interesting read, but I think Bush is concentrating right now on actions that will aid him in his election

"A full-blown investigation of Iraq intelligence failures could pose election-year risks for Bush. No one could be certain where it would lead, who it would touch or what it would uncover."

so I very seriously doubt anything will be uncovered in this matter that would pose a risk for Bush, conveniently


[Edited on 31-1-2004 by Morrison]



posted on Jan, 31 2004 @ 09:07 PM
link   
I'd like to see it happen, but who would be put as head of this investigation? Henry Kissinger?



posted on Jan, 31 2004 @ 09:13 PM
link   
he'd be perfect:

"The illegal we can do right now; the unconstitutional will take a little longer."
-Henry Kissinger

or the man that was in charge of finding the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq who resigned of that position giving up



posted on Jan, 31 2004 @ 09:13 PM
link   
Ah hell heelstone or Morrison, to be honest, I am currently trying to find any information pertaining to "who" would be in on an independent investigation.
I do know this from what I have found and read, past independent investigations or commissions, of this nature, have a track record of not bode well (favored/favoring) for Republicans.


regards
seekerof

[Edited on 31-1-2004 by Seekerof]



posted on Jan, 31 2004 @ 09:16 PM
link   
it will be interesting to find out how it goes and what it will do for Bush's election standpoint but as I said, he wouldn't get himself into something right now that would threaten that



posted on Jan, 31 2004 @ 09:19 PM
link   
Found this article which reads that Bush has agreed to support such and said independent investigative inquiry of pre-war intelligence:

"Bush OK's Independent Probe of Prewar Intelligence"
Link:
www.washingtonpost.com...


regards
seekerof



posted on Jan, 31 2004 @ 11:30 PM
link   
Maybe Jeb Bush could lead it.



posted on Jan, 31 2004 @ 11:32 PM
link   
There is no such thing as an independent investigation anymore.

Yes I would expect Bush to be very concerned about his image for the rest of this year, obviously.

Frankly, I wish people would either view Iraq in current terms or move past this story.

What I want to know is who is behind all the terrorist attacks in Iraq now?



posted on Feb, 3 2004 @ 10:23 PM
link   
To ask whether this is a smart move or not is almost a rhetorical question.

It's accountability. The only reason to not investigate this matter independently is if one is afraid of the truth. Afraid enough to hide it. Thus far Bush doesn't seem to be on a track to make that mistake.

Something surprising. Seekerof, if I remember correctly, you were one of those who said there are definitely WMD in Iraq. What do you believe now?



posted on Feb, 3 2004 @ 10:38 PM
link   
In your analysis sweatmonicaIdo.....
Its a bet to say that Bush is not afraid of the 'truth' then?

And yes, your correct, I am one of those who believed, believes and still believes that Saddam had WMD. Quantities and "where" is the issue for me, and has been. No matter the number of those reports claiming and reporting that Saddam does not or did not have them (WMD) because they have not been found or they were destroyed, the problem with all of them, even as indicated by Kay, is that there are amounts still not reported nor documented as 'destroyed', including those Iraqi documents that were written but not turned into the UN.
I have always believed that Saddam withheld small to moderate amounts of WMD as a safe guard or for whatever purpose....and this will not change. There is an old Arabic saying that goes something like this: The desert sands hide what no man can find but Time itself.
Irregardless of the continued 'proofs' and 'evidences' against WMD, I will continue to believe otherwise.
Eventually, one day, I may change my stance, but it won't be anytime soon.



regards
seekerof

[Edited on 3-2-2004 by Seekerof]



posted on Feb, 3 2004 @ 11:33 PM
link   
The following excerpt from www.washingtonpost.com...
is what would make an "investigation" beneficial to the Bush administration.

"A member of Congress said the administration can be expected to deal with the intelligence failure "by moving the boxes around" and giving more authority overall intelligence matters to the Department of Homeland Security. "

It will also make Bush look like he is interested in finding out the truth. This, in turn, will help his re-election campaign, since he will appear to have been unaware of the errant intel, and therefore not responsible for his actions which were based on that info.



posted on Feb, 3 2004 @ 11:37 PM
link   
Seekerof

Correct me if I am wrong here, but it sort of seems like you're saying that the only way to find out is to dig to the center of Earth all around Iraq. Sure, anything is possible, but I think we have to be realistic here.

I'm not saying that there are no WMD in Iraq. I actually hope there are, just so I know this isn't some conspiracy and American lives have been wasted. But I think to be realistic about the situation, you have to realize that the U.S. and the U.N. are not incompetant and David Kay wouldn't make such a definite answer if he wasn't sure about it. I also doubt Iraq had any other place to hide it's WMD. Anything is possible yes, but it would be illogical to say they would hide it but make it inaccessible to even themselves.

If there are no WMD, there are no WMD. There is no "may."

As for Bush, what I meant to say is that he's got accountability. He could be afraid of the truth, but if he's going to back an investigation into the actions of the intelligence community and possibly even himself, then that is accountability. Conspiracies aside, Bush probably wouldn't support such a probe if it was going to incriminate him.



posted on Feb, 3 2004 @ 11:49 PM
link   
I think either direction the intelligence panel leads, Bush has made his position in such a way to look substantial to his supporters, at least. By saying he's interested in finding the truth says to me he never knew the truth or just thought he did. He's not taking responsibility as a leader, I think he's more like a blind-folded player who is being led by the hand, which sounds a lot like the American citizens.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join