G W BUSH "bad intelligence"

[revelarts]

"bad intelligence"











"I apologise," said Tony Blair in an interview with CNN's Fareed Zakaria, "for the fact that the intelligence we received was wrong because, even though (Saddam) had used chemical weapons extensively against his own people, against others, the program in the form that we thought it was did not exist in the way that we thought."


Smoke Bush, Powell, Blair and Trump.

[NightTrain]

Deliberate stupidity V.1

[Elessar]

"bad intelligence"



"I apologise," said Tony Blair in an interview with CNN's Fareed Zakaria, "for the fact that the intelligence we received was wrong because, even though (Saddam) had used chemical weapons extensively against his own people, against others, the program in the form that we thought it was did not exist in the way that we thought."

Are you just now figuring that out, REV?




Smoke Bush, Powell, Blair and Trump.

Too bad that the whole civilized world accepted it at the time, as well
as 87% of the U.S.Congress.
Essentially. GWB did NOT lie. much to the liberal whiners concern, and yours.

It stinks, yes. But what was believed as true was acted upon.

Care tell, how does this apply to this era?

[revelarts]

Too bad that the whole civilized world accepted it at the time, as wellas 87% of the U.S.Congress. Essentially. GWB did NOT lie. much to the liberal whiners concern, and yours. It stinks, yes. But what was believed as true was acted upon.
Care tell, how does this apply to this era?

Didn't want to derail the other thread.

but,
Bush "believed" and told the world that Iraq had and was making WMDs and the U.S. attacked on false premises.

Trump "believes" and told the world that Syria used Chemical Weapons and he attacked Syria. Is it worth questioning the presidents the assertions in this era. Is it worth getting firm confirmation BEFORE we attack another nation again?

[FakeNewsSux]

Don't forget, it wasn't just bad intel. The irresistible impulse of an establishment Republican to be "bi-partisan" just couldn't be overcome.

From she who would be Queen, the smartest, most qualified woman in the history of the world:


And after he voted against it:

[revelarts]

Hillary and Kerry were both wrong and love war as well as most Neo-cons. But Hillary wasn't the CiC, Bush was. He's got to own it and he has somewhat.

There were only a few people that stood against the invasion of Iraq in congress, the intel orgs and the media.
But they were mocked and shouted down. Called names, called unpatriotic, But somehow they had the FACTS correct.
To bad getting people to get off of their partisan or flag waving jingoistic hobby-horses to THINK OBJECTIVELY is a miracle that they couldn't pull off though.

Some on the right like Ron Paul, and some on the left like Dennis Kucinich, Plus various people in the CIA, DIA, NSA and the Pentagon not to mentioned the hated and mocked U.N. inspectors. Plus a few in the media.

even Blix said it would only take weeks to determine if there were WMDs to be concerned about. but ...noooo.
Bush, Hillary, Chenny Rummy all knew better.

I'm not sure why some people get so pissed and act like i'm an enemy when I simply says we need to quadruple check the Facts from all sources BEFORE we decide to attack/bomb/invade other countries.

and add that BTW our elected officials at all levels should FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION, at all times...and let congress declare war....1st.

Is following the constitution and getting solid proof by checking with ALL sources before going to war considered America hatin' leftwing crazy talk for some folks on the right nowadays?

[NightTrain]

You've been educated about the War Powers Act at least a dozen times,

Your stupid charade pretending that you don't know what's up is embarrassing.

If you somehow don't remember the education provided by me and others, re-educate yourself and report back here to apologize.

Dismissed.

[revelarts]

You've been educated about the War Powers Act at least a dozen times,

Your stupid charade pretending that you don't know what's up is embarrassing.

If you somehow don't remember the education provided by me and others, re-educate yourself and report back here to apologize.

Dismissed.

Attacking Iraq did not fall under the War Powers Act, this is why Bush went to congress and squeezed out of them the Iraq Resolution and then went to the U.N. for approval. Because without either Bush would have been in violation of the Constitution, the War powers Act AND international law.
And attacking Syria now does not fall under the War Powers Act either.

I've read carefully what you and others mention concerning the war powers act and often it's tossed out as the 1st excuse but eventually i'm told things GENERALLY LIKE this "all the other presidents have done it... hundreds of time therefore IT'S OK somehow" and often added as you did in the other thread.. "...they were scum bags and deserved it..." so we should all "wave the flag" and support it. Without question ,legal or otherwise, i guess. Or others will add something LIKE "...something had to be done we can't DO NOTHING..." or something LIKE "...I'm glad a REAL man was the CIC"..." and sometimes the additional reply comes back LIKE "get them BEFORE they get us" or "we're not 'isolationist' we have to bomb/attack/invade other nations" (implying outside of constitutional limits, U.S. and international laws) and because "it's not the 1800s anymore."
(then of course there's finally "why do you hate America?" "why do you think America is evil?" "why do you hate Bush" "democrat Z, Y and/or Z did it too so it's ok")

But maybe i really haven't understood what you and other mean by "the War powers Act".
It's obvious that many here think it grants far more authority than i do. (I think the act is practically unconstitutional really)
But if i could get some clarity from you or others.
and someone could answer 4 questions and clear this up for me about YOU folks CORRECT understanding of the War Powers Act.

1. What LIMITS does war power act put on a President of the U.S..?
2. at what points would a president have BROKEN the law and over stepped the Act?
3. Would any punishments apply for overstepping the boundaries? If so what, if not why not?
4. Is the War Powers Act a 'Blank Check' that allows the president to do ANYTHING, ANYTIME ANYWHERE in the world militarily? If not, what CAN'T he do?


I'm sorry if my questions are "stupid" but if some kind hearted and patient person would stoop to help this poor confused soul, i'd be truly grateful. Because i really would like to understand why folks think
that many of the past presidents actions and our current bombing of Syria with the few thousand ground forces that have been in Syria for over year now has been legal or constitutional. And it doesn't make our Presidents either constitutional criminals or defacto military warlords.

[Russ]

Rev, there are a few difference between Bush-Iraq back then and Trump-Syria now. First of all, we had intel saying that Iraq had chemical weapons back then, but now we all just saw Syria use the chemical weapons. Or are you disputing they used chemical weapons? Or are you saying we don't know it was Syria used them? I'm assuming you are not saying that.

Second, Trump doesn't want to attack in Syria. In fact, he wants to withdraw from there. I actually think that Assad did the chemical weapons attack in response to Trump's statement that he wanted to leave Syria. Assad wanted to thumb his nose at Trump to say "now I can do whatever I want" but miscalculated about Trump's response. He'd gotten used to the Obama "where's my spine?" foreign policy.

Overall, Trump appears to have no plans whatsoever to do any more offensive actions in Syria, so why compare him to the Bush "bad intel" situation?

[aboutime]

An addage we all know, such as:


That you are practicing here, just like Democrats, and little kids who keep blaming others for their ignorance, and STUPID mistakes... So, you repeat the same old crap, years after it took place, and hope none of us will notice???

[revelarts]

Rev, there are a few difference between Bush-Iraq back then and Trump-Syria now. First of all, we had intel saying that Iraq had chemical weapons back then, but now we all just saw Syria use the chemical weapons. Or are you disputing they used chemical weapons? Or are you saying we don't know it was Syria used them? I'm assuming you are not saying that.

Yes i'm saying that we Do NOT know that Assad ordered the Attack.
AND that we don't know that it was a chemical attack.
there are reports from British and American journalist that have visited the site and report that the dr's in that hospital and others in the area say there was NO chemical attack but people suffering and choking from dust after some attack or building collapse. And there has been no independent report from the OPCW chem weapons inspectors that confirms the chemical attack yet. And NO hard evidence that confirms Assad's troops made a chem attack or much less that he gave the orders.

So it is similar in the sense that both Iraq and Syria are saying they don't have or did not do the crime.
While the U.S. and allies INSIST confidently that they did. And that the U.S. and friends need to give the evil dictators a spanking.

Second, Trump doesn't want to attack in Syria. In fact, he wants to withdraw from there.

that's what he said during the campaign and just weeks before the alleged chem attacks.
But Bush said he wasn't for fighting foreign wars, adventures and wasn't for nation building when he campaigned as well , then there was 9/11. And he decided to attack a country that had ZERO to do with 9/11 and start nation building. So somehow that idea went out the window for him as well.
(And please don't tell me "well when a man get's in office..." It's just an excuse.)

I actually think that Assad did the chemical weapons attack in response to Trump's statement that he wanted to leave Syria. Assad wanted to thumb his nose at Trump to say "now I can do whatever I want" but miscalculated about Trump's response. He'd gotten used to the Obama "where's my spine?" foreign policy.

that's a nice story but, how about lets prove the attack 1st before we start making up actions and motives.

But if we're speculating on motives then really Assad had NO good motives to use chem weapons. Trump had already shown last year that he'd bomb. Why risk pulling him back? ESPECIALLY since Assad was already winning against the ISIS/rebels without chem weapons. He's nearly regained 100% of his country from ISIS/rebels. And Trump had said he was removing US military. Assad wants him to remove all U.S. troops and air threats, so the stupidest thing he could have done was to use chem weapons. And he hasn't stayed in power through the last 3 or 4 presidents attempts to get rid of him becasue he's stupid.

Overall, Trump appears to have no plans whatsoever to do any more offensive actions in Syria, so why compare him to the Bush "bad intel" situation?

Because it started the same way, with accusations of crimes over weapons.
And the accusations from Bush (and many dems) were FALSE.
And at this point it looks like these accusation against Assad are false as well.

Plus there's the question of constitutionality and general legality in both cases.
Iraq never attacked the U.S., neither has Syria but somehow both Presidents think it's A-OK to militarily invade, overthrow or "teach a lesson" to them. Russ, there's NOTHING in the Constitution or the war power act that gives the President the right to willy-nilly attack other nations for 10 minutes. Even if it's "JUST" to bomb them for a few days. Even if there are no causalities and it "JUST" buildings, military facilities and national airfields.
So yes there are very real similarities, even if Trump SAYS he has 'no plans' to do AS MUCH as Bush did.

(BTW funny thing, no one ever answers me when i ask if it's NOT "War", if another country "just" bombs the U.S. for a few days.)

[FakeNewsSux]

Rev, I feel your pain. Yes in a perfect world the President would ask for a formal declaration of war from the Congress but unfortunately, Congress has determined that it is better to abdicate its responsibilities to the Executive Branch and its many departments and bureaus and after the fact either take credit for success or scream about failure. This is not only a sad reality when it comes to war and other foreign policy measures, it's true for most domestic policy as well. After a Democrat controlled Congress voted down the Dream Act the President told a group of immigration activists that he wasn't a king and couldn't just sign a law removing the risk of deportation for minor illegal aliens. A few months later he did just that and signed DACA into law. On the GOP side, the Republican controlled Congress has steadfastly refused to do its one Constitutionally proscribed duty, passing a damn budget! I don't think that the current situation has evolved from overly aggressive Presidents seizing unconstitutional powers but rather the result of feckless career politicians in Congress desiring not to be held accountable for anything that could put a crimp in their fundraising efforts. Hard term limits would go a long way to solving many of the problems you have brought up.

[revelarts]

Rev, I feel your pain. Yes in a perfect world the President would ask for a formal declaration of war from the Congress but unfortunately, Congress has determined that it is better to abdicate its responsibilities to the Executive Branch and its many departments and bureaus and after the fact either take credit for success or scream about failure. This is not only a sad reality when it comes to war and other foreign policy measures, it's true for most domestic policy as well. After a Democrat controlled Congress voted down the Dream Act the President told a group of immigration activists that he wasn't a king and couldn't just sign a law removing the risk of deportation for minor illegal aliens. A few months later he did just that and signed DACA into law. On the GOP side, the Republican controlled Congress has steadfastly refused to do its one Constitutionally proscribed duty, passing a damn budget! I don't think that the current situation has evolved from overly aggressive Presidents seizing unconstitutional powers but rather the result of feckless career politicians in Congress desiring not to be held accountable for anything that could put a crimp in their fundraising efforts. Hard term limits would go a long way to solving many of the problems you have brought up.

Term limits would probably help, i'd agree.
But it'd still be money and influence in the game spoiling the pot. Notice Obama's 1st speech after he left office. It wasn't to an immigrants group, or Black lives matter, or the Muslim brotherhood. it was to a Wall St. group that gave him a fat check... for services rendered maybe?

Congressional term limits without the ability to collect fat checks or seats in any company that they tangentially could have influenced the fortunes of. Not sure how the logistics would work on that but i suspect FAR fewer people would be running for office without the perks of and after office.

As far as presidents seizing powers, I'd have to disagree a bit there. Truman SEIZED the power to go into Korea on non existent legal pretense, of a "police action". Johnson and Nixon sent troops into Vietnam and Nixon secretly bombed Cambodia for like a year. When caught and called on it he fought the congress on even producing the generous "war powers act" CLAIMING that he already had those powers. He vetoed it and the congress had the votes to override. Other presidents did the same, with only a few congress people challenging the acts, some by offering impeachment papers that went nowhere others by filing suit that dead-ended in Courts that sadly didn't want to act against a sitting president. Dick Chenney expressly said that he wanted the president to exercise MORE powers than he legally had. the Sad thing at this point is it's been done so many times now that people seem to think "its NORMAL" or even good that a president can fire missiles, drop bombs or send troops into foreign countries AT will at his singular discretion.

People crossing the boarder and setting up house in the U.S. is normal by the same standard. But somehow many people see the problem with the illegality and want it stopped. The fact that something has been allowed to go on for some time doesn't make it legal, or mean it's a good idea.
Obama's DACCA and his drone strikes to 17+ different countries, Military actions to oust Qaddafi, continuing many of the Bush era spying on citizens among other things, all unconstitutional.

I'm not looking for perfection but unless "we the people" can get somewhat on the same page constitution wise it's not going to matter if it's a democrat or republican president. either way they'll have defacto dictatorial powers.

[jimnyc]

But maybe i really haven't understood what you and other mean by "the War powers Act".

Yup, that about wraps up the entire past, present, and likely endless future. Things can only be explained factually so many ways and times. If it isn't fully understood by then, it most likely never will be.

Personally, I find the act to be crystal clear, and apparently our presidents and congress mostly think so as well.

It's like teaching someone advanced calculus. If they are taught 50x, by various teachers, and the folks that designed the use of, then perhaps time for the student to drop said class and move onto another course.

Swearing over and over endlessly does nothing at all to advance your debate. Posting the same things via youtube videos makes no difference. The arguments are soft, but you outright believe ANYONE who agrees with your position.

But IS funny that you have always leaped from Bush and now to Trump, and pretty much never outright went after, or go after Obama. Pretty much only when someone calls you on it as I do now. And then we'll get the obligatory "Well yeah, he was no better" and that's about the end of that.

[Black Diamond]

Yup, that about wraps up the entire past, present, and likely endless future. Things can only be explained factually so many ways and times. If it isn't fully understood by then, it most likely never will be.

Personally, I find the act to be crystal clear, and apparently our presidents and congress mostly think so as well.

It's like teaching someone advanced calculus. If they are taught 50x, by various teachers, and the folks that designed the use of, then perhaps time for the student to drop said class and move onto another course.

Swearing over and over endlessly does nothing at all to advance your debate. Posting the same things via youtube videos makes no difference. The arguments are soft, but you outright believe ANYONE who agrees with your position.

But IS funny that you have always leaped from Bush and now to Trump, and pretty much never outright went after, or go after Obama. Pretty much only when someone calls you on it as I do now. And then we'll get the obligatory "Well yeah, he was no better" and that's about the end of that.

can't imagine why he does that.