Quote:
|
....the flaws in dealing with intelligence, it seems that the standard you are setting with Bush, if applied to historical figures/settings and their faulty use of intelligence it would mean no one would get the benefit of the doubt for an error an judgement
|
ace...you are either intentionally or ignorantly misinterpreting and misrepresenting what I said and the factual information I provided in my last few posts.
I know that there are flaws in dealing with intelligence. I am not faulting Bush's judgement for selecting one set of intelligence date over another, even though I believe, like others have said here, that he was looking for the intel that would support his pre-determined objective to invade Iraq, rather than assessing the intel objectively.
I am faulting him for not diisclosing that there was conflicting intelligence when he made his case to the public (your earlier point that it would taken too much time in his short speeches is a ridiculous rationalization....it would have taken 2 more minutes each time he talked about the Saddams's nuclear capabilities and the threat he posed to the US). The American people had a right to know that there was conflicting intel to which very few members of Congress (and no one in the public) had access.
And I am faulting him for his public comments that Congress had access to the same intelligence he had when they clearly did not. On this issue,the facts are indisputable no matter how you try to spin it... he lied to the American people.
Lying to the American people, or even cherry-picking the intel,are not an impeachable offense....but it is dishonorable and unethical when you are asking for support to take the country to war.