Bush was likely quite wrong, but you are not stupid enough to believe it was a lie, and even if you are that stupid, you are not stupid enough to believe it can be remotely proven to be a lie.Someone lied. Or do you think that particular charge just emerged from thin air?And a war was waged on that basis.===========================First, Bush and his team WERE wrong.Second, Bush and his team didn't understand and respect the purpose and structure of the organizations underneath them in both intelligence and defense. In a country of 314,570,798 people with diplomatic and military presences in hundreds of countries, it is IMPOSSIBLE for our intelligence and defense communities to "catch" every threat, analyze it for its source and possible impacts and get that analysis fed northward to "senior management" in a matter of hours, days or weeks. However, those same organizatins ARE structured and staffed to carefully review the "big picture" and incorporate that insight into the formulation of proactive strategies once "senior management" decides to ACT and do something "big."Can we all agree that launching a war on the other side of the globe in a desert against a country with completely unfamiliar language and culture constitutes doing something "big"?The Bush Administration (elected officials and appointees) ignored the normal layers of review, analysis and filtering inherent in the intelligence and defense organizations and reached into those organizations for snippets of "information" that supported the conclusions they had already reached. When did they reach their conclusion on invading Iraq?The snowflake had arrived on September 13, two days before the Camp David war council. Rumsfeld's Pentagon was one step ahead of the President. By the time Bush ordered that a contingency plan for Iraq be drawn up, the effort was already quietly underway. -- page 19 of COBRA II by Michael Gordon and General Bernard TrainorThe plan for invading Iraq and toppling Saddam Hussein went through five iterations from September 13, 2001 to Fall 2002. Michael Gordon's analysis in COBRA II makes it clear none of these shuffles in the plan were driven by bottom-up feedback from the military operations staffs but by a top-down drive from Donald Rumsfeld to reduce troops and materiel levels to prove "new wars" could be won with a leaner, meaner military strategy. If you want details, read the book or read an old review of it:http://watchingtheherd.blogspot.com/2006/05/book-review-cobr...The word "lie" is really not the applicable term to use in terms of the policy setting and military strategy in Iraq. It's too easy to weasel away from proof that "Fact A" was known and conveyed as "False Fact B" --- the teams involved failed to objectively consider all facts present and could just claim they never saw Fact A but they never "saw" it because they never sought it. Adjectives like "incompetent", "pig-headed", "arrogant" and "idealogically blinded" all do apply. In the context of sending the country to war for a decade, committing $807 billion dollars in direct costs we didn't have and refused to raise in taxes to pay for, killing 4,486 US troops, wounding over 31,928 US troops, and exposing over 2.3 million troops to repeated combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan and the associated risk of PTSD, a lie didn't have to be involved to justify impeaching Bush.WTH
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar. Earnings Estimates, Analyst Rat