Dissension in the ranks...

[carrrnuttt]

Retiring Senior GOP Congressman breaks rank with the Republicans on his views about Iraq

Bereuter calls war 'a mistake'

From Ted Barrett
CNN Washington Bureau
Wednesday, August 18, 2004 Posted: 6:12 PM EDT (2212 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Breaking ranks with his party and reversing his earlier stance, a senior retiring Republican lawmaker said Wednesday the military strike against Iraq was "a mistake," and he blasted a "massive failure" of intelligence before the war.

The unexpected four-page statement came from Rep. Doug Bereuter of Nebraska, who until earlier this month was the vice chairman of the House Intelligence Committee -- a panel that reviewed much of the evidence the administration cited before going to war.

"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, especially without a broad and engaged international coalition," Bereuter wrote in a four-page letter to his constituents.

"The cost in casualties is already large and growing, and the immediate and long-term financial costs are incredible."

Bereuter was particularly critical of the pre-war intelligence, which described an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. But no such weapons have been found since the U.S.-led invasion.

Bereuter voted in support of an October 2002 resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq, but he said that vote was based on what he had been told about the WMD threat from Iraq.

"Left unresolved for now is whether intelligence was intentionally misconstrued to justify military action," Bereuter said.

After 26 years on Capitol Hill, Bereuter is retiring next month, and will become the president of Asia Foundation.

Congressional Republicans were surprised and angry at Bereuter's comments.

Rep. Ray LaHood, R-Illinois, a member of the intelligence committee, described Bereuter as "very bitter" for having been passed over in recent years to head both the intelligence and international relations committees. He suggested Bereuter's comments were a parting shot to House GOP leaders and President Bush.

An aide denied Bereuter was motivated to write the letter because he didn't get the appointments.

Rep. James Gibbons, R-Nevada, who is also on the intelligence panel, said Bereuter's new conclusions are wrong.

"The facts don't change. Iraq was a dangerous place," Gibbons said. "Mr. Bereuter is entitled to his opinion."

Bereuter's critique of the administration on Iraq was sharp.

He said the administration was wrong to disband the Iraqi army -- because so many of its members joined forces with the insurgents -- and was wrong to rely on the Defense Department instead of the State Department to spearhead reconstruction and the interim government.

He also said the administration was wrong to ignore military leaders who warned many more troops would be needed in Iraq to maintain the postwar peace.

"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.

There was no reaction from the White House to Bereuter's charges.

Bereuter said it was important for both the executive and legislative branches of government to learn from the "errors and failures" relating to the war in Iraq and its aftermath.

[Flatrater]

It is normal to have Monday morning quarterbacks. Where was he a year or 2 years ago. But I bet he is coming up for re-election!

It is normal to have disenters in a large body and I don't think its unusual.

[MagicRat]

Originally Posted by Flatrater

It is normal to have Monday morning quarterbacks. Where was he a year or 2 years ago. But I bet he is coming up for re-election!

It is normal to have disenters in a large body and I don't think its unusual.

He is not coming up for re election:

"After 26 years on Capitol Hill, Bereuter is retiring next month, and will become the president of Asia Foundation."

Becuase of this and his obvious experience , I am inclined to give his opinion more weight and credibility than the average elected hack in Washington.

Newsweek had an article a few weeks ago in which they went into depth on some of the details of the intellegence failure. Colin Powells adress to the UN 18 months ago was based on the testimony of one informant who, even at the time was not considered to be credible.

I am certainly not anti-Republican, but I think Republicans should cast a critical eye on the Iraq debacle and the reasons behind it.

[thegladhatter]

Am I mistaken, or is that another quality cut and paste? Just wondering.

[taranaki]

Originally Posted by thegladhatter

Am I mistaken, or is that another quality cut and paste? Just wondering.

Obviously,it's a cut and paste. Most of the starter items for the threads in this forum are. And yes,it is a quality one.

[zebrathree]

Is it only quality because you agree with it?

[YogsVR4]

Dissnension in the ranks?


Nice use of synonyms.

[driftu]

i can't believe that people still doubt the intel failure.

Originally Posted by zebrathree

Is it only quality because you agree with it?

and the only reason you doubt it's quality is cause it goes againest what you believe

Originally Posted by thegladhatter

Am I mistaken, or is that another quality cut and paste? Just wondering.

yeah, your point is?

Originally Posted by Flatrater

It is normal to have Monday morning quarterbacks. Where was he a year or 2 years ago. But I bet he is coming up for re-election!

it's 20\20 hindsight noticing he made a mistake and is trying to correct it. either way doesn't matter nothing he says now changes a damn thing.

[zebrathree]

Originally Posted by driftu

i

and the only reason you doubt it's quality is cause it goes againest what you believe

Where did I doubt it was quality?

You're making assumptions about me. You fuck up when you make assumptions.

You've fucked up.

[driftu]

Originally Posted by zebrathree

Where did I doubt it was quality?

You're making assumptions about me. You fuck up when you make assumptions.

You've fucked up.

if it was a sincere statement then yeah fucked up. and i am sorry.but it reads like you were being sarcastic. i just call em i see em

[zebrathree]

OK. That's sorted.

Good on ya.

[taranaki]

Well for me,it's a quality post because it is up to date, comes from a reliable source,a senior politician who actually knows what he is talking about.Some of the cut/pastes used here [i.e. swiftboat veteransbashing Kerry] are little more than beat-ups based on the historical ramblings of ignoramuses who have no political insight whatsoever.

[YogsVR4]

A senior politician who knows what he's talking about. So when he was in support of the war, you agreed with him - or was he one of those EVIL republicans you were spewing hatred for?

[carrrnuttt]

Originally Posted by YogsVR4

was he one of those EVIL republicans you were spewing hatred for?

I'll presume to answer for 'naki and say "yes".

The 4-page letter he wrote to his constituents was his penance.

Let me point out a few excerpts:

"Rep. Doug Bereuter of Nebraska, who until earlier this month was the vice chairman of the House Intelligence Committee -- a panel that reviewed much of the evidence the administration cited before going to war."

"Bereuter was particularly critical of the pre-war intelligence, which described an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. But no such weapons have been found since the U.S.-led invasion."

"Bereuter voted in support of an October 2002 resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq, but he said that vote was based on what he had been told about the WMD threat from Iraq."

"'Left unresolved for now is whether intelligence was intentionally misconstrued to justify military action,' Bereuter said."

[YogsVR4]

Originally Posted by carrrnuttt

I'll presume to answer for 'naki and say "yes".

Congratulation on you new mind reading powers.



The question still remains. Naki trashed the people who supported the war and used all sorts of creative names. But, now that a politician agrees with his assessment, that politician "knows what he's talking about".