Mercedes-Benz Forum banner

1 - 20 of 22 Posts

·
CH4S Admin , Outstanding Contributor
Joined
·
39,244 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Bush: Iraq intelligence failure 'biggest regret'
50 mins ago

WASHINGTON (AFP) – US President George W. Bush said in an interview set for broadcast Monday that he came to office "unprepared for war" and that his "biggest regret" was the US intelligence failure on Iraq.

But Bush, speaking to ABC television, refused to say whether he would have ordered the March 2003 invasion if he had known that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction.

"That's an interesting question. That is a do-over that I can't do. It's hard for me to speculate," said the US president, who took office in January 2001 and hands the keys to the White House to Barack Obama on January 20.

"The biggest regret of all the presidency has to have been the intelligence failure in Iraq," Bush said. "I wish the intelligence had been different, I guess."

Bush launched the war in Iraq after a months-long public campaign centered on the charge that Saddam possessed vast stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, but no such arsenal was ever found.

"A lot of people put their reputations on the line and said the weapons of mass destruction is a reason to remove Saddam Hussein. It wasn't just people in my administration; a lot of members in Congress, prior to my arrival in Washington DC, during the debate on Iraq, a lot of leaders of nations around the world were all looking at the same intelligence," Bush told ABC.

Asked what his greatest accomplishment was, the US president replied: "I keep recognizing we're in a war against ideological thugs and keeping America safe."

Asked what he was most unprepared for when he took office in January 2001, Bush replied: "I think I was unprepared for war. In other words, I didn't campaign and say, 'Please vote for me, I'll be able to handle an attack.'"

"In other words, I didn't anticipate war. Presidents -- one of the things about the modern presidency is that the unexpected will happen," he said.

Bush, whose administration recently accepted a formal timeline for withdrawing from Iraq, also stood fast behind his refusal for years to set a pull-out timetable.

"It would have compromised the principle that when you put kids into harm's way, you go in to win," he said.

"It was a tough call," he said, because "a lot of people" were advising him to bring US forces home. "But ultimately, I listened to this voice: I'm not going to let your son die in vain; I believe we can win; I'm going to do what it takes to win in Iraq."


Copyright © 2008 Agence France Presse.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29,576 Posts
Bush: Iraq intelligence failure 'biggest regret'

WASHINGTON (AFP) – US President George W. Bush said in an interview set for broadcast Monday that he came to office "unprepared for war" and that his "biggest regret" was the US intelligence failure on Iraq.



"The biggest regret of all the presidency has to have been the intelligence failure in Iraq," Bush said. "I wish the intelligence had been different, I guess."
The revisionism continues.

Hint bushie, much of the intelligence WAS different. You just chose not to listen to the intel that did not adhere to your preconceived notion.

No amount of revisionism can erase all the contra evidence that was presented and ignored. But nice try, now go away.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28,829 Posts
An excreable fucking liar.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
43,635 Posts
Bush is deflecting blame and accepting no responsibility. In other words he is staying the course.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29,576 Posts
Some quotes require framing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,392 Posts
More the reason why I think he is fucking criminal and deserves every treats that come his way. He is one sorry ass mother fucker for a human being.

It goes the same to all those voted for him. And twice for those voted him the second time.
 

·
BenzWorld Elitist
Joined
·
11,490 Posts
And twice for those voted him the second time.
Understatement of the decade. I can forgive those who voted for him the first time; it's possible they didn't know what we were getting into. But the second time? Even in the face of an unattractive Democratic alternative? No way. By then there was absolutely no mistaking what GWB was all about, and the magnitude of the disaster in the making. Absolutely no mistaking it. And they made it happen.

Those people should have their wealth confiscated and should then be put to hard labor for the rest of their lives to try and help dig us out of this nightmare hole we're now in. Time we did away with the secret ballot ;)
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
66,890 Posts
Understatement of the decade. I can forgive those who voted for him the first time; it's possible they didn't know what we were getting into. But the second time? Even in the face of an unattractive Democratic alternative? No way. By then there was absolutely no mistaking what GWB was all about, and the magnitude of the disaster in the making. Absolutely no mistaking it. And they made it happen.

Those people should have their wealth confiscated and should then be put to hard labor for the rest of their lives to try and help dig us out of this nightmare hole we're now in. Time we did away with the secret ballot ;)
But killing ayrabs appealed to the redneck crowd, that my friend was the ticket:p
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28,829 Posts
Understatement of the decade. I can forgive those who voted for him the first time; it's possible they didn't know what we were getting into. But the second time? Even in the face of an unattractive Democratic alternative? No way. By then there was absolutely no mistaking what GWB was all about, and the magnitude of the disaster in the making. Absolutely no mistaking it. And they made it happen.

Those people should have their wealth confiscated and should then be put to hard labor for the rest of their lives to try and help dig us out of this nightmare hole we're now in. Time we did away with the secret ballot ;)
He ran a pretty good con - pretend he was for smaller government, and then increase the size of it anywhere it meant an aggrandizement of the little Hitler fuck's power. He won elections throwing juicy bones to his "base": lower taxes for big business and the weathy, and of course, red meat for the fucking RWNJ's: God, guns and gays. But the ones in the middle who gave him the election, man he played them for suckers with the fear thing and the WMD thing, and the end result is he has given away the whole GOP store to the Democrats. People do not like finding out they have been taken for a sucker. He has left such a bad taste in the mouth of the average voter for this thing called "conservatism" it will take them forty years to recover. Bush: Adolf Hitler and Herbert Hoover rolled up into one little ball of shit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,885 Posts
More the reason why I think he is fucking criminal and deserves every treats that come his way. He is one sorry ass mother fucker for a human being.

It goes the same to all those voted for him. And twice for those voted him the second time.
:thumbsup:Are you my long lost twin?:D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,191 Posts
I just hope that all those who demonized Bill Clinton for lying about a blow job now got their sweet taste of their "God's man in the White house". Maybe now they will realize that there are worse things than obsessing about one's sex life. Like losing your job. Your house. Your money. Your life.

Clinton was too good a president for America. They needed an asshole to fuck things up. Well, they got him. Too bad the rest of us who knew better have to suffer the consequences too.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
8,498 Posts
I just hope that all those who demonized Bill Clinton for lying about a blow job now got their sweet taste of their "God's man in the White house". Maybe now they will realize that there are worse things than obsessing about one's sex life. Like losing your job. Your house. Your money. Your life.

Clinton was too good a president for America. They needed an asshole to fuck things up. Well, they got him. Too bad the rest of us who knew better have to suffer the consequences too.
Preach on, my Brother. :D
 

·
Surely A Large Human
Joined
·
35,725 Posts
I just hope that all those who demonized Bill Clinton for lying about a blow job now got their sweet taste of their "God's man in the White house". Maybe now they will realize that there are worse things than obsessing about one's sex life. Like losing your job. Your house. Your money. Your life.

Clinton was too good a president for America. They needed an asshole to fuck things up. Well, they got him. Too bad the rest of us who knew better have to suffer the consequences too.
Your first paragraph was defensible, the second one - not so much. :(
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29,576 Posts
Not defensible? Read this:

Feds ignored clear meltdown warnings - Economy in Turmoil- msnbc.com

Bush again ignored all the financial meltdown warnings, just like he ignored all Iraq intelligence that was not what he wanted to hear.

Then he blames all of his failures on others.
No point in linking. Let's post it, with colors.

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration backed off proposed crackdowns on no-money-down, interest-only mortgages years before the economy collapsed, buckling to pressure from some of the same banks that have now failed. It ignored remarkably prescient warnings that foretold the financial meltdown, according to an Associated Press review of regulatory documents.

“Expect fallout, expect foreclosures, expect horror stories,” California mortgage lender Paris Welch wrote to U.S. regulators in January 2006, about one year before the housing implosion cost her a job.

Bowing to aggressive lobbying — along with assurances from banks that the troubled mortgages were OKregulators delayed action for nearly one year. By the time new rules were released late in 2006, the toughest of the proposed provisions were gone and the meltdown was under way.

“These mortgages have been considered more safe and sound for portfolio lenders than many fixed rate mortgages,” David Schneider, home loan president of Washington Mutual, told federal regulators in early 2006. Two years later, WaMu became the largest bank failure in U.S. history.

The administration’s blind eye to the impending crisis is emblematic of a philosophy that trusted market forces and discounted the need for government intervention in the economy. Its belief ironically has ushered in the most massive government intervention since the 1930s.

“We’re going to be feeling the effects of the regulators’ failure to address these mortgages for the next several years,” said Kevin Stein of the California Reinvestment Coalition, who warned regulators to tighten lending rules before it was too late.

Many of the banks that fought to undermine the proposals by some regulators are now either out of business or accepting billions in federal aid to recover from a mortgage crisis they insisted would never come. Many executives remain in high-paying jobs, even after their assurances were proved false.

In 2005, faced with ominous signs the housing market was in jeopardy, bank regulators proposed new guidelines for banks writing risky loans. Today, in the midst of the worst housing recession in a generation, the proposal reads like a list of what-ifs:

  • Regulators told bankers exotic mortgages were often inappropriate for buyers with bad credit.
  • Banks would have been required to increase efforts to verify that buyers actually had jobs and could afford houses.
  • Regulators proposed a cap on risky mortgages so a string of defaults wouldn’t be crippling.
  • Banks that bundled and sold mortgages were told to be sure investors knew exactly what they were buying.
  • Regulators urged banks to help buyers make responsible decisions and clearly advise them that interest rates might skyrocket and huge payments might be due sooner than expected.
Those proposals all were stripped from the final rules. None required congressional approval or the president’s signature.

“In hindsight, it was spot on,” said Jeffrey Brown, a former top official at the Office of Comptroller of the Currency, one of the first agencies to raise concerns about risky lending.

Federal regulators were especially concerned about mortgages known as “option ARMs,” which allow borrowers to make payments so low that mortgage debt actually increases every month. But banking executives accused the government of overreacting.

Bankers said such loans might be risky when approved with no money down or without ensuring buyers have jobs but such risk could be managed without government intervention.

“An open market will mean that different institutions will develop different methodologies for achieving this goal,” Joseph Polizzotto, counsel to now-bankrupt Lehman Brothers, told U.S. regulators in a March 2006.

Countrywide Financial Corp., at the time the nation’s largest mortgage lender, agreed. The proposal “appears excessive and will inhibit future innovation in the marketplace,” said Mary Jane Seebach, managing director of public affairs.

One of the most contested rules said that before banks purchase mortgages from brokers, they should verify the process to ensure buyers could afford their homes. Some bankers now blame much of the housing crisis on brokers who wrote fraudulent, predatory loans. But in 2006, banks said they shouldn’t have to double-check the brokers.

“It is not our role to be the regulator for the third-party lenders,” wrote Ruthann Melbourne, chief risk officer of IndyMac Bank.

California-based IndyMac also criticized regulators for not recognizing the track record of interest-only loans and option ARMs, which accounted for 70 percent of IndyMac’s 2005 mortgage portfolio. This summer, the government seized IndyMac and will pay an estimated $9 billion to ensure customers don’t lose their deposits.

Last week, Downey Savings joined the growing list of failed banks. The problem: About 52 percent of its mortgage portfolio was tied up in risky option ARMs, which in 2006 Downey insisted were safe — maybe even safer than traditional 30-year mortgages.

“To conclude that ’nontraditional’ equates to higher risk does not appropriately balance risk and compensating factors of these products,” said Lillian Gavin, the bank’s chief credit officer.

At least some regulators didn’t buy it. The comptroller of the currency, John C. Dugan, was among the first to sound the alarm in mid-2005. Speaking to a consumer advocacy group, Dugan painted a troublesome picture of option-ARM lending. Many buyers, particularly those with bad credit, would soon be unable to afford their payments, he said. And if housing prices declined, homeowners wouldn’t even be able to sell their way out of the mess.

It sounded simple, but “people kind of looked at us regulators as old-fashioned,” said Brown, the agency’s former deputy comptroller.

Diane Casey-Landry, of the American Bankers Association, said the industry feared a two-tiered system in which banks had to follow rules that mortgage brokers did not. She said opposition was based on the banks’ best information.

“You’re looking at a decline in real estate values that was never contemplated,” she said.

Some saw problems coming. Community groups and even some in the mortgage business, like Welch, warned regulators not to ease their rules.

“We expect to see a huge increase in defaults, delinquencies and foreclosures as a result of the over selling of these products,” Stein, the associate director of the California Reinvestment Coalition, wrote to regulators in 2006. The group advocates on housing and banking issues for low-income and minority residents.

The government’s banking agencies spent nearly a year debating the rules, which required unanimous agreement among the OCC, Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., Federal Reserve, and the Office of Thrift Supervision — agencies that sometimes don’t agree.

The Fed, for instance, was reluctant under Alan Greenspan to heavily regulate lending. Similarly, the Office of Thrift Supervision, an arm of the Treasury Department that regulated many in the subprime mortgage market, worried that restricting certain mortgages would hurt banks and consumers.

Grovetta Gardineer, OTS managing director for corporate and international activities, said the 2005 proposal “attempted to send an alarm bell that these products are bad.” After hearing from banks, she said, regulators were persuaded that the loans themselves were not problematic as long as banks managed the risk. She disputes the notion that the rules were weakened.

Marc Savitt, president of the National Association of Mortgage Brokers, said regulators were afraid of stopping a good thing.

“If it seems to be working, if it’s not broken don’t fix it, if everybody’s making money, then the good times are rolling and nobody wants to be the one guy to put the brakes on,” he said.

In the past year, with Congress scrambling to stanch the bleeding in the financial industry, regulators have tightened rules on risky mortgages.

Congress is considering further tightening, including some of the same proposals abandoned years ago.​

In yet another investigation it seems that CRA has very little to do with the problem and unbridled greed, brought on by lack of regulation has everything to do with it.

Heck of a job Bushie.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
43,635 Posts
If we blame Bush too much then the buck is passed yet again. The responsibility lies with the individual ultimately. The individual should be educated enough to see the total picture instead of just the immediate gratification. There is no free lunch anywhere.
 
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
Top