Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bush pledges reforms in response to Senate report on CIA
AFP ^ | July 9, 2004 | self

Posted on 07/09/2004 10:41:42 AM PDT by ejdrapes

President Bush said this today in response to the Senate Intelligence Committe report:

"I look forward to working with members of Congress to put out reforms that will work," Bush said at a campaign event here, noting that he had not yet seen the report.

"I want to know the truth. I want to know the facts, ... and I want to make this the best system we can have."

The President also reiterated that Saddam Hussein had been intent on building weapons of mass destruction.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: intelcommittee
I'm sorry, but I think the President's going to have to do better than these lame comments. What exactly does he mean when he says 'I want to know the truth'? And also, when he says Saddam was intent on building WMD...that's not what the Administration said back in 2002/early 2003. They said he had WMD. Which we all know because he used them on his own people! Now Bush's line is he intended to acquire them, rather than he posessed them?

Bush has to do a better job than this to counter the media/democrat spin or he won't win the election.

1 posted on 07/09/2004 10:41:43 AM PDT by ejdrapes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ejdrapes

President Bush said this today in response to the Senate Intelligence Committe report:

"I look forward to working with members of Congress to put out reforms that will work," Bush said at a campaign event here, noting that he had not yet seen the report.


one word: C * R * A * P !


2 posted on 07/09/2004 10:43:55 AM PDT by steplock ( www.spadata.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ejdrapes

Who gives a shit if he has/had them or not? Does it matter?

We wanted a strategic foothold in the middle east. DONE. We wanted a madman out of power. DONE. We wanted to bring democracy to a backwater place. DONE.

'nuff said.


3 posted on 07/09/2004 10:43:57 AM PDT by usmc1775
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ejdrapes
This is old news. There's simply nothing in this Senate report that's not already known.

Bush gave it all the attention it deserved.

4 posted on 07/09/2004 10:47:58 AM PDT by sinkspur (There's no problem on the inside of a kid that the outside of a dog can't cure.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ejdrapes
He hasn't even seen the report. What would you guys have him do - make some lame, uninformed comment so the press could later show that he said something that wasn't true? I'll take a non-comment (lame to you) over a foot in the mouth any day.
5 posted on 07/09/2004 10:48:12 AM PDT by trebb (Ain't God good . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ejdrapes

Well, all he needs to do is get the David Letterman transcript of Joseph Wilson saying he thinks some chemical weapons, biological "precursors" and some sort of small nuke program will be found.

He should know.

But the Senate report is another spear in Bush's side. If What Kay, Wilson, etc. come true it will confuse people even more, and many will conclude the Bush admin can't control this government.


6 posted on 07/09/2004 10:50:32 AM PDT by Shermy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #7 Removed by Moderator

To: ejdrapes

In my opinion the CIA should get to the down and gritty and release WMD and Terrorist Docs of Iraq all at once and not in pieces to the public. These Commissions seem to spin everything instead of just reading the evidence. Everytime the Liberal Media tries to get on the President's case he should respond, "read the direct report, not some doctored opinion report". The response VP Cheney got from the media for a curse word may serve the Pres. as good without the same wording but the tone.


8 posted on 07/09/2004 10:53:39 AM PDT by tobyhill (The war on terrorism is not for the weak)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Doesn't matter if it's old news. The media is going to cover this 24/7. I think Bush has to come out fighting and defend himself and his administration. I'm sick and tired of Republicans not fighting back because they're either too afraid of how they'll be portrayed by the media or they think no one cares.
9 posted on 07/09/2004 10:54:31 AM PDT by ejdrapes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ejdrapes

Please take your crabbing over to the DUmmies they're tired of President Bush too.


10 posted on 07/09/2004 10:55:59 AM PDT by OldFriend (IF YOU CAN READ THIS, THANK A TEACHER.......AND SINCE IT'S IN ENGLISH, THANK A SOLDIER)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ejdrapes
Doesn't matter if it's old news. The media is going to cover this 24/7.

On a weekend, when nobody pays attention.

By Monday, something else will be in the news.

You've got calm yourself, man. You have no faith in the people who are calling for the release of video of last night's hatefest in Manhattan.

I suspect there's one out there somewhere that will turn up in a GOP ad.

11 posted on 07/09/2004 10:56:49 AM PDT by sinkspur (There's no problem on the inside of a kid that the outside of a dog can't cure.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ejdrapes

Bush does have to do a better job with the dolts in media. But they hate his guts anyway and he can't waste too much time on them. And who cares what the Senate think anyway.


12 posted on 07/09/2004 10:57:11 AM PDT by miloklancy (The biggest problem with the Democrats is that they are in office.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: usmc1775
I agree with what you said - But I will also say...GWB (and his team) need to start having a much clearer / coherent message about Iraq and why we needed to act -

They need to start talking with force behind their words - not empty statements like "I want to know the truth" - He already knows the truth!!

Saddam was a mad-man that ignored 17 UN resolutions - A man intent on supporting terrorism - a man intent on developing (or finding new ways) to develop WMD or WMD programs - Period!! -

The world is safer without him - period - the Middle-East will change for the better now that Saddam is gone...and freedom has a chance to take hold in Iraq - that self-worth will come to the people of Iraq....and with this self-worth they will reject the idea of terrorism....and this attitude will spread throughout the Middle East in time -

This is what GWB needs to start saying...and saying loud and clear!!

13 posted on 07/09/2004 10:57:48 AM PDT by POA2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Shermy

Are you people losing your marbles? The Senate report does NOT criticize Bush, and the latest British fact finding demonstrates that Wilson was dead wrong. Further, what Bush said was totally responsible. Grow up and get real.


14 posted on 07/09/2004 10:58:10 AM PDT by Williams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ejdrapes

The Bush statement is not the LAME part of this post.


15 posted on 07/09/2004 10:58:27 AM PDT by stevestras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: POA2

I've seen this administration bringing out these points but they just seem to drop it after mentioning it or allow the evil side to scoot around the real issues. This administration needs to get tough and demand the truth and demand the evil side tell them what they would do different. Tell them where and when most of the intelligence came from (Clinton Admin.)


16 posted on 07/09/2004 11:03:53 AM PDT by tobyhill (The war on terrorism is not for the weak)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ejdrapes

"'I want to know the truth'? And also, when he says Saddam was intent on building WMD..."

This is a perfect example of using the 'bully pulpit' to clearly get your message out to the American public. Fantastic rejoinders developed by the WH staff, working hand in glove with the B/C '04 team. That'll keep the hounds off your tail - right.


17 posted on 07/09/2004 11:05:01 AM PDT by familyofman (and the first animal is jettisoned - legs furiously pumping)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Williams

The way Roberts buckled to Rockerfeller it won't be long before they do blame Bush. Remember that's part 2.


18 posted on 07/09/2004 11:06:22 AM PDT by tobyhill (The war on terrorism is not for the weak)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: usmc1775
It does matter because - as numerous posts to FR show - it's been well established that he had/has them. The argument made in the run-up to the war had more to do with WMDs than with gaining a strategic foothold in the Middle East. And I believe a good number of Americans supported the war because they believed Iraq had WMDs which they would use or give to al-Qaeda type terrorists to use. I think the President/Administration needs to challenge this report (as people have here) rather than just accept it's conclusions.
19 posted on 07/09/2004 11:06:23 AM PDT by ejdrapes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ejdrapes

It would be interesting to hear about the intelligence on Clinton's Kosovo war.


20 posted on 07/09/2004 11:07:23 AM PDT by tkathy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

This report does not criticize Bush. It would be preposterous for Bush to start an argument with himself over a non-critical report. In case none of you have figured this out, Bush was smart enough to keep Tenet around and Tenet has been hung out to dry by all concerned.


21 posted on 07/09/2004 11:09:16 AM PDT by Williams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: POA2
Saddam was a mad-man that ignored 17 UN resolutions -

I get a chuckle every time I hear mention of UN resolutions being ignored as one of the causes or justifications for war with Iraq. Reason being, it is mostly spouted by the same crowd that in the second breath derides the no good inept UN that is nothing more than a watering hole for tin pot dictators that hate the US and that we should get out of the UN and the UN should get out of the US.

So much hypocrisy in the selective love/hate affair with the UN.

22 posted on 07/09/2004 11:10:07 AM PDT by varon (Allegiance to the constitution, always. Allegiance to a political party, never.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: stevestras
I want to know the truth. I want to know the facts.

This comment is LAME. What are people supposed to think - that he took us to war with out the facts? What facts doesn't he know?

23 posted on 07/09/2004 11:13:01 AM PDT by ejdrapes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Williams
It doesn't matter what the report actually says, but how the media/democrats spin it. The 'spin' will be that a) the President went to war based on falty information or b) the Administration pressured the intelligence community or they cherry-picked the intelligence to support their pre-determined conclusions or all of the above.
24 posted on 07/09/2004 11:19:24 AM PDT by ejdrapes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Williams
You obviously missed the speech by Kit Bond. He had the Democrats plan for getting to President Bush. Why wait until these superficial committees can get to him right before election. Demorats are good at using the few dumbass Republicans for their dirty work by making them feel like their serving America. Roberts buckled to Rockerfeller like a wet noodle. This war is more than foreign terrorist, it's also domestic terrorist already in our government. I believe in preemptive strikes!
25 posted on 07/09/2004 11:25:02 AM PDT by tobyhill (The war on terrorism is not for the weak)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

Comment #26 Removed by Moderator

To: varon
actually its a hate/hate affair with the UN.

I can't speak for everyone but when i bring up the UN resolutions isn't because i support the UN. Its because the other person supports it. To show them that even in their personal philosophy they should support the president on this point. To me it wouldn't matter if the UN had any resolutions.
27 posted on 07/09/2004 11:58:05 AM PDT by goldwaterlives
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

Isn't he on the intelligence committee? If so, why did he sign off on such a stupid report? And where are Hatch and Lott on this?


28 posted on 07/09/2004 12:01:04 PM PDT by zook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

Why wait for anyone to attack Bush, the president should just go off his nut and start railing about a non-critical report?? I am beginning to think Free Republic has become a haven for juveniles and has lost the logical analysis that used to be prevalent here. You people are criticizing the president for not making a fool of himself, based on what the media reaction "will be." Luckily, George Bush is a far better president and politician.


29 posted on 07/09/2004 12:12:53 PM PDT by Williams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Williams
That's exactly what the Dems want you to do, be passive! No one suggested he goes nuts, just make sure the Americans know the facts! The facts are we know he had them, where are they? The Iraqi Survey group need to pump out some preliminary reports of what they have found. I guarantee this committee didn't mention the Uranium we secretly shipped out of Iraq. While this committee did mention aluminum tubes not being used for Nuclear Weapons they were to be used in illegal rockets. These are facts! Be Passive, lose the election. Allow reports to be manipulated by Dems with Reps thinking their contributing to the gooder America, lose the election. I refuse to be passive and I refuse for you to question my FreeperLoyalism. If you don't like my opinions fine but don't you even dare comparing me to a Juvenile. I don't agree with the report that CIA failed on all intelligence because I know for a fact that the CIA corroborated all evidence. Some properly substantiated, some not as well!
30 posted on 07/09/2004 12:31:26 PM PDT by tobyhill (The war on terrorism is not for the weak)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: ejdrapes

Please use the original posted title.


31 posted on 07/09/2004 12:31:57 PM PDT by Admin Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: zook
Yes, Good Question, Lot already stated that he had WMD as with every hypocrite member of this committee.
32 posted on 07/09/2004 12:35:25 PM PDT by tobyhill (The war on terrorism is not for the weak)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

Enough of this ridiculous "roll with the punches" attitude of this administration. You can't lie down forever. Go after that damnable Senate for their lack of oversight, their going along with Toricelli to basically make it next to impossible to have ground intel out there (spies) because of impossible standards set for who could be an informant or not. The dems are out in force, via these stooge committee reports (with the willing complicity of weak noodled Pubs, and the Bush administration more often than not DOES NOT FIGHT BACK! That's a prescription for losing, as it allows the dems and the administration's enemies to have their accusations hanging out there in the air, with no rebuttal or alternative scenario given. Just TELL THE TRUTH! That's our weapon. State the truth and say it with determination and force. Jam it down the throats of the unwilling and liberal media. Use the bully pulpit of the presidency to state the truth. But fight back, for heaven sakes. We're too much turn the other cheek. Passivity can make you lose elections, and in a worse case scenario can lose you your life. Ask the citizens of Iraq under Hussein. Ask the Jews under Hitler, until the very end of the war, when they started fighting back. The meek do not necessarily inherit the earth. Check out Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, Castro. Get a grip Pubs, and learn to fight back or perish as a party.


33 posted on 07/09/2004 12:46:11 PM PDT by flaglady47
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: flaglady47

Great post. You are exactly right. The Republicans need to quit taking it on the cheek and the President has been hit too many times. Some have stated that the President must stay above that and they are somewhat correct. It does not prevent the President from getting hatchet persons like the Dems. have and blam-blasting everyone of them including Kerrywards.


34 posted on 07/09/2004 12:55:19 PM PDT by tobyhill (The war on terrorism is not for the weak)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill
I don't know why I'm in such a feisty mood today, but "listen pal" I am second to none in posting articles blasting republicans for being passive, I have written vanity posts pleading for republicans to get tough, and I actually blame the republican party for failing to confront the dems for becoming more and more radical.

In this particular case, the president's comments were appropriate and I think the post itself can be criticized for headlining that the president's response was "lame." The report was by republicans and dems, it did not criticize Bush and he would have been a fool to start arguing about it.

35 posted on 07/09/2004 1:29:08 PM PDT by Williams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Williams

I too take issue with the word "lame" but the fact remains, this committee only politicize the obvious without the facts of, where are they? we know he had them! With out the Whitehouse going toe to toe with these committees to answer the two questions of where are they or what happened to them in their opinion, this will continue one committee after another giving Moore credence to the DemoRats arguments. It just seems that this administration continues to allow committees to report the obvious without conclusions. Every day the Iraqi Survey Group finds out more and more but the political damage keeps getting worse. Does any of these committee members have nuclear science degrees? Did any of them work at chemical weapons depots? If any of them did then there is no way they could come up with this report! Uranium has been found in Iraq and chemical traces have been found in the water and sand. Newt is giving them heck now!!!


36 posted on 07/09/2004 2:07:54 PM PDT by tobyhill (The war on terrorism is not for the weak)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson