Why doesn't Bush work to find where the fault was in the intelligence that led to the invasion of Iraq?

Question

Let me start off by saying that I am not a Bush hater. I think Bush was a GREAT president up until 2003 (The start of the Iraq war). He then led us into a war on "intelligence" that said Saddam had WMD's. Well, we haven't found any WMD's, so I think the public should demand to know where the failure in intelligence occured so this doesnt happen again. I think the original plan was to remove Saddam and the WMD's, then pull out and have the UN inspectors monitor the country to make sure no more are built within Iraq's borders. But since Bush alienated most of the UN countries with the US-British bilateral invasion (along with a couple of small countries), he has given the UN an excuse not to enter the "occupied" country. I think we SHOULD have invaded Iraq, but under much better circumstances. Let me know what you think.

Answer 1

I could give you a lengthy answer as the others but one is not necessary because the answer in very simple...

Addressing your original question = Bush knows exactly where the intelligence failed already.

If you are interested in finding out, watch these

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew/
and
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/view/

It's all right there.

Answer 2

Bush does not have to leave home to find the answer to that question. The Intelligence Community did not have it wrong. There was, as always, bad intelligence information floating around and that is what the Bush administration chose to focus on. When the truth started to come out, they turned the blame back on the Intelligence community (hence the continuing feud between the White House and the CIA).

Other countries may have had the same information, but they knew it was questionable – hence their reluctance to become part of the folly. The fact that neither Kuwait nor Saudi Arabia bothered to patrol the borders they shared with Iraq should have been a clue. When an incredulous NBC reporter asked Prince Bandar why the Saudi’s had no military presence on their Iraqi border, he actually chuckled while responding, “Why would we do that ? He (Hussein) can’t do anything to us.” Military officials in Kuwait gave the same answer and stressed that invading Iraq really was not a good idea and that it risked destabilizing the entire region.

No WMD’s have been found in Iraq. Even the White House now acknowledges this fact. Rumors made up and spread by Rick Santorum, and others, are not evidence of anything except possibly their own dishonesty.

Invading Iraq was a stupid idea doomed to failure. The consensus opinion among Middle East experts was that the most likely outcome of removing Hussein from power would be an Iraqi civil war, and none gave the Bush plan more than a 50-50 chance of realizing any kind of success. Remember Colin Powell’s pottery barn analogy (“if you break it, you own it”) warning to the president?

Bush Sr. (Pres. #41) knew the score. Here’s a quote from his 1998 book "A World Transformed" (co-authored with Brent Scocroft):

"To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab world against us, and make a broken tyrant a latter-day Arab hero. It would have taken us way beyond the imprimatur of international law bestowed by the resolutions of the Security Council, assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an unwinnable urban guerilla war. It would only plunge that part of the world into even greater instability and destroy the credibility we were working so hard to reestablish."

He and Clinton were both pressured by the Neocon-core to “finish” the job in Iraq. They were smart enough not to fall into the trap …. And then along came George Jr, not even smart enough to know what he didn’t know, and we end up in a mess that hurts America and helps our enemies.

So, the “faulty intelligence” that led to the invasion of Iraq is mostly between Bush’s ears.

Answer 3

Saddam did have WMD's. Where have you been? He used them. Many were found in Iraq over the past several years. There is compelling evidence that he sent WMD's to Syria. Russian planes were used. Haven't you been listening to the news? There has been no failure of intelligence. There was no UN plan. The UN issued 14 resolutions, but did nothing useful. Saddam's confederates, France and Russia who were on his payroll, blocked attempts to have a UN military force invade. Why don't you already know this? The coalition was at times as many as 60 countries. Bush did not alienate most of the UN. Where do you get these cockamamie ideas? The UN does not have or need an excuse for anything because it had 14 resolutions it did not follow up on, in over 10 years' time.
It seems that your underlying worry is that 100% of the rest of the world did not go along with the US led coalition. Are you one of those weenies who are worried about what other people think of us?

Answer 4

WMD's were there.. even the democrats knew that. and this is recorded in many of their speeches on the senate and house floor... the problem is due to the 6 month delay created by France, Germany and Russia who had oil interests in Iraq, Sadaam was able to move the WMD to syria. That is where the "fault" is....Yes we should have invaded Iraq, but not with the 6 month delay.

The lesson here is to forget what obstructiosnists say and proceed before there are changes.. The important thing is that we got Sadaam. The civil war over there is typical of their culture anyhow.... we just turned over the military to the PM, which is a good move. We cannot leave too soon or we will have more problems...I think the generals over there are the best to judge what to do next.

Answer 5

The main problem is they listened to and believed ex-patriot Iraqi's on intelligence...not exactly the most unbiased source. Second, The Bush Administration wanted the war, so it really didn't matter WHERE it came from, or how reliable it was. This is clearly shown by the fac that every major reason originally given for going to war (WMD, Uranium in Nigeria, Al Queda, etc) were all debunked prior to the war. That didn't stop them however...

Remember that ridiculous presentation at the UN.

Answer 6

All he has to do is ask President Cheney who was spending all his time at the CIA and the Pentagon changing files so they would come to the conclusions he wanted them to. He did invade Iraq for no reason except the oil and to put more money into the pockets of his campaign contributors. Watch Cheney lie tomorrow on "Meet The Press." This will be a classic lesson in doublespeak like you have never witnessed before.

Answer 7

I dont hate but distrust Bush, and always have. People often convienently forget that prior to 9/11 Bush was a failing President, and it was only 9/11 which salvaged his Presidency.

Intelligence collection, analysis and dissimination is as much of an art as it is a science, and depends not only upon the quality of information received but the quality and experience of the analyst who reviews it. In the Iraq situation the US relied heavily on Human Intelligence (HUMINT) which is well known in the intelligence community to be of questionable quality. Why? People lie, distort, fabricate, and misreport. Secondly, WMD, especially biological or chemical weapons, do not necessarily require complex infrastructures or physical plants. We know that Hussein had WMD in the past because we probably provided them to him when he was "allied" with us against Iran.

The common experience level of Intelligence Analysists in the US isnt very high. Most analysts have very few years of experience, and there are very few places one can go to learn the trade. Most good analysts are sucked up by private corporations once the analyst gets experienced enough to be recognizable.

Finally, you have to believe that Bush was committed to attacking Iraq, and "cherry picked" the information that was available to justify his pre-determined decision to go to war.

Answer 8

Your basic assumption that the war was entirely justified in the US by George Bush convincing Congress that Saddam had WMDs, based on faulty intelligence, is wrong. Please take time to review the UN resolutions and actions leading up to the latest conflict, and the information used by Congress to overwhelmingly vote to authorize use of force. It also helps to review the events leading up to and the actual events of Operation Desert Storm (response to Iraq invading Kuwait). Also, your claim that no WMDs have been found in Iraq is wrong. There have been many chemical weapons as well as weapons programs found. I believe that the Bush administration has taken actions to improve the efficiency of the CIA.

Answer 9

The fault in intelligence was George W. Bush.



George W. Bush is a moran. He should be impeached and executed for high treason of the United States of America.

Hes too stupid to think, he paid his way through elementry, middle, high school. and college, if not he would be stuck in the first grade!

He was never elected either time. He LOST the popular vote TWICE!

Answer 10

no longer me and that i'm nevertheless no longer in touch approximately Iraq. in spite of the fact that, with the aid of fact the September assaults I continuously difficulty approximately yet another attack from the Saudis. after all, interior the progression no person recollects, the perpetrators of the 11th of September assaults have been Saudi, no longer Iraqi. basically an apparently very minor factor (in accordance to the administration that have been given us into this mess)