Saw this on MSN today - does the Emperor have no clothes?

Retiring Republican House Intelligence vice chairman says war in Iraq was unjustified

ASSOCIATED PRESS


LINCOLN, Neb., Aug. 18 — A top Republican congressman has broken from his party in the final days of his House career, saying he believes the U.S. military assault on Iraq was unjustified and the situation there has deteriorated into ''a dangerous, costly mess.''




''I've reached the conclusion, retrospectively, now that the inadequate intelligence and faulty conclusions are being revealed, that all things being considered, it was a mistake to launch that military action,'' Rep. Doug Bereuter wrote in a letter to his constituents.
''Left unresolved for now is whether intelligence was intentionally misconstrued to justify military action,'' he said.
Bereuter is a senior member of the House International Relations Committee and vice chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. He is stepping down after 13 terms to become the president of the Asia Foundation effective Sept. 1.
The letter, sent to constituents who have contacted him about the war, was reported by the Lincoln Journal Star in its Wednesday editions.
In 2002, Bereuter had spoken out in support of a House resolution authorizing the president to go to war.
President Bush has continued to argue the war was justified because Saddam represented a threat to the United States, his neighbors and the people of Iraq.
Most Republicans and top administration officials say the war was justified even though no weapons of mass destruction have been found.
However, after a scathing Senate Intelligence Committee report concluded in early July that intelligence agencies had provided false assessments of the Iraqi threat before the war, the panel's Republican chairman — Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas — said Congress might not have approved the Iraq war had lawmakers known the truth.
Roberts said that without an immediate threat that Saddam had and was trying to get weapons of mass destruction, military action against Iraq still could have been justified on humanitarian grounds but that the battle plan might have been different from a full-scale invasion.
Bereuter said that in addition to ''a massive failure or misinterpretation of intelligence,'' the Bush administration made several other errors in going to war.
''From the beginning of the conflict, it was doubtful that we for long would be seen as liberators, but instead increasingly as an occupying force,'' he said. ''Now we are immersed in a dangerous, costly mess, and there is no easy and quick way to end our responsibilities in Iraq without creating bigger future problems in the region and, in general, in the Muslim world.''
Bereuter said as a result of the war, ''our country's reputation around the world has never been lower and our alliances are weakened.''
Bereuter declined to answer questions Wednesday about the letter. His spokesman Alan Feyerherm said the congressman ''feels the letter speaks for itself.''
Lincoln City Council member Jeff Fortenberry, a Republican, is facing off against Democratic state Sen. Matt Connealy to replace Bereuter.


© 2004 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Guess it depends on who you ask

Sure does. And it seems that more and more Republicans are having serious regret about what Bouche has done and is doing.

Anyone suppose that if we'd let Blix and Co. finish their work we would have known all of this before invading?

''I've reached the conclusion, retrospectively, now that the inadequate intelligence and faulty conclusions are being revealed, that all things being considered, it was a mistake to launch that military action,''---Bereuter

The operative word in that sentence is 'retrospectively'.
----------------------
"I've reached the conclusion,'retrospectively', that if I would have known Saturdays winning lottery numbers prior to Saturday, all things being considered, I would have won the lottery.
------------------------------------------------------------
In 2002, Bereuter had spoken out in support of a House resolution authorizing the president to go to war.--AP

He supported authorizing the president to invade Iraq because he saw the same intellegence reports that Senators Kerry, Edwards and Clinton saw that compelled them to do the same. The former Soviet Union, the Brittish as well as all other major intellegence gathering nations all concoured that they believed Saddam had WMD's. It's entirely possible that they were moved in to Syria while we played footsies with the UN for several months. It's not a matter of whether we'll eventually find the WMD's, it's a matter of when and where.

We're there now (Iraq). Second guessing and arm chair quarterbacking is an exercise in fultility. Four-Star General Tommy Franks (Ret.) has said that the area (Iraq) has become a magnet for Islamic terrorists--the majority of the ones giving us trouble right now are not Iraqi born citizens. Gen. Franks has said when it comes to fighting Islamic terrorists, we have two choices: we can fight them over there, or we can fight them over here.
------------------------------------------------------------

For those of you who believe we should have never invaded Iraq and removed Saddam and his regime, Ralph Nader is the only candidate running for president that has continually said we should have never gone in.

Ralph Nader is also an environmental extremist who despises capitalism and believes that socialism is the answer to many domestic concerns---Come to think of it, Mr. Nader seems like the ideal candidate for some of those who post here regurlary.

"after a scathing Senate Intelligence Committee report concluded in early July that intelligence agencies had provided false assessments of the Iraqi threat before the war, the panel's Republican chairman — Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas — said Congress might not have approved the Iraq war had lawmakers known the truth.
Roberts said that without an immediate threat that Saddam had and was trying to get weapons of mass destruction, military action against Iraq still could have been justified on humanitarian grounds but that the battle plan might have been different from a full-scale invasion. "

Why is it not plausible that the weapons were destroyed prior to the invasion? Why isn't it plausible that the capability to produce weapons was destroyed in the late '90's?

I'm not surprised, Krusty, that you have an issue with "retrospective" analysis and armchair quarterbacking (actually, Monday morning quarterbacking is more relevant) since you seem to have take issue with personal responsibility. Some Republicans are finally growing the balls to stand up and say, "Hey, we screwed up here." But in your world it's still "Blame America First."

"retrospective" analysis and armchair quarterbacking (actually, Monday morning quarterbacking is more relevant) --GH

What if it was a Monday NIGHT football game that was being second guessed?
------------------------------------------------------------
Some Republicans are finally growing the balls to stand up and say, "Hey, we screwed up here." But in your world it's still "Blame America First."--GH

When you say 'WE' screwed up---that's a perfect example of the 'Blame America First' mentality. It's ALWAYS our fault.

Didn't Saddam screw up a little too?

Wasn't it a screw up of Saddam to impede in UN's inspection efforts and not allow inspectors unfettered access to all suspected weapons sights?

Wasn't it a screw up to ignore multiple UN resolutions over several years that requried Saddam to either turn over WMD's or provide evidence that they were destroyed?

No. Of course not, why would anyone in the wake of 9/11 who's acted on his own intellegence gathering communities findings as well as the intellegence reports from other major countries that all said Saddam had WMD's not be 'Blamed First' and just admit WE screwed up.

Whether someone 'retrospectively' believes that we should be there or not--WE'RE THERE NOW. Cutting and running would only make the situatution/region worse. What is saying, "WE (Blame America First) screwed up" going to accomplish?

Rory,

I would hope the answer to your question is "to learn from mistakes or poor choices."

And even more on point, do we want to repeat the same behaviors over again by relecting the same leaders who championed it?

------------------------------------------------------------

Do you mean leaders like Kerry and Edwards who voted to give the authority to invade Iraq?

Giving Bush the authority after he "streched the truth to Congress and everyone else" is one thing. But to imply that we should do it all over again exactly the same is pretty shallow, kinda like GWB!

"The operative word in that sentence is 'retrospectively'."

I can't agree with you more that this is the most important element to the article. However, why can't the current administration make a similar concession? Is it that they do not believe they made any mistakes? I find that hard to imagine given the facts. This idea that politicians are not allowed to change their minds given new facts and information is ludicrous. Calling Kerry or Bush flip floppers because they have voted for something one way and then the other at another time is silly. Not one of us here know the reasoning behind making the decisions nor do we know what facts changed between the supposed flip flop.

It would be nice if the campaigns would focus on real issues and not create false issues that delude the public's opinion of each candidate. Ahhh but there in lies the problem, for that to happen we would need something radical like campaign reform. What elected official is going to change the system that got them elected?

I know this is tough concept for you, being a far right extremist and all, but in the mainstream-America world the possibility exists where more than one party can be at fault. I know, I know, it sounds bizarre, but ya just gotta trust me on this.

Sure Saddam screwed up - and in a BIG way. But that doesn't give us carte blanche to do whatever we choose. We have to take responsibility for our actions. Bouche needs to take responsibility for his actions.

NO one is advocating a cut and run strategy. Well, except maybe Nader. Although it may not be perfect, Kerry has at least made reference to a plan. That's more than Bouche's "stay the course" rhetoric has alluded to.

And what will admitting we screwed up accomplish? Hopefully it will hold those accountable for making the grave errors they did. Hopefully it will keep us from repeating our mistakes. Hopefully it will help us reestablish the allied relationships we enjoyed with much of the world. Hopefully it will allow the world to view us as a true leader and not a dominator.

And by the way,
sounds so (Dick Cheney) childish.