Official: Iraq war was both intel, policy failure

It is simply too late to rewrite history -- and create an intelligence failure where there was none.  Many sources inside the Intelligence Community (the "IC") have said that they were directed to spin reports when not being told to suppress or falsify them.   The intel collectors and analysts did their job quite well.  It was the product that the leaders didn't like -- it didn't support invading.  So the administration pressures the IC leaders to well... lie.  The community takes a huge PR hit, and these slimes get off?  Do they think we're that dumb?  Let me just say it.  We needed a foothold in the region.  The Saudi royals are running out of light sweet crude, and the Iranians are trying to open a new oil 'bourse' that will trade in Euros, not petro-dollars.  Back in '71, we married OPEC to the dollar, and, essentially became a mercenary force for corrupt saudi royals.  Getting the dubster in office was just icing on the cake for these guys. 

I believe the invasion was a mistake. We had no business being there. Our forces should have been concentrated in Afghanistan where the terrorism threat was greatest. We were responding to an act of war thrust upon us by the Muslim terrorists and Iraq is not where this threat came from. Saddam Hussein posed no danger to us.

However, it would be senseless to quickly remove our forces from Iraq. We should at least give the government of Iraq more time to stabilize and produce results. To quickly withdraw would invite disaster. To remove our troops before the job is finished does not make sense. It would also be a slap in the face to all our troops who bravely gave their lives.

In any event, I think the sectarian fighting will once again come center stange upon our withdrawal. It is my feeling that Iraq will implode, with the various factions trying to gain control of the country, which will invite the creation of another Saddam Hussein. Personally, I think someone like Saddam is the only type of ruler who can control the violence. Removing him from power was a big mistake.

Can we really say Bush's failure isn't the public's failure to support it's leader/s? It's futility to engage in debate or discussion as reason isn't accepted let alone agreed on as to how it's to be done. Let's see there was Roosevelt and the start of WW II, intelligence failure and the Korean war, the questionable beginnings of Viet Nam under Johnson and Watergate. Can we really say that NIxon wasn't forced into the cover-up by the pack mentality of the public and the press? Or Alexander Haig's statement? The real issue isn't the leader and his failure but the abandonment of the leader. The public is quick to employ partial understandings of the reality of the situation on the part of those outside the inner circle thinking they are better suited for the task than those we have elected and provided the best of everything to do the job. Nihilism, existentialism, relativism; none of these offers anything better but only a dead end yet their criticism and destruction continues to thrive. They are great for tearing things down but offer nothing on which to build something better. They make an allegation then run with it as though it is a proven fact. Capitalizing on the publics ignorance and dependence on a media that has lost sight of objective truth. Yes, even objective truth has not been proven to be wrong only unpopular and democratically expensive to this substantively empty opposition. It's virtue of moral vacancy and positioning ensures it's survival as it will never look at itself by its own standards. It is a subtle anarchy which offers only destruction. The public therefore can only then expect to see it's inheritance of freedom waste away. Curt Greenwald on Bill Moyers Journal program on PBS December 12, 2008 in our area; stated that Bush's philosophy was one of Meekianism (spelling needs to be checked). He described Meekianism as being a view of the world where everything was all good or all bad and all good or bad to the extent of being pure evil or pure goodness. Now we can continue on into the philosophical realm and discuss this ad infinitum. But, let's look at Curt and his conclusion. The conclusion served him and his agenda. To think that that sums up George W. Bush in toto is a bit simplistic wouldn't you think? Maybe an aspect of Meekianism was involved in his view and application to his prescibed actions and describing them to the public as he informed them of what was taking place but to paint George W. Bush as that "completely" is misleading. It is like someone standing in front of a granite wall and focusing on one piece of granite which is disimilar and thinking the whole wall is that way. When in fact the granite is part of a greater wall i.e. that of the Washington monument or something similar. 

Ya, but once The little Emporer BUSH & Cheney leave office,, are they really gonna be safe here in this country ,,, I mean,, all this False and Fabricated lies of Information they both came up with,, and the lives of all the US Servicemen,, that they've both cost and the hreadache and heartache that they've both brought to the grieving famalies back home here,, with their loved ones being permanently gone forever,, over this crazy half azzed war,,, when we should of stayed in afganistan,, after binladen,,  I wouldn't think they'd be able to remain here safely at all,,, the Town of  Crawford is just a little ol' Piss hole anyway,,, or at least it used to be,, maybe it'll become a fortress once Ol' George arrives back down there,,, well its gonna be intersting,,, thats fer sure !!!!!!!