Last night, CNN presented the documentary Dead Wrong: Inside an Intelligence Meltdown. (Note: If you did not see it on television, please read/listen to the link before you participate in the thread.)

Based on the information provided in this documentary, would you have voted for the same Presidential candidate in the 2004 election?

Why or why not?



-Moved to Casual Conversation.

Yes. I voted for President Bush and would do so again today.

There is a fundamental difference between an "intelligence failure" and an administration "lying".

Furthermore, the previous administration believed that Saddam was developing WMD's as did the democrat nominees for the presidency in 2000 and in 2004.

Sources:

Clinton on Iraq WMD's

Kerry Speech claiming Iraq WMD's

Albright on Iraq WMD's

Gore comments on Iraq WMD's

And, the intelligence failure went far beyond America's shores. The British believed (and continue to believe) that Saddam was developing WMD's. The French and Russians did not.

British government position on Iraq WMD's.

Reference to German intelligence on Iraq nuclear capabilities

Mossad and Iraq WMD's; different stories at different times

Intelligence, by nature, is often inconclusive. These experts were obtaining snippets of data from a closed society and attempting to draw conclusions.

Some of this data came from defectors from within the Hussein regime.

PBS special on WMD's

The situation that led up to Iraq is not as clear cut as the most extreme of the Bush critics would have us believe. The Clinton administration, John Kerry, and the Bush administration all believed prior to the current war that Saddam either possessed WMD's or was urgently working to develop them. The views of France and Russia were suspect given their extensive commercial ties with the Hussein regime and their financial stake in keeping him in power.

Finally, the reality of the 9/11 attacks and the documented instances of Iraq cooperation and assistance of anti-American terrorist groups, combined with the available intelligence data, led some very reasonable people to a very reasonable conclusion.

Iraq Terrorism Ties

But again, due to the inherent nature of intelligence, there is debate over some of these findings including Iraq ties with Al Qaeda.

This is hardly the first time that the CIA has gotten it wrong.

List of notable CIA failures

Perhaps the real questions should be: How can a nation like the USA tolerate such an inept intelligence service given our risks within this world? Why did we allow ourselves during the 1970's to gut our intelligence organization as an overreaction to perceived abuses in countries like Chile?

Church Commission and Chile

And, is erring on the side of caution (as Bush did) wiser than leaving our country open to attack? It isn't like Saddam had a positive track record with respect to the US. Independent of WMD's, the regime was intent on harming US interests and even attempted to kill one of our ex-presidents.

Iraq Bush assassination attempt

It's grossly inaccurate, given the historical record and context, to parrot the favorite song of the ultra left which is "Bush lied and people died".

Based on the information provided in this documentary, would you have voted for the same Presidential candidate in the 2004 election?

Why or why not?

I voted for Kerry and would do so again today. The information in the documentary doesn't really present anything new. We've known about the intelligence failures for a long time. The Democrats referenced in Lordhelmet's off-topic comments may have been wrong too. But as far as I know, none of them said "We found the weapons of mass destruction" (http://www.whitehouse.gov/g8/interview5.html) ... or "we know where they are" ... and then, later on, comments to the effect of "No one said that we'd find them easily" ... etc etc etc.

This was beyond faulty intelligence. The administration has lied repeatedly. I'm sure that this topic has been beat to death in other threads.

But pertinent to the discussion here, vis a vis the question asked: Kerry displayed an attitude more in line with what the facts are and were, rather than an eagerness to plow forward regardless of evidence, as the Bush administration has done.

I'm sure this has been brought up elsewhere also, but the Bush administration encouraged and fostered faulty intelligence, and disregarded opposing voices in the run up to the war, which later turned out to be voices of reason.

Having it "wrong" doesn't mean that the person who had it wrong, "lied". As I pointed out, it was a widely held notion that Iraq had WMD's. I posted direct links to the evidence that Kerry, Clinton, Gore, and Albright all assumed that Iraq had WMD's and was urgently trying to develop more. If Bush "lied" then so did the others that I referenced. One can't have it both ways.




I'm not sure what you mean by Kerry's attitude.

When he had a chance to give a "yes or no" on the war, he choose to side with the Bush administration.

Kerry speech before "yes" vote

In fact, his direct quote from a Senator with his own independent sources of intelligence as part of his position.



If Bush and his people "lied", then Kerry did too.

It wasn't until Howard Dean pulled ahead in the presidential primary, combined with the fact that Iraq wasn't going to be a "slam dunk" that Kerry was suddenly reborn as the "anti-war candidate".

And yet another perspective of Kerry from the ultra-left where they brand him as a "pro war candidate".

Kerry pro war candidate

People don't have the luxury of hindsight when making critical decisions. They have only the information available to them at the time. And Bush and Kerry both had access to classified information including the dissenting views. In fact Kerry, who is a noted Francophile, was very aware of France's dissenting view prior to his 2002 Senate vote authorizing the war. And he STILL voted in favor of it.

Bush didn't lie and neither did Kerry in 2002.

Only now, when they are trying to spin history does the lying kick in.

Bush and the people who voted for the war (including Kerry, Edwards and Ms. Clinton) did so out of good faith.

Roll call of Iraq resolution

Nearly everyone thought, based on the intelligence, that Iraq was a serious threat. None of them "lied".

This is all assuming that WMD were not just the primary, but actually the only, reason for the invasion. That was not the case, as has been documented. There were a variety of reasons...WMD was merely the one chosen to take to the UN, which then had to be the reason taken to the public. Kerry didn't allude to any of the other reasons...so who's to say whether his attitude was more in line with the facts? Certainly, any attitude that permitted Saddam Hussein to stay in power had a whole slew of factual issues.

I'm curious...has there ever been a war in history in which the public were given full disclosure prior to engaging? Or one in which all intelligence was accurate...or even one in which accurate intelligence wasn't used politically? I don't really condone such activities, but those thinking this is unusual, or even not SOP, are ignoring history, IMHO.

lordhemet, you're combining two issues into one and that's a major disconnect.

I don't think anybody disputes Saddam's WMD - that was hardly the case. But after 9/11, would we be safer fighting actual terrorist threats, or Iraq? Bush framed Iraq as that threat when it is clear that was not the case and he knew it. I voted for Bush first time around and favored regime change in Iraq. Not by invading him, but by using any legal means necessary. But 9/11 happened and changed all that.

Saddam might have had WMD, but so did a host of other countries. But two things are undisputable - Iraq has never been a supplier of WMD or WMD technology (Russia, Korea, China, and Iran have a lock on that), and Saddam would not use WMD if he had them - as evidenced by Gulf War 1.0. He had plenty of WMD that had not deteriorated, but never used them even though the invasion of Bagdad looked imminent. Even when we massacred his troops on the road out of Kuwait, no WMD usage.

So, disgruntled republicans like me wanted to fight the most dangerous - not who we hated the most. Before 9/11, the Bush administration was clear to state Saddam was contained and not a threat. Only after 9/11, did that change. And all this evidence points to how the intelligence never changed - just the usage of it.

So, please, stop with the "everybody knew he had WMD". That's not the point. The point is how all the more dangerous countries and true sponsors of terror were ignored so we could have a war of choice with "the guy that tried to kill my dad" (Bush speaking) and who posed no threat to our national security.

This show proved without question Bush screwed up big time. But as long as he has people like you to cover for him, he can continue to do the wrong things without fear of accountability. Just remember, what goes around comes around. Republicans won't be in power forever and this behavior only empowers future democrats who will be able to get away with the same crap. And that MY problem with current republicans. They have clearly put politics over principle and that is truly despicable, contrary to republican ideals, and quite simply, a bad investment.

That is patently false. To quote the voice of the administration, Ari Fleischer, on April 10, 2003:

You are repeating revisionism as fact when it does not exist and has never existed. This war was about WMD and Saddam's intent to terrorize us with them.

What I mean by that is that he has displayed a learning curve. You call it political opportunism. I call it a learning curve. I'd rather vote for someone that attempts to get it right rather than someone that holds for dear life onto what has been proven wrong, and then lies repeatedly (that's right: lies) in order to cover up, ie., mis-lead about their mis-steps.

Here's an example, according to Lordhelmet, of getting it wrong, like nearly everyone did:




But what about these?









... or what about these?









These are examples of lies. I could go on and on and on with these. Those like Lordhelmet portrayed Kerry as an opportunist that shifted in the wind with the likes of Howard Dean. I prefer anyone that is accountable in regards to their mistakes and mis-statements. I don't see it as opportunism. It's a learning curve, and admitting mistakes and saying things that are true when you know better is an effort to get it right. The Bush administration makes no effort. The Bush team places blame elsewhere and misrepresents what their positions actually were.

I don't think that Kerry has done that. The whole Kerry vs Bush thing is very old and none of us that didn't agree on it then, certainly won't agree now.

But what about these?





The examples of "lies" you are putting forth are no different than what Kerry, Edwards, Clinton, et all were saying. Rumsfeld's opinion was based on "intelligence". It was based on reports from the field. They didn't just make these things up.

What you are calling a "learning curve" with respect to Kerry is what I call opportunism.

It's easy to second guess after the fact which is what Kerry has done since he fell behind Dean in the 2000 primary and decided to become anti-war.

But, it's what he did when the question was posed to him that counts. And he voted "yes" for the war.

Your premise is also that Bush hasn't gone through the "learning curve" as well. What evidence have you posted that Bush would have attacked Iraq if we knew then what we know now? No leader has that luxury. And Kerry's "learning curve" is more evidence that he lacks basic leadership ability since he still, to this day, refuses to stand accountable for HIS vote when he could have just as easily voted "no" like Carl Levin and a number of others did.

Bush "is" attempting to get it right. By not cutting and running and making the situation far, far worse than it is today.

Frankly, and to get back into the spirit of this thread, Kerry has demonstrated his opportunism in this war just like he did in Vietnam. He switched sides when the winds of political opportunity blew him that way.

Quoting political speak when I have stated the the political spin was going to be about WMD doesn't add any evidence that that was in fact the case. What politicians say and the reasons they say it are not always in synch....that's how politics work. This is not revisionism...I stated what I felt were the reasons for the war long before any public documentation on those reasons came out. Simply because you disagree with it doesn't cause it to cease to exist....nor does any politician making a political statement about it. This has been documented and discussed elsewhere...the commission reported that a variety of reasons for invading Iraq were on table. WMD was chosen as the one to take to the UN, and therefore had to be the one stated publicly. There were many other reasons, as there almost always are in war.

Again, I have to wonder....where does the perception that the politics of the situation impact public statements leading up to war is a new thing come from? Full disclosure has NEVER been the case, it will NEVER be the case. Why the surprise here that it wasn't? I ask again...can anyone cite a single war that was started in which full disclosure was given to the public? I can't think of one that even comes close. Political spin has always taken place, it always will take place. Therefore, objective analysis of the situation requires stepping outside of the political arena.



Are they? For one to state categorically that these were lies, one must prove that these were intentional mistatement of facts. Merely providing after-the-fact evidence that such statements were incorrect doesn't offer that...one would have to shown that it was known by the speaker that these statements were incorrect at the time they were spoken. This is almost impossible to do...therefore it is almost impossible to prove the assertion that these were lies.



This is true. I could list potential reasons for it, but that would be the subject of another thread. Suffice it to say that Bush has done a terrible job of managing the politics of the situation...as the current poll numbers show. On the one hand, I respect not playing to the polls, but on the other hand this ignores the reality of the situation. Public support is essential to the war effort....therefore such polls have a real effect.

Lordhelmet,



You're not understanding what I've said. The Bush administration has repeatedly said that they didn't say this, that or the other, or implied that it was some other agency's fault.

Kerry, Edwards, et al have not done that.



Well, he said he would have. Is that good enough?

"Knowing what I know today, I would have made the same decision." - George W. Bush, September 2004.



That's not the point. Almost Everyone got it wrong. The point is what was learned from getting it wrong? How can we turn a wrong into a right? According to Bush it never was wrong. The lesson has been lost. I believe Bush gets it wrong today, big time, but that is another topic.



The spirit of the thread is Kerry's opportunism? I don't think so. The spirit of the thread is why would you vote today for what you voted for then knowing what we know now! Anyway, I'll play. Regarding Kerry's alleged opportunism, the things he wrote in an op/ed in September 2002, are consistent with everything he was saying in 2004, post-Dean.

What is 'it'? What Bush is saying is that, based on the facts he had then, and those he has now, he still would have invaded Iraq. Based on what I have stated previously regarding why invading Iraq was the only solution to the many problems Iraq presented, I concur with this. Kerry made it pretty clear that he wouldn't have invaded....leaving all the various problems of Iraq unresolved. The rightness or wrongness of either approach won't be known for many years. If Iraq turns into a stable democracy, and that democracy helps stabilize the Middle East and allows for a reduction of Middle Eastern sentiment against us, it will be very hard, IMHO, to argue that invading Iraq wasn't the right thing to do.

If 'it' is WMD in Iraq...it was the threat of them that necessitated the action, not their actual existence. The lesson would then be that better intelligence is needed. However, that doesn't really impact the need to act based on the information that was at hand. Given the events of 9-11, the fact that the situation in Iraq was directly tied to 9-11, and the threat of Saddam developing WMD, and the fact that removal of Saddam Hussein's regime was the only real way to eliminate that threat....there really wasn't any other course of action.

Nifty, that quote is nearly a YEAR old.

I said "now", not 1 year ago.

The Bush administration is accountable for the war. And so is the UN which voted that Saddam would suffer "strong consequences" in 1441 and so were the Senators (including Mr. Kerry, Mr. Edwards, and Ms. Clinton) who authorized the war.

The question is whether you'd still vote for the same guy given the intelligence failure.

Bush and the rest acted in good faith.

My problem with the Bush people is that they forgot some basic business advice as applied toward warfare.

In business, they always say, figure out how much time and money will be required to start your enterprise and then multiply it times 2.

In war, they should increase the multiple to 4 or 5.

If Bush would have done that, I think he would have thought a bit longer about this adventure. The worst thing that happened to us, in retrospect, were the lightning victories in Afghanistan and the first Gulf War. Prior to those conflicts, the same anti-war voices made the same doomsday predictions that they made now and were dead wrong. Furthermore, the intelligence after the first gulf war showed that the Iraqi nuke program was beyond what the CIA thought it was which was even more reason for the Bush people to believe they were right about WMD's and Iraq's aims in concert with the terrorists.

But, I still believe that at the end of the day, Bush's decision will be seen as the decisive decision related to the history of the middle east. It will be viewed, by history, as the action that provided the tipping point in the region and started the reform process and broke the deadlock that was poised to last another thousand years.

In that context, the loss of life in Iraq, which was less than a bad training exercise in WWII, will be seen as worthwhile.

On the other hand, those hysterical voices calling for immediate pull-out, are misguided and have no consideration of the short-term and long-term impact of such a cut-and-run operation.

Such a policy would lead to a disaster for the United States. It would be Somalia, times 10 and it would embolden even more Jihadists to attack us.

I agree with everything you've said here, Hobbes. My whole deal is that I wish the President would be a lot more honest when he speaks about the past, present, and future.

I do not expect anyone to say they would have changed their mind. Though the CNN report is coming out now, it was clear to those who were paying attention that there were no WMD before the 2004 election.

The Bush administration is incompetent. A majority of the voters still voted for him. These voters were supporting him for reasons other than Iraq. Kerry wanted to expand our presence in Iraq. Kerry supported Bush's policies as senator. People voted for Kerry for reasons other than Iraq.

Me too. I can see why they took the path they did leading up to the war...but I think now that the war has happened, they could be a lot more forthcoming about progress and issues. I'm not really sure what's preventing that...if it's a desire not to give the insurgents insight into problems, if its not wanting to give the left political ammo, or what. Regardless of the reason, it is clearly not helping their cause.

I couldn't agree more. That was patently obvious if you read the Woodward book. A consistent theme in the planning with Rumsfeld and Tommy Franks was "doing more with less".

One of the things that frustrated me in that context, however, is that there never seemed an honest assessment of the question "what happens if we succeed?" As Powell said in the book, its the Pottery Barn rule (even though pottery barn evidently doesn't have the rule). If you break it, you own it. It seems like we were never prepared to "own" (albeit temporarily) Iraq.

That was a primary reason I voted for Kerry. Not because I thought he would have revolutionary ideas as to how to finish what we so poorly started in Iraq, but because it was clear that the present adminstration was unwilling to admit failures and correct for them sufficiently. That vote would obviously not have changed given the information in the CNN special. Of course I had a ton of other reasons, but this one was certainly significant in my decision.

Rehashing the reasons for the war, even in the leadup to the 2004 election was pointless then and pointless now. In Congressional terms, the war had significant bi-partisan support. It was spilled milk at that point. The CNN special simply examines what went into filling that glass and, while incredibly useful in helping diagnose our intelligence failures, does not change the situation we are in today.

Do I think more people might have voted for Kerry if this special had run prior to the election? Maybe. Would it have made a difference in the outcome of the election? Probably not.

Doc

I am not surprised that no one who has voted in the poll has change their mind. Even after Watergate and Nixon's resignation in 1974, there were still people who were saying they would have selected Nixon over senator George McGovern.

Despite the poll attached to this thread, I think there is some "buyer remorse" in the country. It's reflected in Bush's low poll numbers.

Here's how Real Clear Politics reports Bush's plummet:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls.html

Part of the problem, at lest as I see it, is that regardless of what he does, there are still people willing to give Bush, as they have all his life, a free pass.

I've gotta tell you, when I made up this poll I figured that a couple of people might say they would have voted against Bush if this information had been available to them in this manner before last November's election. I guess everybody who voted for him anyway figures he's got the tiger by the tail, and they were afraid of the consequences should he have been made to, by losing the election, let go. So the point was moot that he was foolish enough to grab the tiger's tail in the first place.

I get tired of explaining how the current polls relate to last year's polling data, but it necessary since no one mentions it. After the election, all these polling companies switch from a poll of likely voters to a survey of adults. Bush has historically polled 3-5 points lower in the survey of adults than in a poll of likely voters. Last year Bush’s approval rating on Rasmussen ranged from 48-52%, this year is 45%-49% (the diffrence in poll methodolgy). Now that the inauguration high is over, Bush is back to where he was before the election.

There is nothing sinister at work here by the polling companies. It is just cheaper to do a survey of adults and in an off year for elections so it makes sense. With all the discussion of polls, the problem is if Bush maintains this level of support conservatives will be talking about Bush “surging” in polls next year when the methodology switches back over.

UGH!

The trend for Bush has been down. Republicans like Chuck Hagel are running from the president on Iraq, Bill Frist has run from him on stem-cell research, George Voinovich opposed him on Bolton. Bush's use of the bully pulpit to gain support for his Social Security program didn't work and it doesn't look like appearing before military groups in place like Idaho to tout his Iraq policy is working either.

I disagree with your prediction. Bush will continue his free-fall. Republican and conservative politicians will not be talking about Bush "surging." His days of soaring with the eagles is over. He's more like a duck afloat a pond amid a the lillies. Why, shucks some Republicans running for reelection will pray the president doesn't show up campaigning for them. I'll bet I could make a fortune selling a spray-on Bush repellant to Republicans who are up for reelection.

I'd be cautious about predicting a surge in the polls for Bush.

I disagree that Bush is in a free-fall. Did you ignore everything I wrote? It was not a partisan analysis. I explained polling methodology. I did not predict a surge for Bush. I said if his popularity does not change over the next year the polling methodology will change back to “likely voters” in the election year. It will appear as if Bush is surging in the polls and conservatives will claim, “Bush is back.” Senator Hagel is more or less the same barometer of the political winds than Zell Miller, who incidentally has about much shot of being nominated by Democrats for President as Hagel does with Republicans.

I read what you said. I'm not ignoring it--I just don't agree. I think Bush is past any recovery in the polls, whether the results are based on methodology or real unpopularity.

I'm saying that Bush, unless he finds someway out of Iraq, will not even have the appearance of surging. My statement about those not wanting Bush to campaign in their behalf in 2006 has historical precedent. In 1966 many Democratic office seekers didn't want Lyndon Johnson campaigning for them because of his unpopularity concerning the Vietnam War.

I don't really care who the Republicans nominate in 2008. Zell Miller is irrlevant to anything, except that his favorite novel, like mine, is Lonesome Dove.

The free-fall for Bush will not continue. He knows this and is not concerned.

He has 3 years left in his term and that's plenty of time for the next 9/11. He will stand up and speak of retaliation and that's all anybody will need to hear. He'll be back at 90% in a week because there is nobody else to rally around.

One thing they won't hear? We need to fight them there so we don't have to fight them here (as if a global war on terror does not include North America). That will be lost in the rage.

Edited to add:
Heck, the free-fall may stop tommorrow. If Katrina turns New Orleans into Old Orleans, Bush will use this to get all kinds of political capital.