Gee - I wonder if he has found any new "credible" intelligence sources, or would their spouses be outed of their undercover status as C.I.A. Operatives too?
2007-02-21 01:30:48 · 9 answers · asked by Brotherhood 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Bingo... so right u r.
2007-02-21 01:32:59 · answer #1 · answered by Deepak Surana 2 · 2⤊ 2⤋
I think that there was already more than a surplus of faulty intelligence in the halls of congress and the senate, long before Bush came along. A little review of American history will soon make you marvel that we have made it as far as we have without a major trainwreck. What is the definition of gross ignorance? 144 congressmen.
2007-02-21 01:35:26 · answer #2 · answered by Mad Roy 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
There is information, and the information the White House provides.
That's the real problem. They cherry-picked and stove-piped the intelligence to say what they wanted it to say.
So while the CIA was saying Iraq wasn't a nuclear threat, our President was talking about "mushroom clouds".
And notice I wrote "nuclear", not "nucelar"
If you're in charge of the weapons, shouldn't you at least be able to pronounce the word?
How about an Amendment for that?
2007-02-21 01:57:19 · answer #3 · answered by buzzzard 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Each house of the Congress had independent Select Intelligence committees that viewed raw data and interviewed inteligence operatives themsleves. It was those committees that reported to the House and Senate to make the recommendation to authorize military action in Iraq.
While Bush made his case to the Congress to authorize the military action, it was the Intelligence Committees of the House and Senate than cleared the way for the supermajority approval of the resolutions.
2007-02-21 01:36:19 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Wasn't it John Kerry on the floor of the Senate, after the _same_ intelligence was presented to the Senate Intelligence Committee who said:
"With respect to Saddam Hussein and the threat he presents, we must ask ourselves a simple question: Why? Why is Saddam Hussein pursuing weapons that most nations have agreed to limit or give up? Why is Saddam Hussein guilty of breaking his own cease-fire agreement with the international community? Why is Saddam Hussein attempting to develop nuclear weapons when most nations don't even try, and responsible nations that have them attempt to limit their potential for disaster? Why did Saddam Hussein threaten and provoke? Why does he develop missiles that exceed allowable limits? Why did Saddam Hussein lie and deceive the inspection teams previously? Why did Saddam Hussein not account for all of the weapons of mass destruction which UNSCOM identified? Why is he seeking to develop unmanned airborne vehicles for delivery of biological agents?"
2007-02-21 01:35:09 · answer #5 · answered by Joe Rockhead 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
No, like any good President, he has to rely on information given to him from different agencies. The president cannot be everywhere all the time. that is the reason why we have different cabinets all of whom help the President make decisions.
2007-02-21 01:35:18 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
You stupid Libs seem to forget that your precious Clintons and Kerry backed him 100 %
2007-02-21 01:39:23 · answer #7 · answered by By Your Command 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Yes, it was bush. You know -- he reminds me of a Used Car Salesman.
2007-02-21 01:33:55 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
no
2007-02-21 01:32:34 · answer #9 · answered by WWJD 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋