Bush to Order Probe of Iraq Intelligence

[adios]

I'm sure many on this forum will not be satisfied with this and offer much criticism and say it's rigged since Bush is appointing the members of the commission:

In appointing the members, Bush will draw heavily from intelligence experts who are familiar with the problems in the field, the White House official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. The investigation will be independent and be provided with the resources it needs to do its job, the official said.

Bush to Order Probe of Iraq Intelligence (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20040201/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq_weapons_10)

Bush to Order Probe of Iraq Intelligence
21 minutes ago Add Top Stories - AP to My Yahoo!


By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - President Bush (news - web sites) will sign an executive order to establish a full-blown investigation of U.S. intelligence failures in Iraq (news - web sites), a senior White House official said Sunday.


The investigation will look at what the United States believed it knew before the war against Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s regime and what has been determined since the invasion. Former chief weapons inspector David Kay has concluded that Iraq did not possess weapons of mass destruction, a chief rationale for the U.S.-led war.


Bush has been under mounting political pressure to agree to an inquiry, and decided over the weekend to go forward. Democrats and Republicans alike have been pushing the White House to establish a commission.


By setting up the investigation himself, Bush will have greater control over its membership and mandate. The senior White House official said it would be patterned after the Warren Commission, so named for its chairman Earl Warren, a former chief justice of the Supreme Court, which led a 10-month investigation that concluded in 1964 that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in killing President John F. Kennedy.


In appointing the members, Bush will draw heavily from intelligence experts who are familiar with the problems in the field, the White House official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. The investigation will be independent and be provided with the resources it needs to do its job, the official said.


Its mandate will be broader than simply what went wrong in Iraq, the official said. It also will look into issues such as gathering intelligence on stateless regimes, such as al-Qaida, and weapons proliferation.


At this point, the White House has not decided on a deadline for the investigation — a sensitive issue since its findings could become an issue in the presidential campaign which will be decided with the election in November.

[Chris Alger]

We don't need an "investigation" at all. The major problem isn't a "failure of intelligence" as David Kay likes to put it but that we have facial evidence of lying for war. We therefore need our officials to prove that what they told America about the cause and necessity of the war was adequately grounded in the evidence they were given and whether the evidence was tainted by White House pressure. If the White House refuses to do this right now, the electorate should deem the entire administration guilty and the case closed. Technical problems with intelligence gathering and analsysis are different and can wait.

But as long as investigations are in the offing, how could the President hand-picking his investigators satisfy anyone but partisan supporters? They already have experts "familiar with the problems in the field" of intelligence. They're called the members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees. Congress could create a joint committee, invite Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rumsfeld and Rice, have them bring the "intelligence" that supported what they said and go over what they said line by line. Then see how well the analysts are willing to support the statements they made. Have them produce all the correspondence between the White House, the Pentagon and the intelligence agencies. It doesn't need to be "broader" than Iraq because that's the subject about which they exaggerated so vehemently. It could be public and over in two months.

And it will never happen. Instead, we're going to get the usual sort of highly deferential, watered-down jargon that blue ribbon commissions, usually just political lightning rods, are supposed to create ("Regretably, mistakes were made. Given the urgency of the terrorist threat, however...").

[adios]

It remains to be seen as to who the commission is comprised of. I believe the Senate Intelligence committee is due to release a report soon. Also I believe that Congress isn't precluded from conducting their own independent probe(s).

You wrote:

We therefore need our officials to prove that what they told America about the cause and necessity of the war was adequately grounded in the evidence they were given and whether the evidence was tainted by White House pressure.

The "accountability" issue that you mention here will certainly be addressed in any bi-partisan, independent investigation. So far the Democrats haven't offered a shred of evidence to indicate that intelligence was fabricated. Your phrase "tainted by White House pressure" strikes me as being vague i.e. it can be interpreted in many ways. The truth is that the Clinton administration came to many of the same conclusions about Iraqi WMD's that the Bush administration did. The one constant is the intelligence data. Democrats have a short memory apparently. Don't get me wrong, Bush can't pass the buck on this one.

But as long as investigations are in the offing, how could the President hand-picking his investigators satisfy anyone but partisan supporters?

Like I stated earlier let's wait to see how this process unfolds. I agree with you though that a whitewash or an attempt at one is not what we want here.

They already have experts "familiar with the problems in the field" of intelligence. They're called the members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees.

This a good point IMO. I think it's fair to say that many on these committees do see disturbing problems with our intelligence capabilities.

Congress could create a joint committee, invite Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rumsfeld and Rice, have them bring the "intelligence" that supported what they said and go over what they said line by line.

Yep they could and I wouldn't rule this out at this point. Again let's see how the process unfolds.

Then see how well the analysts are willing to support the statements they made. Have them produce all the correspondence between the White House, the Pentagon and the intelligence agencies. It doesn't need to be "broader" than Iraq because that's the subject about which they exaggerated so vehemently. It could be public and over in two months.

Not sure about that. If the accuracy of the intelligence is poor (which apparently it is, at the very least it's highly uncertain), then I think improving intelligence gathering becomes an issue that is relevant.

And it will never happen. Instead, we're going to get the usual sort of highly deferential, watered-down jargon that blue ribbon commissions, usually just political lightning rods, are supposed to create ("Regretably, mistakes were made. Given the urgency of the terrorist threat, however...").

There's a lot of cracked crystal balls Chris. We'll see how the process unfolds. As you know the Democrats are already screaming about the nature and composition of this commission and are proposing alternatives. I'm fairly certain that Republican members of Congress don't particularly like this idea either. I think any attempt at a "whitewash" or one that's perceived to be one will be a political disastor.

[hetron]

Adios,

Do you still believe that the Bush administration did not significantly alter the truth in getting their case to invade Iraq? Furthermore, that their decisions regarding the threat Iraq posed was merely a result of "bad intel"?

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you still believe that the Bush administration did not significantly alter the truth in getting their case to invade Iraq?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hetron my friend we seem to have many miscommunications in our exchanges. I don't think one can alter the truth. The truth is what it is. I think your question is probably best re-phrased as follows:

Do you still believe that the Bush administration believed that the Iraqis had significant amounts of WMD?

Yes I think they believed that there were probably WMD stockpiled in Iraq.

[ QUOTE ]
Furthermore, that their decisions regarding the threat Iraq posed was merely a result of "bad intel"?

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

Turnabout is fair play /images/graemlins/smile.gif. Questions for you:

Do you still believe that the Bush administration believed that the Iraqis had significant amount of WMD?

I'm assuming that your answer will be no. If it is no then another question:

If the administration knew that the Iraqis did not have significant amounts of WMD, then the Bush administration was deliberately lying about their beliefs that WMD stockpiles existed. If the Bush administration deliberately lied about the existance of significant amount of WMD evidence why didn't they plant such evidence i.e. why go through the trouble of the investigation that Kay undertook knowing that the results would be at the very least politically embarassing?


I'll be waiting for answer to these questions till hell freezes over /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

[Cyrus]

"Do you still believe that the Bush administration's decisions regarding the threat Iraq posed was merely a result of bad intel?!

What kind of BAD intelligence are you referring to ?

The intelligence emanating from the Central Intelligence Agency or the intelligence residing between Dubya's ears?

[Phat Mack]

The intelligence emanating from the Central Intelligence Agency or the intelligence residing between Dubya's ears?

For a kind, sensitive, caring answer, see today's Boondocks:

http://www.ucomics.com/boondocks/

[MattHatter]

[ QUOTE ]
If the administration knew that the Iraqis did not have significant amounts of WMD, then the Bush administration was deliberately lying about their beliefs that WMD stockpiles existed. If the Bush administration deliberately lied about the existance of significant amount of WMD evidence why didn't they plant such evidence i.e. why go through the trouble of the investigation that Kay undertook knowing that the results would be at the very least politically embarassing?

[/ QUOTE ]

As cynical as this may sound. I think they knew it would eventually come out. But even if it did, they also knew that:

a)they would not be held to account for the lies.
b)occupation cannot be undone. Iraq is conquered.
c)Public apathy about the whole issue would grow in time.
d)they could just continue to lie (it worked so far).

I particularly liked the quote from GWs state of the union to the effect that... Had we not acted his WMD programs would continue to this day. What?!?!

Politically embarassing is a small price to pay for the jewel of arabic oil. Not to mention the setting of a new international standard whereby the US does what it want where it wants with it's massive military. Unprovoked war is a big issue internationally you see.

The thing we need to remember is that with an intelligence agency like the CIA.. with the resources they have, I mean I can see a failing for 9/11 with the cells/structure and nature of the way terrorist operate, understandable.

But not against a state. With spies and long term support for opposition groups in the country, satillite pics, etc... They didn't say they thought he might have them. They had ABSOLUTE PROOF. Concrete evidence from many unnamable sources. 100% certainty that Saddam did DEFINATELY have these weapons/programs. (they just couldn't show anyone, not even the security council?)

I just can't accept that the CIA had ABSOLUTE CERTAIN proof of MASSIVE WMD PROGRAMS, and then that there turn out to be ABSOLUTELY NOTHING?

Particularly when I see footage of Colin Powell interviewed in Egypt in 2001 (pre 9/11) where he states that Iraq has no significant WMD and is unable to pose even a conventional threat to his nieghbors. Colin (36min in) (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/video1/35_mb_pilger_breaking_the_silence.wmv)

Combine this with the row in britain about the 'sexing up' of the dossier, that had plagerized a years old paper and made it seem more ominous by changing all the maybes into certainties. And then that british fellow that killed himself?

And Bush use of the African Uranium. Which the CIA and everyone knew was fake before he used it in his state of the union. Read this (Waxman Mar 17 2003) (http://www.reform.house.gov/min/pdfs/pdf_inves/pdf_admin_iraq_nuclear_evidence_march_17_let.pdf) and note that this was BEFORE the war. Bush HAD to know.

With the mounting evidence.. circumstantial as it may be, and as hard as it is to admit that trusted leaders lied to us, and people were duped, I find it hard to understand anyone who doesn't kind of know inside that they were lying. ESPECIALLY POKER PLAYERS lol.

Matt

[Chris Alger]

"So far the Democrats haven't offered a shred of evidence to indicate that intelligence was fabricated. Your phrase "tainted by White House pressure" strikes me as being vague i.e. it can be interpreted in many ways. The truth is that the Clinton administration came to many of the same conclusions about Iraqi WMD's that the Bush administration did."

I understand that the September 2002 NIE was much more specific and threatening than prior NIE's. Unless "new intelligence" or methodology explains the discrepancy, the absence of WMD is some evidence that the intelligence was exaggerated if not outright falsified. Evidence of White House involvement in the process of putting together the NIE and intelligence analysis generally should be construed as "pressure."

I think what they're going to find is that snippets of intelligence, probably from defectors, that had previously been considered unreliable were thrown into the mix like never before. There was probably also a shift from skepticism regarding the most threatening scenarios toward giving them the benefit of a doubt. There won't necessarily be a paper trail showing that this shift was politically motivated. Overall, the inherent subjectivity of the process will be the administration's strongest card.

Of course, the more important issue isn't really the prewar existence of WMD's but the proof that (1) administration statements were firmly grounded in the intelligence provided; (2) UN inspections would not have worked; and (3) intelligence showing that Iraq was inclined to provide WMD (actually CBW's) to terrorists or use them offensively with such a degree of imiminence that war was the only reasonable alternative. These, IMO, are more important issues than whether the intelligence community believed, mistakenly but in good faith, that Saddam had stockpiles. The general focus appears to be on this last issue only.

[MMMMMM]

"b)occupation cannot be undone. Iraq is conquered. "

IMO the proper description would read: "Saddam's Baathist Thug-ocracy is conquered. Iraq is liberated (or is in the process of being liberated)."

For decades a minority political party ruled by sheer force of Stalinist terror over the other Iraqi citizens. Good riddance to truly bad rubbish, and thankfully the chance for freedom is now dawning for the Iraqi people.

[Chris Alger]

"If the Bush administration deliberately lied about the existance of significant amount of WMD evidence why didn't they plant such evidence i.e. why go through the trouble of the investigation that Kay undertook knowing that the results would be at the very least politically embarassing?"

This isn't hard. They might not have been able to "plant" credible evidence in a way that preveted it from coming out, and the possibility of being caught could prove more embarrassing than the chance of coming up with nothing. But as they say, the search continues ....

As far as political embarrassment, it could be a simple cost-benefit analysis: the prize of Iraq is worth the political risk. After all, those outside the administration that pushed for the war -- the right-wing propagandists, the Defense Policy Board members and their military-industrial clients, the academic strategists -- aren't taking much risk. Worse-case scenario for Rumsfeld is that he resigns to accept the chairmanship of Lockheed-Boeing-Martin-whatever after a spell teaching at the Kennedy school.

Here's a good example. During the Reagan administration the bete noir of the contra war was Elliot Abrams. Nobody epitomized support for the war more than he, then Undersecretary of State for Latin American Affairs. He was the premier advocate of what me and the other critics called the largest terrorist operation in the world, a nearly decade of terror against schools, clinics, farms and cooperatives that killed some 30,000 people. We all said he was lying about U.S. assitance to these goons, and sure enough, he was caught, indicted for misleading Cognress about illegal arms shipments and convicted.

A ruined man? Not these guys. His conviction was overturned on appeal because the Congressional immunity he received was too broad. To be on the safe side, Bush Sr. gave him a blanket pardon in 1992. So he got a job with the Washington white shoe law firm Millbank Tweed, probably at the high six figures or more. He's now residing as Senior Director for Near East and North African Affairs on Bush's National Security Council.

What risk? To become embarrassed one must be susceptible to feelings of shame.

More importantly, the chance of the U.S. "losing" poltical control over Iraq is still very small. The risks to U.S. loss of hegemony also have little to do with the WMD issue (they relate more to disputes arising with the locals). If it weren't for the casualties continuing to pile up, this war would virtually drop from the screen of all of those that aren't already and irevocably convinced one way or the other.

[MattHatter]

[ QUOTE ]
IMO the proper description would read: "Saddam's Baathist Thug-ocracy is conquered. Iraq is liberated (or is in the process of being liberated)."

For decades a minority political party ruled by sheer force of Stalinist terror over the other Iraqi citizens. Good riddance to truly bad rubbish, and thankfully the chance for freedom is now dawning for the Iraqi people.

[/ QUOTE ]

2 points.

Only in the US is this view held. If you get outside of the US media 'fishbowl' the take on what just happened is quite different. I have heard it referred to on 'The National' (CBC) in the context of "there have been xxx American casualties since the US conquored Iraq".

Only in the US does the media call it liberation.

I won't get into details but the US did everything it could throughout the worst of his crimes to ensure his power. When he actually WAS gassing Kurds the US stood in the way of UN action against Iraq choosing instead to continue support (including supply and planning of chemical attacks) and using veto power to protect him at the UN and confusing the issue by trying to state that it was actually IRAN that was doing it.

As an exercise I would have you look up how Turkey has treated the Kurds. It may be hard to find but I can assure you they weren't treated much better by Turkey. But that's ok.. Turkey is on our side.. just like Saddam was then.

It's a great thing that he's gone this is undeniable... but I would suggest that he'd have been gone a long time ago if not for the strong support of the US for decades.

And after all that support.. he still went and gave France and Russia oil contracts.. you can see how the worm begins to turn in the late 80s.

Matt


PS: I also noticed that you chose to ignore the all the facts presented in my argument and instead chose to nitpick about the word conquored.

[MMMMMM]

Only in the US is this view held??? LOL, how about in Iraq?

No, I didn't choose to nitpick but rather to make what I think is an important point--and I didn't have the time or inclination to address all your other points.

[MattHatter]

[ QUOTE ]
Only in the US is this view held??? LOL, how about in Iraq?

[/ QUOTE ]

The feelings of many Iraqis towards the current situation is debatable. The families of the 10,000 or so civillian casualties are probably not too happy about thier state of affairs, regardless of thier feelings towards Saddam. Some of them probably just wish thier children were still alive.

Again I must concede though.. change the word "only" to read "Almost exclusively".

[ QUOTE ]
No, I didn't choose to nitpick

[/ QUOTE ]

I won't say it. /images/graemlins/wink.gif I want to... but I won't.


[ QUOTE ]
I didn't have the time or inclination to address all your other points.

[/ QUOTE ]

Anyway, with a little research of my own from wide and varied (credible) sources, I have found the truth to be obvious, and so thinly vieled as to only be hidden to those who chose not to look. For time and inclination I am not lacking. It's unfortunate that more ppl don't have the wherewithal to research these issues themselves, from primary sources and not just rely on secondary or tertiary 'media' sources of information.

Peace, Matt.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
The intelligence emanating from the Central Intelligence Agency or the intelligence residing between Dubya's ears?

[/ QUOTE ]

Where did you get your MBA from Cyrus Yale, Penn or Harvard?

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
a)they would not be held to account for the lies.
b)occupation cannot be undone. Iraq is conquered.
c)Public apathy about the whole issue would grow in time.
d)they could just continue to lie (it worked so far).


[/ QUOTE ]

Your assertations in a), c) and d) are all untrue though i.e. the Bush administration is being held accountable for their decisions, the public is not apathetic about the issue and there own guy said they didn't exist. Furthermore the Democrats and Republicans are calling for explanations as to how the conclusions were drawn. Your assertation in d) is totally off the mark. What's worked so far? Again making the point that if Bush deliberately lied about their existance before the war why the honest account that they don't exist?

Nope the political risks were too high to deliberately lie and then give an honest account and investigation showing that your conclusions were totally wrong.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
This isn't hard. They might not have been able to "plant" credible evidence in a way that preveted it from coming out, and the possibility of being caught could prove more embarrassing than the chance of coming up with nothing. But as they say, the search continues ....

[/ QUOTE ]

I appreciate your acknowledgement that your speculating on the possible reasons. It seems to me that planting such evidence wouldn't be too hard but the political risks were too high to do such a thing. But then again you read people on this forum saying that they'll be "found." But I acknowledge that you may be right.

[ QUOTE ]
As far as political embarrassment, it could be a simple cost-benefit analysis: the prize of Iraq is worth the political risk. After all, those outside the administration that pushed for the war -- the right-wing propagandists, the Defense Policy Board members and their military-industrial clients, the academic strategists -- aren't taking much risk. Worse-case scenario for Rumsfeld is that he resigns to accept the chairmanship of Lockheed-Boeing-Martin-whatever after a spell teaching at the Kennedy school.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok but it seems to me that if this was true then they underestimated the risk. I really doubt that this is the case but again it could be. I think it's a low probability
scenario.

[ QUOTE ]
Here's a good example. During the Reagan administration the bete noir of the contra war was Elliot Abrams. Nobody epitomized support for the war more than he, then Undersecretary of State for Latin American Affairs. He was the premier advocate of what me and the other critics called the largest terrorist operation in the world, a nearly decade of terror against schools, clinics, farms and cooperatives that killed some 30,000 people. We all said he was lying about U.S. assitance to these goons, and sure enough, he was caught, indicted for misleading Cognress about illegal arms shipments and convicted.

A ruined man? Not these guys. His conviction was overturned on appeal because the Congressional immunity he received was too broad. To be on the safe side, Bush Sr. gave him a blanket pardon in 1992. So he got a job with the Washington white shoe law firm Millbank Tweed, probably at the high six figures or more. He's now residing as Senior Director for Near East and North African Affairs on Bush's National Security Council.

[/ QUOTE ]

A good example of what?

[ QUOTE ]
What risk? To become embarrassed one must be susceptible to feelings of shame.

More importantly, the chance of the U.S. "losing" poltical control over Iraq is still very small. The risks to U.S. loss of hegemony also have little to do with the WMD issue (they relate more to disputes arising with the locals). If it weren't for the casualties continuing to pile up, this war would virtually drop from the screen of all of those that aren't already and irevocably convinced one way or the other.

[/ QUOTE ]

Au contraire I think that the long term outlook for Iraq is very unclear.

[MattHatter]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
a)they would not be held to account for the lies.
b)occupation cannot be undone. Iraq is conquered.
c)Public apathy about the whole issue would grow in time.
d)they could just continue to lie (it worked so far).


[/ QUOTE ]
Your assertations in a), c) and d) are all untrue though

[/ QUOTE ]

It was somewhat unclear at the beginning of my 1st post.. but I didn't mean to state these as facts.. they fit with the cynical "I think" of the preceding sentence.

"As cynical as this may sound. I think they knew it would eventually come out. But even if it did, they also knew that: " a b c.....


[ QUOTE ]
the Bush administration is being held accountable for their decisions

[/ QUOTE ]

This has yet to play out. Bush is set to chose the mandate and composition of the panel that ius set to investigate himself, is he not? Not a good start.

[ QUOTE ]
Your assertation in d) is totally off the mark. What's worked so far?

[/ QUOTE ]

Mirepresentation of the truth has worked so far. Not to mention outright lying. It did get him the war he wanted (IMO). I'll requote my first post here:
"I particularly liked the quote from GWs state of the union to the effect that... Had we not acted his WMD programs would continue to this day. What?!?! "



[ QUOTE ]
Nope the political risks were too high to deliberately lie and then give an honest account and investigation showing that your conclusions were totally wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know.. I mean take a look at the political risks, really. He'll probably win re-election.

The risk is tiny compared to the prize.

You seem suggesting that for the sake of not bieng embarassed (or political capital) that he would deny the opportunity provided by 9/11 to gain the strategic value of controlling the second largest oil reserves in the world. Even Nixon got a heros funeral.

I think it is your conclusion that may be flawed, due to the fact that it takes a very narrow view of the plus' and minus' of the situation. Focusing on partisan political advantage rather than the larger geo-political advantages.

They can spin thier way out of political hot water.. but to conquor a nation that haseperhaps the most important strategic reserves in the world, I mean how can you compare?

Again I'll quote my first post: "Politically embarassing is a small price to pay for the jewel of arabic oil. Not to mention the setting of a new international standard whereby the US does what it want where it wants with it's massive military."

Peace, Matt

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
You seem suggesting that for the sake of not bieng embarassed (or political capital) that he would deny the opportunity provided by 9/11 to gain the strategic value of controlling the second largest oil reserves in the world. Even Nixon got a heros funeral.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah now we're getting somewhere the Bush wants the oil arguement. What I'm saying is that it's totally illogical to know that WMD's did not exist in Iraq; to deliberately lie and say they did; conduct an investigation to uncover them in Iraq that spanned months; and have your guy come back and say that none exist. Also that Clinton must have been promoting the same lie that Bush would be promoting just doesn't compute. Where is the evidence that Bush is controlling the second larget oil reserves in the world?

[ QUOTE ]
I think it is your conclusion that may be flawed, due to the fact that it takes a very narrow view of the plus' and minus' of the situation. Focusing on partisan political advantage rather than the larger geo-political advantages.

[/ QUOTE ]

huh? Perhaps I'm wrong but staying in office would seem to come before benifitting from a geo-political advantage whatever that may be. Could you elaborate on the geo-political advantages that Bush is seeking?

[ QUOTE ]
Again I'll quote my first post: "Politically embarassing is a small price to pay for the jewel of arabic oil. Not to mention the setting of a new international standard whereby the US does what it want where it wants with it's massive military."

[/ QUOTE ]

In my post I stated that at the very least Bush would suffer a political embarassment. Events have gone way passed being a political embarassment which would be expected by the administration. The truth is that US foreign policy since post Gulf War that Hussein had stockpiles of WMD. Clinton has stated as such and gave it as a reason of bombing Baghdad in 1998. How soon the Democrats forget.

[Cyrus]

"Where did you get your MBA from, Yale, Penn or Harvard?"

I hope you are not suggesting that Dubya is a bona fide Master of Business Administration. I hope you are not suggesting that he is a master of anything, actually.

More importantly, I hope you are not suggesting that an MBA is indicative of intelligence! This would mean that, if anything, we have a vastly different perspective of what constitutes intelligence

[Chris Alger]

By "found" I think we should include the perception that they've been found. As someone who's fairly well-informed, you might find this incredible, but I'm sure the polls show 20-30% think they've have been found, perhaps because reports to the contrary emanate from the "liberal media." All those stories about undislcosed drones, WMD facotries, scuds, chemical suits, etc. have their effect. One poll showed some material percentage, I think around 15-20%, thinking that Saddam actually used WMD during the war.

Abrams is an example of why the U.S. powerful should assume they make war with impunity. His is one of many.

[MMMMMM]

Cyrus I think we've had this discussion before. I remarked that I had read that Bush scored over 600 on each of his SAT sections--something no dunce could do, anyway. You had no refutation for that, but instead claimed that Bush's actions proved his lack of intelligence. So: where's the beef to your claim?

Also, you probably do have a different idea as to what constitutes intelligence than do most people: I recall another discussion with you where you suggested that IQ tests mean very little. I personally doubt that because every very intelligent person I have known in my life who has taken IQ tests has done well on them.

You also erroneously claimed that dyslexia is proof of lack of intelligence when instead it is a specific problem and condition.

Anyway, if you are going to claim Bush is a nitwit, can't you at least offer us some evidence? There is at least some evidence that he is not a nitwit (SAT scores, MBA) so please, don't keep us waiting.

[adios]

Hi Cyrus,

Yeah I think it does take at above average intelligence to achieve an MBA from an Ivy League school.

adios amigo /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[southerndog]

Bush Scored about a 1210 on his SAT's.

Could he get into Yale without preferential treatment? No.
Could he have gotten into Harvard without preferential treatment? No. He is against preferential treatment because
of race, but apparently not those with money. Seems strange.


Is a 1210 a lousy score? No, not compared to the rest of the population. For someone who wants to be competitive at IVY's, it sucks. If my friend got a 1210, I would say, that's a good score. If he wanted to get into Yale, I would tell him to take it again. If he told me he was President of the most powerful country in the world, I would be scared.

It isn't just that his scores suck, its that he has shunned and resisted education everywhere along the way. His grades at Yale sucked. I'm sure they sucked at Andover and Harvard too. He has even gone so far as saying he's not interested in "reading some book about foreign policy."

The point is that he has had everything handed to him. His businesses and elections.

He is definitely smarter than your average joe. But he is definitely the least intellectual, and biggest underachiever of any president we have had.

[adios]

Could he get into Yale without preferential treatment? No. Could he have gotten into Harvard without preferential treatment? No. He is against preferential treatment because
of race, but apparently not those with money. Seems strange.

Actually that doesn't seem strange /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

Is a 1210 a lousy score? No, not compared to the rest of the population. For someone who wants to be competitive at IVY's, it sucks. If my friend got a 1210, I would say, that's a good score. If he wanted to get into Yale, I would tell him to take it again. If he told me he was President of the most powerful country in the world, I would be scared.

So the higher the SAT score of our president the more secure we should feel? Why is that?

It isn't just that his scores suck, its that he has shunned and resisted education everywhere along the way.

If you mean formal education he's certainly not alone. Does this preclude him or anyone else for that matter who behaives in this manner from being a competant and effective president? If so why?

His grades at Yale sucked. I'm sure they sucked at Andover and Harvard too. He has even gone so far as saying he's not interested in "reading some book about foreign policy."

Same reply to this statement as to the previous statement.

The point is that he has had everything handed to him. His businesses and elections.

Wrong. I know what you'll say about Florida and 2000 which I already will state that I disagree. Are you claiming that his election victories in Texas were handed to him too (an opportunity for you to backtrack gracefully)?

He is definitely smarter than your average joe. But he is definitely the least intellectual, and biggest underachiever of any president we have had.

What's your criteria.

I only replied to this post because I think it's a bunch of loaded rhetoric stating your opinion as being fact that muddles the issues regarding Bush.

[adios]

For Cyrus and Dog.

The Know-'Em-All (http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110004640)

The Know-'Em-All
How President Bush is smarter than the intellectuals who disdain him.

BY MICHAEL SEGAL
Wednesday, February 4, 2004 12:01 a.m. EST

Many people look back on their college years and regret how much they missed of the great intellectual resources of the university. Not me. My regrets are about failing to meet more of the remarkable people who were my fellow undergraduates at Harvard and nearby MIT. I thought of such socializing as mere fun, which came after coursework. As a result, there were a lot of interesting students I never got to meet, from Benjamin Netanyahu to Benazir Bhutto, from Bill Gates to Scott McNealy, even though some of these people knew friends of mine. But my regrets are more wistful than realistic, since no one knew everyone in college.

Except George W. Bush. His Yale classmates claim that he knew everyone in their undergraduate class, and one can almost believe this was literally true. Classmate Clay Johnson recalled the time when he and George Bush were freshman pledges for the DKE fraternity. Upperclassmen were berating them as "the sorriest bunch of pledges that they had ever heard of," Mr. Johnson told PBS's "Frontline" in 2000:


Normally most pledge classes are very tight and very supportive of one another, and we were 50 individuals and were not interested in each other and there was no unity in our class. And they said it was really quite deplorable.
To make this point to us, they started calling on people to get up and name their fellow pledge members. And they called the first person, and he named four or five. And then he didn't know anybody else's name, and they told him what a sorry human being he was and how little he cared about his pledges. Then they called on somebody else and he named eight or ten but didn't know anybody else.

Anyway, the third or fourth person they called on was George. He got up and named all 50. There was this hush that fell over the room.

Mr. Bush went on to become the president of the fraternity. He didn't know just the names--classmates marvel about how he could sum up each person's essence with great insight and humor.
When intellectuals tell me how much they hate President Bush and how stupid they think he is, I know that he excelled at the crucial form of learning whose importance I didn't fully appreciate when I was in college. It sank in only years later as I watched people in business do wonders by drawing on their personal relationships, much as scientists do wonders by marshaling knowledge that is more abstract. This focus on personal relationships may be the key to the president's success--and to why so many intellectuals disdain him.





When Mr. Bush ran against John McCain in 2000 presidential primaries, the Arizona senator was quick on his feet and had a good answer for every question. The Texas governor, on the other hand, had a great team. Mr. McCain was the know-it-all; Mr. Bush was the know-'em-all. Both sets of skills are important, but the presidency is a job in which you can't know everything about every issue or make things happen just by yourself. Being a good judge of people and having a great team is of huge importance.
To a typical intellectual, how much you know is far more important than knowing whom you can trust and count on. This is why Mr. Bush is so infuriating to intellectuals. He makes no pretense that he has all the answers, and he talks like a regular guy--but the team he leads is reshaping the Middle East with a brashness and vision equal to that of his Reaganite predecessors, as well as making major changes in domestic policy.

Polls show that most Americans admire Mr. Bush's personal qualities, but to intellectuals he doesn't show the personal quality they most admire. Thus to them Mr. Bush's successes seems undeserved, attributable to others. Although the president's IQ is estimated (based on SAT scores) as greater than that of 90% of Americans, he is portrayed as the puppet of smarter men.

It's hard to budge stereotypes, but Mr. Bush could use his talents at personal relationships to reassure intellectuals, emulating some of his predecessors. John F. Kennedy made a big show of inviting intellectuals to the White House, and President Clinton had widely publicized policy sessions with thought leaders while president-elect. These actions were crucial to cementing their reputations for wisdom. President Bush, through a series of lunches with a wide variety of thought leaders at the White House, could get across the message that being a know-'em-all is a great way to pool the wisdom of the community and channel it into wise policy. And I bet he'd have a lot of fun doing it.

Dr. Segal is a neurologist and neuroscientist.

[hetron]

[ QUOTE ]

Hetron my friend we seem to have many miscommunications in our exchanges. I don't think one can alter the truth. The truth is what it is. I think your question is probably best re-phrased as follows:


[/ QUOTE ]
I didn't mean to try to confuse you with how I asked the question. But you are right, in this case I think details are important.

[ QUOTE ]


Do you still believe that the Bush administration believed that the Iraqis had significant amounts of WMD?

Yes I think they believed that there were probably WMD stockpiled in Iraq.


[/ QUOTE ]

Based on what do you hold on to this belief? Where is the evidence of intelligence reports that existed before the war that were so convincing that they would lead the Bush administration to carry out this invasion?

[ QUOTE ]
Furthermore, that their decisions regarding the threat Iraq posed was merely a result of "bad intel"?

No.


[/ QUOTE ]

Now I'm perplexed! If their decision wasn't a result of bad intel, and there were no WMD's in Iraq, why did they invade?

Turnabout is fair play /images/graemlins/smile.gif. Questions for you:

Do you still believe that the Bush administration believed that the Iraqis had significant amount of WMD?


[/ QUOTE ]
I honestly believe that the neocons wanted an invasion of Iraq and pushed Bush and Powell to go along with the invasion. I think that Powell smelled a rat from the beginning. I'm shocked he hasn't quit yet. Bush had a disdain for Hussein and has a lot of trust in Cheney and Rumsfeld and didn't need much of a push to go along.

I think Cheney and Donnie Rum knew all along that there was a snowball's chance in hell that WMD's existed in Iraq and did whatever it took to get this war. These guys come from the same school of thought as the John Poindexter, Oliver North Iran-Contra crew and have nothing but utter contempt for anyone who gets in the way of US hegemony.
[ QUOTE ]

I'm assuming that your answer will be no. If it is no then another question:

If the administration knew that the Iraqis did not have significant amounts of WMD, then the Bush administration was deliberately lying about their beliefs that WMD stockpiles existed. If the Bush administration deliberately lied about the existance of significant amount of WMD evidence why didn't they plant such evidence i.e. why go through the trouble of the investigation that Kay undertook knowing that the results would be at the very least politically embarassing?

I'll be waiting for answer to these questions till hell freezes over /images/graemlins/smile.gif.



[/ QUOTE ]

Blaming bad intel is one thing. There are always ways to make things seem murkier than they really were. As Mr. Alger states, you can always get some "crack committee" together and have them put together some offical-looking report with the conclusion at the end saying "regrettably some mistakes were made..."\

Planting evidence is a completely different story. You have to hatch a plan and then execute it. You have to trust that the people who execute your plan don't snitch. You have to trust that the people you do the plan with don't turn snitch. It's not quite as easy as you make it sound. Just look at what a disaster Watergate turned out to be.

[Taxman]

I consider this a fairly frivolous topic, but as a matter of fact it is obvious that Bush is not of the intellectual caliber (read: not an exceptional academic) of say Woodrow Wilson or (dare I say it?) Mr. Clinton. Does this effect his ability to govern the nation? No, not necessarily. I don't think he's an idiot. Frankly I am impressed with his ability to deflect criticisms towards him (Not being sarcastic. I actually do respect it, though I don't respect all of his methods). I'm pretty sure force of personality, tenacity, diplomatic ability and the ability to take other's advice (and know who's is most relevant) are all probably at least as important as intelligence quotient (along with many other qualities of course). Does Bush possess a sufficient amount of these other qualities? I'm not so sure, but that's a topic for another time.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
I consider this a fairly frivolous topic, but as a matter of fact it is obvious that Bush is not of the intellectual caliber (read: not an exceptional academic) of say Woodrow Wilson or (dare I say it?) Mr. Clinton.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes I agree with you on all of your points here.

Does this effect his ability to govern the nation? No, not necessarily.

I agree.

I don't think he's an idiot.

I don't either but Cyrus does and I was pointing out to him the error of his ways. That ole Cyrus is a sly son of a gun, have to keep him inline once in awhile /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

Frankly I am impressed with his ability to deflect criticisms towards him (Not being sarcastic. I actually do respect it, though I don't respect all of his methods).

I understand your point.

I'm pretty sure force of personality, tenacity, diplomatic ability and the ability to take other's advice (and know who's is most relevant) are all probably at least as important as intelligence quotient (along with many other qualities of course).

I concur.

Does Bush possess a sufficient amount of these other qualities? I'm not so sure, but that's a topic for another time.

Yep and we'll find out next November where the voters come down on the qualities you mention.

[Taxman]

I made a post and adios agreed with pretty much all of it! Just to clarify, I was making more of a general post on the topic than a direct response to yours. I do think that too many Bush haters (and I am one, or at least I'm a Bush disliker) go out of their way to attack unimportant things like his intelligence. He's not the sharpest guy out there, but if he were a total idiot (by idiot I mean mentally slow), he most likely wouldn't be President. I am too tired this week (Midterms. I'm sure those no longer in school sure miss that part of it) to get into the truly relevant topics, but that won't stop me from telling others to do the same! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[adios]

First thing my comment in the post about till hell freezes over was meant to be joke in reference to a comment that Adlai Stevenson made to the Soviets at the UN during the Cuban Missle Crisis.

[ QUOTE ]
Based on what do you hold on to this belief? Where is the evidence of intelligence reports that existed before the war that were so convincing that they would lead the Bush administration to carry out this invasion?

[/ QUOTE ]

Basically this has been accepted as true long before Bush took office. Many links have been posted on this forum that back this up. I'm too lazy to dredge them up again now. Perhaps I'll be motivated later to do that. Here's a link regarding Desert Fox that is applicable.

Desert Fox Overview (http://www.defenselink.mil/specials/desert_fox/)

As I stated to Chris, let's see how the process unfolds. Here's an interesting op ed piece from Monday's WSJ that gives a different perspective than yours. I agree with some of it but not all. The administration probably over emphasized the WMD threat. The needed to do this to try and secure a UN Resolution to liberate Iraq. If the US would simply not have gone down this path as this op ed story implies the administration would have been far better off.

COMMENTARY

'Kay' Sera, Sera

By R. JAMES WOOLSEY

So which is it: Are America's spies a gaggle of fools for believing that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction? Or is the Bush administration a gang of knaves for lying us into a war?

Take the spies-as-fools allegation first.

There was no substantial disagreement between the U.S. and other countries before the war about the likelihood -- based on a history of deception -- that Saddam Hussein retained weapons of mass destruction. Jacques Chirac warned last February about "the probable possession of weapons of mass destruction by an uncontrollable country, Iraq" and added "the international community is right . . . in having decided that Iraq should be disarmed." David Kay has spoken of German and Russian intelligence reports that "painted a picture of Iraq armed with weapons of mass destruction." The Israelis procured gas masks for every citizen. If Saddam actually disposed of all his weapons and stocks of chemical and biological agent well before last year's war began, many countries were deceived.

But we are now learning something further from Mr. Kay's recent disclosures: that there were quite specific pre-war indications of WMD -- "reports of movement" of weapons themselves, of "weapons being assigned to specific units as well as specific locations." This may explain the press reports that appeared in this newspaper and elsewhere late last year. Each captured Iraqi general being interrogated was convinced that, although his own unit had no chemical weapons, the units on his right and left flanks certainly did.

* * *
There are several possible explanations for such indications of the presence of actual weapons. First, Saddam, knowing that he had destroyed his stockpiles, may have spread false stories that he knew would reach our ears in order to intimidate us. We pulled up short of Baghdad in 1991 and he may have thought such lies could help deter us again. He may also have wanted to maintain his reputation for having WMD, as Mr. Kay suggests, to look formidable in the Arab world and intimidate his own people. The oddest possibility Mr. Kay suggests is that Saddam may have been deceived himself by some of his own scientists into paying for non-existent WMD programs while the scientists pocketed the funds. This would amount to his having been our co-victim in a fraud run by other Iraqis.

A second possibility is that stockpiles were destroyed, but some only at the last minute -- as war began -- so that these latter did exist when the intelligence estimates were made. There have been intriguing press reports on this point, including a story in the New York Times last April about an Iraqi intelligence officer who said he was asked to destroy chemical weapons material just as the war started. Such a last-minute cleaning up would fit with reported Franco-Russian efforts early last year to help Iraq obtain a cease-fire coupled with thorough inspections.

Third, reports from both Mr. Kay and earlier ones from intelligence imagery analysts have indicated that some WMD-related material probably crossed into Syria early last year. So some stockpiles may have been exported as the war began. Others may have been hidden then.

But for last-minute destruction, shipment or hiding, the volumes of biological or chemical agent would have to have been small. Wouldn't stockpiles of WMD themselves be massive, as former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook is fond of suggesting?

Actually, no. Why? Stockpiles would normally have been composed of biological or chemical "agents," ready to be inserted into weapons. Take anthrax. The Iraqis admitted they had made 8,500 liters (8.5 tons), and Colin Powell in his February speech to the U.N. Security Council noted that the U.N. inspectors thought Saddam could have about three times as much. But even this larger amount would weigh only some 25 tons in liquid form -- slightly more than one tractor-trailer load. If reduced to powder, as Mr. Powell suggested in his speech, it could be contained in a dozen or so suitcases. Saddam's "stockpile" of biological agent wasn't in his spider hole with him. But it could have been.

Where does this leave the idea of an outside investigation? There are six ongoing investigations in the U.S. -- two in Congress, three in the Executive, and one under Charles A. Duelfer, Mr. Kay's successor. It would seem reasonable to let them finish before starting a seventh. But to jump ahead in a thought-experiment, how might such an outside review propose correcting the spies' foolishness, assuming it found such?

Take the solution most often proposed -- including by Mr. Kay: Put less emphasis on technical intelligence and more on human collection. Well, suppose that CIA director George Tenet had emphasized human intelligence even more than he does already and had succeeded a year ago in recruiting a batch of Iraqi generals as spies -- an incredible achievement. But then each one had honestly but falsely reported that Saddam had WMD, at specific locations. We would still have an intelligence failure. What Mr. Kay has described as Iraq's "vortex of corruption" seems to have created an intelligence twilight zone. Maybe better human intelligence could have detected that zone and helped foster more skepticism. There are probably a number of things that we will be able to learn from the pre-war history of WMD estimates. But the indignant should give the rest of us a hint about how U.S. intelligence should have proceeded to get to the truth about the Iraqi WMD programs in these circumstances.

What about the Bush administration's alleged knavery?

Mr. Kay dismisses the idea that knavery existed. There is, however, an element of misjudgment within the White House that should be noted. A year ago September it set out a sound policy for the post-Cold War era of rogue dictatorships, terrorism and proliferation of WMD. It said, essentially, that if a terrible dictatorship has both WMD programs and ties to terrorists it may be a candidate for preventive war -- in no small measure because such a regime may supply WMD to terrorists. But in the run-up to the war, instead of equally emphasizing the nature of Saddam's regime with its massive human-rights violations and its ties to terrorist groups, the administration focused almost exclusively on WMD, especially in Mr. Powell's speech to the Security Council.

It has been suggested that bureaucratic compromises drove that decision -- since WMD was the one issue all relevant agencies could agree on. But the history of murder, rape and torture by Saddam's regime is one of the most extraordinary in human history. If one counts the Iranians who died in his war of aggression in the 1980s, he has killed two million people -- about 10 times the number killed by Slobodan Milosovic, with whom the Clinton administration went to war twice in the 1990s on human-rights grounds.

And Iraq's ties with terrorist groups in the '90s are clear. Even if one focuses only on Iraqi ties to Abu Nidal and Ansar-al-Islam, the requirements of the administration's policy would seem to be met. And in the fall of 2002, Mr. Tenet wrote to Congress outlining a decade of connections between Iraq and al Qaeda, including training in poisons, gases and explosives. There was no need to show that Iraq participated in 9/11 or even that it directed al Qaeda in any operations -- describing occasional cooperation of the sort that is well chronicled was quite sufficient. The Baathists and al Qaeda were like two Mafia families -- they hated, insulted and killed one another, but readily cooperated from time to time against a common enemy. Why not say so?

Such a three-part emphasis on human rights, terrorist ties and WMD programs would have been solidly in line with the president's own explicit policy. A three-legged stool is more stable than a one-legged one, but for some reason the administration decided not to make all three parts of its case in justifying the decision to go to war. As a result, its very heavy emphasis on WMD to the exclusion of the other two bases of its strategy has left the administration vulnerable to the failure to find WMD stockpiles. Whoever caused that decision to be made may have succeeded in papering over some bureaucratic feuding, but reaped a political whirlwind.

Mr. Woolsey, director of Central Intelligence from 1993-95, is a vice president of Booz Allen Hamilton.

Updated February 2, 2004

[MMMMMM]

Well, according to the above posts, if one uses SAT scores as a benchmark, Bush appears to be smarter than 90% of the general population...which could well mean he is smarter than about 90% of those who make fun of his intelligence /images/graemlins/wink.gif.

Hey Cyrus! Think maybe...just maybe...Bush is smarter than you? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Best wishes on your Midterms, Taxman/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[adios]

What are you studying in school out of curiosity?

[Taxman]

I am a dual history and biochemistry major finishing up my third year. In history I am focusing mostly on early European history, though I have recently gained an interest in American legal history. In case you're wondering why I have such a strange combo of majors, it's because my ultimate interest lies in Patent law, which requires a science or engineering degree to practice (generally speaking). Cheers.

[adios]

Thanks for the info. My wife has a biology degree and also took a lot of chemistry including biochemistry so I have an appreciation as to the nature of the challenge you're undertaking.

[Taxman]

[ QUOTE ]
In history I am focusing mostly on early European history, though I have recently gained an interest in American legal history.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yuck. Fortunately I usually avoid ugly sentneces like that when I'm writing papers. Thanks for the sentiment. I'm glad to share a little biographical info. I figure it helps others understand where I'm coming from.