US Senate report contends Bush distorted Iraqi intelligence

[suedanim]

ok... so when does some damn body put the sobs on trial for murder?

Mass murder.

Look.. if some Republicans believe Democrats and the two Republicans who signed on to this report are distorting, lying yada yada... the answer is simple. SPECIAL PROSECUTOR. Do it NOW. Launch a full criminal investigation now.... The world is listening and waiting to see if we'll do the right thing. If we don't what will stop other nations from doing exactly as this administration has. Lets show the world how a PROPER, MORAL democracy works.

Saying I'm sorry doesn't cut it. We don't accept it from people like John Wayne Gacy, why should we accept it from George Bush.

And then some of ya'll get all butthurt when fellow Americans show Bush no respect.


US Senate report contends Bush distorted Iraqi intelligence (http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/06/05/america/NA-GEN-US-Iraq-Intelligence.php)

http://img.iht.com/images/dot_h.gif
Associated Press
Published: June 5, 2008


WASHINGTON (http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/06/05/america/NA-GEN-US-Iraq-Intelligence.php#):

A U.S. Senate committee report said Thursday that U.S. officials from President George W. Bush on down deliberately distorted facts to persuade American citizens to support an invasion of Iraq.

According to the report by the Democratic-led Senate Intelligence Committee, U.S. officials erroneously linked former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein to al-Qaida and the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks on the U.S.
Republicans accused Democrats of playing politics ahead of November presidential elections.

The report also faulted American leaders for claiming Iraq would give terrorist groups chemical, biological or nuclear weapons and for saying Iraq was developing drones to spread chemical or biological agents over the United States.

None of the claims was borne out by intelligence.
(http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/05/america/intel.4-283204.php)

http://www.iht.com/images/dot_h.gif"These reports are about holding the government accountable and making sure these mistakes never happen again," said the committee chairman, Democratic Sen. Jay Rockefeller.



Bush's press secretary, Dana Perino, said the problem was flawed intelligence heading into the war. "We had the intelligence that we had, fully vetted, but it was wrong. And we certainly regret that," she said.

To Rockefeller, the problem was concealing information that would have undermined the case for war. "We might have avoided this catastrophe," he said.

The report found that most of the Bush administration's statements about the threat from Iraq were substantiated by available intelligence, but officials often did not mention the level of dissension or uncertainty about the information.

Two Republicans, Sens. Chuck Hagel and Olympia Snowe, joined with majority Democrats on the report.

Other committee Republicans dissented.

Republican Sen. Kit Bond, vice chairman of the committee, called it "ironic that the Democrats would knowingly distort and misrepresent the committee's findings and the intelligence in an effort to prove that the administration distorted and mischaracterized the intelligence."

[gpruitt54]

So, how long until the trials begin? It appears that there is more then enough information to charge some or all of these jackels with high crimes.

But, in all reality, this will never happen. The Dems are too weak. If things were reversed, you can bet that the Republicans would be holding hearings by now.

I am sorry about the weakness of the Dems.

[lily]

Sue....this report isn't saying anything different that some of us have been saying all along.

I agree with your outrage, but all that will come of this is Bush saying, "I did my best with what I had"........and it won't go any further. The only good thing is if they put things in place so this sort of thing will never happen again.

We invaded a country that didn't do anything, didn't have anything and now we don't know how we're going to get out.

It's going to take a lot of time to get the reputationn the USA used to have back........a lot of time and work.

[apdst]

ok... so when does some damn body put the sobs on trial for murder?

Why? Because intelligence, the kind CIA gathers, is open to interpretation. Since Bush's interpretation is the same was Clinton's interpretation, it would look awful foolish to hold a trial.

When there is a report, written by Democrats in a Democrat controlled congress, it looks more like political sniping than a search for justice.

It's going to take a lot of time to get the reputationn the USA used to have back........

Which reputation would that be? Sittin' back and doing nothing when we're attacked? Refusing to take th fight to the enemy and destroy him? I hope that rep never comes back, but I'm sure it won't take long for Obama to make us into a target, again.

[Trish]

The report found that most of the Bush administration's statements about the threat from Iraq were substantiated by available intelligence, but officials often did not mention the level of dissension or uncertainty about the information.

Alrighty then! So according to this report the statements made by Bush were accurate given the viability of available intelligence at the time. If "most" of the statements were substantiated, why in the world would anyone expect Bush or anyone else to discount the majority in favor of the minority? I mean if you have 5 sources that say the same thing and 1 that says something different, do you go with the 5 or the 1?

It would seem that as some of us have said all along accusing Bush of "lying" or "manufacturing" intelligence was just plain wrong. Of course, I don't expect anyone to admit that this report goes a LONG way in vindicating the President rather than indicting him.

I also find it interesting that some reports are deliberately chopping up quotes and reporting only a small portion:


Committee Vice Chairman Christopher S. Bond (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/b000611/) (R-Mo.) called the new report a "waste of time" and said the allegations about administration officials were deliberately misleading. "It is ironic that the Democrats would knowingly distort and misrepresent the Committee's findings and the intelligence in an effort to prove that the Administration distorted and mischaracterized the intelligence," he said.
Bond also noted that key Democrats -- including several who ran for their party's presidential nomination this year -- also made public statements during the same period portraying Iraq's weapons as a threat to the United States. Those statements were omitted from the report over Republican objections, resulting in a flagrantly partisan document that is "flawed, incomplete and irrelevant," he said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/05/AR2008060501523.html?nav=hcmodule

It's also interesting that this latest report contradicts the findings of an earlier Senate report:


The earlier Senate report, released when Republicans controlled the chamber, concluded unanimously that U.S. intelligence agencies had botched the task of assessing Iraq's capabilities regarding weapons of mass destruction. It said key intelligence reports made unwarranted assumptions and overstated what was then known about Hussein's weapons programs. The report faulted the CIA and other agencies for failing to cultivate reliable informants and for basing key assessments on extrapolation and inference.



So which is it? Did the CIA and other agencies overstate and make assumptions in the reports presented to the President AND Congress related to Iraq? If they did as the first Senate report states, then the President was again acting upon information he had available at the time and this latest Senate report is indeed itself a "distortion."




It seems to me that this is a case of wanting your cake and eating it too. Either Bush did make decisions based on faulty intelligence, or he didn't. This latest report says he did on "most" things and then cites examples where he didn't. The only problem with that is the cases cited as examples where no such evidence existed contradicts an earlier Senate report which says such evidence did in fact exist but was overstated and based upon intelligence agency assumptions. Clearly the Senate is itself saying 2 different things.

[Truth_and_Power]

The next time the administration wants to go to war, they need to give me a call. Based on my track record with the iraqi war, I will be able to tell them whether the case is justified. It would appear based on the justifications of righties here and the lack of real protest by democrats in congress at the time that I am basically smarter than everyone involved. I hereby offer my services free of charge upon the selection of the next target.

[lily]

Why? Because intelligence, the kind CIA gathers, is open to interpretation. Since Bush's interpretation is the same was Clinton's interpretation, it would look awful foolish to hold a trial.

DId you even read the article? The Senate Intelligence Committee, said they distored facts.......that's not interpretation.......that's cherry picking and faking. You an thank this President......US Intelligence is now no longer trusted.

When there is a report, written by Democrats in a Democrat controlled congress, it looks more like political sniping than a search for justice.

Oh boo hoo..........there are 8 Democrats on the committee and 7 Republicans. Nice try though.



Which reputation would that be? Sittin' back and doing nothing when we're attacked? Refusing to take th fight to the enemy and destroy him? I hope that rep never comes back, but I'm sure it won't take long for Obama to make us into a target, again.

When did Iraq attack us........or for that matter when were they even a threat?

[Trish]

Which Senate Intelligence Report are we supposed to believe? This one or the 2004 report whose content negates the latest one?

[ECW]

That was the first part of the report that was supposed to have TWO PARTS. This is the second of the two parts; the republicans refused to issue the second part while they were in control because they knew it would do what this report did: damn the president and his followers for misleading the nation.

The Senate is so cordial about this. They say 'mislead.' I just say they lied.

[Trish]

Well then I guess the President and his administration are in good company, because according to the Senate Intelligence Committee's Repart Part 2, "most" of the statements the President issued were backed up by the intelligence at the time, except for parts about Iraq which were "distorted" and had no intelligence to back them up. Of course, then we have the Senate Intelligence Committee's Report Part 1 which says that the CIA and other agencies DID have evidence regarding Iraq - they just assummed too much and overstated the evidence. Either way you look at it, Bush's statements were backed up by intelligence - just not GOOD intelligence.

[Phyxius]

Which Senate Intelligence Report are we supposed to believe? This one or the 2004 report whose content negates the latest one?

Depends on what your definition of "is" is.


Just sayin'... :ponder:

[Trish]

Depends on what your definition of "is" is.


Just sayin'... :ponder:

Seems to me it depends on just how good the SCI thinks our memory is. They seem to be counting on the fact that we don't remember anything that was reported in their previous report, or that we will simply read the news reports about this report and take it at face value without question. Which is much the same tactic they are accusing Bush of using with us.

Rather ironic.

[ECW]

Well then I guess the President and his administration are in good company, because according to the Senate Intelligence Committee's Repart Part 2, "most" of the statements the President issued were backed up by the intelligence at the time, except for parts about Iraq which were "distorted" and had no intelligence to back them up. Of course, then we have the Senate Intelligence Committee's Report Part 1 which says that the CIA and other agencies DID have evidence regarding Iraq - they just assummed too much and overstated the evidence. Either way you look at it, Bush's statements were backed up by intelligence - just not GOOD intelligence.

Then Part One backs up what Part Two is saying. The CIA, et al., had evidence that the WH misused (overstated or whatever phrase you want to use) to rush us to war. If it was "just not GOOD intelligence" then it wasn't intelligence at all but rather unsubstantiated rumors and flights of fancy especially the crap that came from Curveball and Chalabi.

Part Two lays out WHERE the WH sold us a bill of goods, what Pat Roberts and the republicans who put out Part One did not have the testicles to do when they were supposed to make a report that wasn't a whitewash.

If it wasn't good intel and the WH knew that then it was a lie, just what I have been saying all along. You can call it what you want. It's still a lie.

[hungarianflower]

Then how do you explain British intelligence pointing to the fact that Saddam Hussein was trying to purchase uranium from Nigeria?

I think I may be missing a key point in this argument ... exactly why would Bush want to force us into an unnecessary war like Iraq? It completely ruined his presidency and reputation, put us in debt, made us vulnerable to future attacks and an international laughingstock (OK, maybe that was a bit of an exaggeration ...). Maybe I am just playing devil's advocate, but I can't seem to see any benefits this war has brought us or Bush ...

I think Bush was a bad president but hardly a master of deception. Quite frankly I don't think his administration was organized enough for that. I think they were just chumps.

Alrighty then! So according to this report the statements made by Bush were accurate given the viability of available intelligence at the time. If "most" of the statements were substantiated, why in the world would anyone expect Bush or anyone else to discount the majority in favor of the minority? I mean if you have 5 sources that say the same thing and 1 that says something different, do you go with the 5 or the 1?

It would seem that as some of us have said all along accusing Bush of "lying" or "manufacturing" intelligence was just plain wrong. Of course, I don't expect anyone to admit that this report goes a LONG way in vindicating the President rather than indicting him.

Thank you for pointing that out ...

People used to claim that Bush brought us there for oil but that argument doesn't really seem to make sense anymore.

Maybe I just don't get it?

[suedanim]

Then how do you explain British intelligence pointing to the fact that Saddam Hussein was trying to purchase uranium from Nigeria?

The Brits faked intel was nullified well in advance by the IAEA, CIA reports and supported by Ambassador Wilson's trip to Niger as well as numerous and thorough UN weapons inspector reporters given by lead inspector, Hans Blix and American inspector, Scott Ritter. This is very old well known information.

UK nuclear evidence a fake (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/mar/08/nuclear.iraq)
British intelligence claims that Saddam Hussein has been trying to import uranium for a nuclear bomb are unfounded, according to UN nuclear inspectors


I think I may be missing a key point in this argument ...

See above.

exactly why would Bush want to force us into an unnecessary war like Iraq?

Also well documented. Google is your friend.

It completely ruined his presidency and reputation, put us in debt, made us vulnerable to future attacks and an international laughingstock (OK, maybe that was a bit of an exaggeration ...). Maybe I am just playing devil's advocate, but I can't seem to see any benefits this war has brought us or Bush ...

:ponder:

Thank you for pointing that out ...

People used to claim that Bush brought us there for oil but that argument doesn't really seem to make sense anymore.

Isn't it ODD how after the Bush and Cheney ME visits, the price of oil has been racheted upward at a quick, steady pace? I'm just saying.

But the...

US issues threat to Iraq's $50bn foreign reserves in military deal (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/us-issues-threat-to-iraqs-50bn-foreign-reserves-in-military-deal-841407.html)

</EM>
By Patrick Cockburn
Friday, 6 June 2008

Alan Greenspan says it was about the oil (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2461214.ece)

Of course... you can find rightwinger articles who attempt to make the case it was all about lovely ideas like spreading freedom and democracy.

But, the bottomline is this admin felt no such need to spread freedom and democracy, build nations in third world nations, North Korea and ect other places in which oppression, ethnic cleansing, cruelty, mass murders and dictatorships have flourished.

No... instead, it chose to land its goodship lollipop in the center of the most oil rich real estate on earth and attempted to link it to 9/11...for which there was not then ANY relationship whatsever....and today, both Bush and Cheney freely admit that AND that there were no WMDs.... but OOPS!!! we're there now, whatever can we do? They knew that would be the argument at a later date when they invaded.

Maybe I just don't get it?

Probably not. I'm not sure ANY of us fully get it. But, all evidence points to ... oil and Israel. Iraq is sitting on top of the largest oil reserve in the world... central to the ME, a perfect launch point to control any and all military initiatives, therefore securing the world's largest oil suppliers AND positioning with 50 military bases in place to flex its miltary might to persuade and punish as it sees fit.



Alrighty then! So according to this report the statements made by Bush were accurate given the viability of available intelligence at the time. If "most" of the statements were substantiated, why in the world would anyone expect Bush or anyone else to discount the majority in favor of the minority? I mean if you have 5 sources that say the same thing and 1 that says something different, do you go with the 5 or the 1?

It would seem that as some of us have said all along accusing Bush of "lying" or "manufacturing" intelligence was just plain wrong. Of course, I don't expect anyone to admit that this report goes a LONG way in vindicating the President rather than indicting him.


Not so fast. That sounded pretty slick, except for one very important fact. Bush and the rest had in their arsenal clear evidence that no such nuclear capabilities were even being sought AND that no WMD's could be found.

Just because a group of republicans inserted a contrary pov within the report doesn't hold a lot of water in negating the key findings, considering the sorry state republicans hold on credbility. Likewise, what Democrats said during the runup to war is hardly applicable under present day knowledge of what they, this Bush admin, KNEW AND WHEN THEY KNEW IT.

A wise leader would NEVER launch a war based on flimsy evidence from a cab driver (Chalabi aka Curveball), supported by a now condemned, shamed reporter (Miller) contradicted by an array superior sources.

It would seem that as millions of us have said all along that accusing Bush of point blank LYING and manufacturing evidence was just plain RIGHT, especially when you consider that the 16 words were taken out by CIA Director George Tenet, put back by Steven Hadley...and George read them KNOWING... Tenet had previously removed them and WHY.

I think its pretty clear why one report contradicts the other. As time goes by and more thorough, less politically biased research and investigations are done, reports will sustain this latest report and then some.

[Trish]

The report also faulted American leaders for claiming Iraq would give terrorist groups chemical, biological or nuclear weapons and for saying Iraq was developing drones to spread chemical or biological agents over the United States.

None of the claims was borne out by intelligence.

The earlier Senate report, released when Republicans controlled the chamber, concluded unanimously that U.S. intelligence agencies had botched the task of assessing Iraq's capabilities regarding weapons of mass destruction. It said key intelligence reports made unwarranted assumptions and overstated what was then known about Hussein's weapons programs. The report faulted the CIA and other agencies for failing to cultivate reliable informants and for basing key assessments on extrapolation and inference. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/05/AR2008060501523.html?nav=hcmodule

Nothing like talking out of both sides of one's mouth is there?

[tecoyah]

[/COLOR][/B][COLOR=red][COLOR=Black]

Nothing like talking out of both sides of one's mouth is there?

Actually....it seems they concluded that not only did they manage to use poor data....they also made up that which they could not find within the data stream they actually DID have.


You are fighting a no win battle if you wish too defend what has been done...as is obvious with each, more in depth investigation.


Buy. hey.......Keep on goin', not everyone requires respect to be taken seriously.

[Trish]

Actually....it seems they concluded that not only did they manage to use poor data....they also made up that which they could not find within the data stream they actually DID have.


You are fighting a no win battle if you wish too defend what has been done...as is obvious with each, more in depth investigation.


Buy. hey.......Keep on goin', not everyone requires respect to be taken seriously.

"Defense" of the war is an entirely different topic. This topic regards the latest SIC report. The latest report is in direct opposition to what was concluded in an earlier version, ie the existence of "intelligence" regarding the Iraq war. The latest report says there was "no" intelligence to back up the administration's statements regarding Iraq. The earlier report says there were intelligence reports.

All questions of respect aside, that is a problem. If there were intelligence reports (however flawed) acknowledged in the earlier report, it is an error to now say there were NO intelligence reports. Either intelligence reports existed or they did not.

Over the course of the last 8 months I have presented articles and reports which have incontrovertibly proven that the Bush administration, Congress, the Clinton administration, most foreign leaders, AND Hussein's own military personnel did indeed believe that Iraq possessed WMD's and were prepared to use them. The intelligence was wrong - we now know that. However, AT THE TIME, the intelligence was believed to be accurate. Yes, there were dissenting voices at the same time. However, the volume of intelligence that supported the belief that there were WMD's surpassed that which said there were none. They went with the majority opinion. Going back now with the advantage of hindsight and documentation that was not available at the time does nothing to change what was believed before the war. In this instance being wrong and lying are not the same thing.

[tecoyah]

"Defense" of the war is an entirely different topic. This topic regards the latest SIC report. The latest report is in direct opposition to what was concluded in an earlier version, ie the existence of "intelligence" regarding the Iraq war. The latest report says there was "no" intelligence to back up the administration's statements regarding Iraq. The earlier report says there were intelligence reports.

All questions of respect aside, that is a problem. If there were intelligence reports (however flawed) acknowledged in the earlier report, it is an error to now say there were NO intelligence reports. Either intelligence reports existed or they did not.

Over the course of the last 8 months I have presented articles and reports which have incontrovertibly proven that the Bush administration, Congress, the Clinton administration, most foreign leaders, AND Hussein's own military personnel did indeed believe that Iraq possessed WMD's and were prepared to use them. The intelligence was wrong - we now know that. However, AT THE TIME, the intelligence was believed to be accurate. Yes, there were dissenting voices at the same time. However, the volume of intelligence that supported the belief that there were WMD's surpassed that which said there were none. They went with the majority opinion. Going back now with the advantage of hindsight and documentation that was not available at the time does nothing to change what was believed before the war. In this instance being wrong and lying are not the same thing.

Heh...uh....Yeah...what you said:




U.N.: Iraq had no WMD after 1994
By Bill Nichols, USA TODAY
UNITED NATIONS — A report from U.N. weapons inspectors to be released today says they now believe there were no weapons of mass destruction of any significance in Iraq after 1994, according to two U.N. diplomats who have seen the document.

The historical review of inspections in Iraq is the first outside study to confirm the recent conclusion by David Kay, the former U.S. chief inspector, that Iraq had no banned weapons before last year's U.S-led invasion. It also goes further than prewar U.N. reports, which said no weapons had been found but noted that Iraq had not fully accounted for weapons it was known to have had at the end of the Gulf War in 1991.

The report, to be outlined to the U.N. Security Council as early as Friday, is based on information gathered over more than seven years of U.N. inspections in Iraq before the 2003 war, plus postwar findings discussed publicly by Kay.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-03-02-un-wmd_x.htm


Keep going.....you are obviously correct to defend the truthyness.

[Trish]

Heh...uh....Yeah...what you said:




http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-03-02-un-wmd_x.htm


Keep going.....you are obviously correct to defend the truthyness.

Your article is also "after-the-fact." And to put a point on the matter confirms what I was saying in my earlier posts.

The historical review of inspections in Iraq is the first outside study to confirm the recent conclusion by David Kay, the former U.S. chief inspector, that Iraq had no banned weapons before last year's U.S-led invasion. It also goes further than prewar U.N. reports, which said no weapons had been found but noted that Iraq had not fully accounted for weapons it was known to have had at the end of the Gulf War in 1991.

[tecoyah]

Your article is also "after-the-fact." And to put a point on the matter confirms what I was saying in my earlier posts.


I take it...we must blame serial amnesia, and systematic blinder syndrome for your inability to see this part of the above post:

The report, to be outlined to the U.N. Security Council as early as Friday, is based on information gathered over more than seven years of U.N. inspections in Iraq before the 2003 war, plus postwar findings discussed publicly by Kay.

[Trish]

I take it...we must blame serial amnesia, and systematic blinder syndrome for your inability to see this part of the above post:

*LOL* That was cute! Nope..I have neither serial amnesia, nor systematic blinder syndrome. I am an old broad, true enough, but I am quite capable of reading and understanding the English language AND following from point A through however many points may follow to the conclusion.

1. The report was issued AFTER the war had already begun.
2. The information in the report was based upon information received from more than 7 years of UN inspections before the war.
3. The information in the report was also based on postwar findings.
4. Prewar UN inspections reported no WMD's found.
5. Prewar UN inspections also reported that all WMD's known to be in Iraq's possession in 1991 had not been fully accounted for prior to the war.
6. The report was drafted AFTER the war had begun and used information from reports both prior to and afterward to come to the conclusion that no WMD's existed after 1994. The conclusion was not reached and the report was not drafted until AFTER the war started.

So - nothing has changed. Information learned AFTER the war had started does nothing to change what was believed to be true prior to the war. All the WMD's were not accounted for - we had no way of knowing what had happened to them, where they were or anything else related to them. The administration erred on the side of caution regarding WMD's. They were wrong - but they weren't lying.

[ECW]

It also goes further than prewar U.N. reports, which said no weapons had been found but noted that Iraq had not fully accounted for weapons it was known to have had at the end of the Gulf War in 1991.

The study, a quarterly report on Iraq from U.N. inspectors, notes that the U.S. teams' inability to find any weapons after the war mirrors the experience of U.N. inspectors who searched there from November 2002 until March 2003.

Many Bush administration officials were harshly critical of the U.N. inspection efforts in the months before the war. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said in August 2002 that inspections "will be a sham."

But U.N. reports submitted to the Security Council before the war by Hans Blix, former chief U.N. arms inspector, and Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog agency, have been largely validated by U.S. weapons teams. The common findings:

Iraq's nuclear weapons program was dormant.

No evidence was found to suggest Iraq possessed chemical or biological weapons. U.N. officials believe the weapons were destroyed by U.N. inspectors or Iraqi officials in the years after the 1991 Gulf War.

Iraq was attempting to develop missiles capable of exceeding a U.N.-mandated limit of 93 miles.

Demetrius Perricos, the acting executive chairman of the U.N. inspection teams, said in an interview that the failure to find banned weapons in Iraq since the war undercuts administration criticism of the U.N.'s search before the war.

from the article posted...

This shows very clearly that there was more than enough evidence there were NO WMDs and that the Bush WH discredited those reports. THOSE REPORTS WERE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE WAR.

As I stated before, Bush lied. The proof is right there. Just like you, he ignored it and put his own spin on what very clearly is the truth.

[apdst]

According to the report by the Democratic-led Senate Intelligence Committee

Yeah, I read the article, Lily. Especially the opening sentence.

You're interpretation is politically motivated. So, let's save the santimonious bullshit about revereing the actual facts.

[ECW]

You're interpretation is politically motivated. So, let's save the santimonious bullshit about revereing the actual facts.

Funny. We were just saying the same thing about you.

[tecoyah]

Yeah, I read the article, Lily. Especially the opening sentence.

You're interpretation is politically motivated. So, let's save the santimonious bullshit about revereing the actual facts.

All aspects of this are politically tarnished...this does not mean there are no facts, or Data to base an opinion on. If we simply disavow all information based on political motivation there would be NO DATA at all.

[Trish]

from the article posted...

This shows very clearly that there was more than enough evidence there were NO WMDs and that the Bush WH discredited those reports. THOSE REPORTS WERE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE WAR.

As I stated before, Bush lied. The proof is right there. Just like you, he ignored it and put his own spin on what very clearly is the truth.

The pre-war reports said "no weapons HAD BEEN FOUND" - not that no weapons existed. The pre-war reports also said that all known WMD's had not been accounted for. This shows that there were doubts as to what WMD's still existed.

Sorry, ECW - but spin doesn't just occur in one direction.

I fully agree that the war was mismanaged at the beginning and for entirely too long afterward. I fully agree that in hindsight, the war should not have even begun when it did if ever. However, from everything I have read and researched, the Bush administration did not lie - they went with the information they had and that information was unfortunately wrong.

[NortheastCynic]

ok... so when does some damn body put the sobs on trial for murder? Unlikely, given the fact they didn't murder anyone.

Legally defined murder is: The unlawful killing of another human being without justification or excuse.

If you can find a person who the President, Vice President or anyone else in the White House has killed, then present them.

-NC

[Deadshot]

Then admit it's wrong and seek a way to get out. That hasn't happened, hence you will see more and more articles, books, shows, etc. pounding Bush and Co.

I don't think he should come out crying, with Britney singing "Oops I did it again." in the background. But the sanctimonious attitude coming from the Bush White House and those that work for the Bush White House is bullshit and we all know it. Your info was wrong, the war was wrong and, as McCain has proven (or at least that's what his campaign is claiming), that the war has been mismanaged consistently. Show a cocky face to our enemies and stop being a horses ass to those here in the USA who have proven your mistakes, which are many.

Was this report bias, Yeah - as Trish pointed out. But the real or honest reports have been blasted and ignored by the Bush Administration. So if you want to blast this one, fine. There are enough books, articles, testimonies and documentaries out now and coming forward to show how they fucked up.

[ECW]

The pre-war reports said "no weapons HAD BEEN FOUND" - not that no weapons existed. The pre-war reports also said that all known WMD's had not been accounted for. This shows that there were doubts as to what WMD's still existed.

Sorry, ECW - but spin doesn't just occur in one direction.

I fully agree that the war was mismanaged at the beginning and for entirely too long afterward. I fully agree that in hindsight, the war should not have even begun when it did if ever. However, from everything I have read and researched, the Bush administration did not lie - they went with the information they had and that information was unfortunately wrong.

Can you state today without qualms or equivocation that NO WEAPONS EXISTED? I doubt it. It's just another way to spin the simple fact that the weapons inspectors were all over the place in Iraq and there was nothing. They found nothing but since the Bush people can spin this as long as they live they can go to their graves saying "Weapons existed. We just did not find them."

This discounts the fact that the reports that Blix made were discounted and dismissed in the rush to war. The WH knew that Saddam had disarmed but they wanted to go in there and kick his ass anyway so they blew those reports off. They could always spin it later to say 'we did not find anything.'
The Cheney claims of nukes being made? More spin since we did not 'find' any nukes? Yeah. Right. OK. If you say so. Sure.

They lied.

[Trish]

Can you state today without qualms or equivocation that NO WEAPONS EXISTED? I doubt it. It's just another way to spin the simple fact that the weapons inspectors were all over the place in Iraq and there was nothing. They found nothing but since the Bush people can spin this as long as they live they can go to their graves saying "Weapons existed. We just did not find them."

This discounts the fact that the reports that Blix made were discounted and dismissed in the rush to war. The WH knew that Saddam had disarmed but they wanted to go in there and kick his ass anyway so they blew those reports off. They could always spin it later to say 'we did not find anything.'
The Cheney claims of nukes being made? More spin since we did not 'find' any nukes? Yeah. Right. OK. If you say so. Sure.

They lied.

What???? Where in the world do you come up with this stuff?

First of all, I never claimed, nor will I ever claim that "I" know whether or not WMD'S existed, when, or where. I am simply not "in the loop" for that kind of information. Judging from UN reports prior to the war that known WMD stockpiles had not all been accounted for, judging from what I have read from this administration, the previous administration, other world leaders several points are clear to me:

1 - Iraq DID have WMD's
2 - Iraq DID use WMD's
3 - UN inspectors did not find caches of WMD's prior to the war
4 - All KNOWN Iraqi WMD's were NOT accounted for prior to the war
5 - Intelligence sources from around the world agreed that that Iraq still had WMD's
6 - Intelligence after the war revealed that Iraqi military leaders believed Iraq had WMD's

If Bush lied, then there were MANY liars telling the very same lies.

A few quotes:

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." Bill Clinton - 1998 (4 years AFTER Iraq supposedly disarmed)

"We must combat an unholy axis of new threats from terrorists, international criminals, and drug traffickers...Together, we must confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons and the outlaw states, terrorists, and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade and much of his nation's wealth not on providing for the Iraqi people but on developing nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them." Bill Clinton, 1/98

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." Hillary Clinton - 10/02

"My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. I'm a co-sponsor of the bipartisan Resolution (http://www.freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html#Li6mUSanCu) that's presently under consideration in the Senate. Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave threat to America and our allies. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today, that he's used them in the past, and that he's doing everything he can to build more. Every day he gets closer to his long-term goal of nuclear capability." John Edwards, 10/02

"People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons." Bill Clinton, 7/03

[Trish]

Can you state today without qualms or equivocation that NO WEAPONS EXISTED? I doubt it. It's just another way to spin the simple fact that the weapons inspectors were all over the place in Iraq and there was nothing. They found nothing but since the Bush people can spin this as long as they live they can go to their graves saying "Weapons existed. We just did not find them."

This discounts the fact that the reports that Blix made were discounted and dismissed in the rush to war. The WH knew that Saddam had disarmed but they wanted to go in there and kick his ass anyway so they blew those reports off. They could always spin it later to say 'we did not find anything.'
The Cheney claims of nukes being made? More spin since we did not 'find' any nukes? Yeah. Right. OK. If you say so. Sure.

They lied.

What???? Where in the world do you come up with this stuff?

First of all, I never claimed, nor will I ever claim that "I" know whether or not WMD'S existed, when, or where. I am simply not "in the loop" for that kind of information. Judging from UN reports prior to the war that known WMD stockpiles had not all been accounted for, judging from what I have read from this administration, the previous administration, other world leaders several points are clear to me:

1 - Iraq DID have WMD's
2 - Iraq DID use WMD's
3 - UN inspectors did not find caches of WMD's prior to the war
4 - All KNOWN Iraqi WMD's were NOT accounted for prior to the war
5 - Intelligence sources from around the world agreed that that Iraq still had WMD's
6 - Intelligence after the war revealed that Iraqi military leaders believed Iraq had WMD's

If Bush lied, then there were MANY liars telling the very same lies.

A few quotes:

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." Bill Clinton - 1998 (4 years AFTER Iraq supposedly disarmed)

"We must combat an unholy axis of new threats from terrorists, international criminals, and drug traffickers...Together, we must confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons and the outlaw states, terrorists, and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade and much of his nation's wealth not on providing for the Iraqi people but on developing nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them." Bill Clinton, 1/98

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." Hillary Clinton - 10/02

"My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. I'm a co-sponsor of the bipartisan Resolution (http://www.freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html#Li6mUSanCu) that's presently under consideration in the Senate. Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave threat to America and our allies. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today, that he's used them in the past, and that he's doing everything he can to build more. Every day he gets closer to his long-term goal of nuclear capability." John Edwards, 10/02

"People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons." Bill Clinton, 7/03

"Saddam Hussein, who has a long record of supporting terrorism, is trying to rebuild his intelligence network overseas -- assets that would allow him to establish a terrorism network. US sources say he is reaching out to Islamic terrorists, including some who may be linked to Osama bin Laden, the wealthy Saudi exile accused of masterminding the bombing of two US embassies in Africa last summer. US intelligence has had reports of contacts between low-level agents. Saddam and bin Laden have interests -- and enemies -- in common. Both men want US military forces out of Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden has been calling for all-out war on Americans, using as his main pretext Washington's role in bombing and boycotting Iraq." Newsweek, 1/99

" Clarke said U.S. intelligence does not know how much of the substance was produced at El Shifa or what happened to it. But he said that intelligence exists linking bin Laden to El Shifa's current and past operators, the Iraqi nerve gas experts, and the National Islamic Front in Sudan." The Washington Post, 1/99

"Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance -- not even today -- of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace." Hans Blix, 1/03

"There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared, and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date. It might still exist. Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was, indeed, destroyed in 1991." Hans Blix, 1/03


Look at the dates, ECW. Four years after Hussein supposedly disarmed completely, everyone and his brother was insisting that Hussein still had WMDs. They were certain of it. Immediately prior to the war, Blix was convinced that some of the WMD's could still exist. What was learned AFTER the start of the war does not change what was believed prior to that.

There are MANY, MANY more quotes from everyone from Pelosi, Kerry, Kennedy, etc. to back this up. Pelosi was on the SIC for crying out loud BEFORE Bush came into office! She was saying the same things! If Bush lied, then so did almost every blasted member of Congress, the Clinton administration and every other person with access to information on Iraq!

[suedanim]

Typical, bullshit, republican talking points. You ought to be ashamed, but I'm sure you aren't.... trish.

The problem with ALL of your quotes above is that those comments were made based on the intel that was available in '98....OR was provided to Congress to base thier decisions on... BY this criminal, rogue WH... WHO had ample contradictory intel, corroborated by other sources which they chose to exclude.... before invasion, denied to the public and to Congress.

This is not intel learned AFTER the fact. Though this new report may have partisan bias ..no one here can sit with a straight face and tell me the first goddamn report was not a republican partisan driven whitewash. Get a fuckn grip lady.

What we want, what America deserves is the TRUTH....and the truth is.... that CIA Director George Tenet took the 16 damn words OUT of the SOU because there was ZERO justification for it...but Hadley put them back and and WORSE George Bush read the damn LIE. KNEW it was a LIE.

Your intellectual dishonesty is annoying at best, but soooo pathetically typical of hard rightwing denial. I for one refuse to sit here and let you think you are getting away with this dishonesty you pull all over this site.

[tecoyah]

Fine....let's just ditch the whole Lying thing.

Hows this:


The decisions and evaluation of Data by this administration were flawed, leading to a questionable if not illegal invasion of a nation. Many thousands of American Citizens and untold "others" have paid the ultimate price because of this blunder. At the very least those responsible should be investigated for motive and possible incompetence....I personally expect far more from my Gov't than blatant stupidity, and deceit.

[apdst]

The problem with ALL of your quotes above is that those comments were made based on the intel that was available in '98....OR was provided to Congress to base thier decisions on... BY this criminal, rogue WH... WHO had ample contradictory intel...

You are contradicting yourself. Post all the, "ample contradictory intel", for us.

The real truth is that we don't know what information, confirming one way or the other, that they were looking at. Why? Because no one on this forum has that kind of security clearance.

So, spare the, "liar, liar, pant's on fire", bullshit. Please?

[Trish]

Typical, bullshit, republican talking points. You ought to be ashamed, but I'm sure you aren't.... trish.

The problem with ALL of your quotes above is that those comments were made based on the intel that was available in '98....OR was provided to Congress to base thier decisions on... BY this criminal, rogue WH... WHO had ample contradictory intel, corroborated by other sources which they chose to exclude.... before invasion, denied to the public and to Congress.

This is not intel learned AFTER the fact. Though this new report may have partisan bias ..no one here can sit with a straight face and tell me the first goddamn report was not a republican partisan driven whitewash. Get a fuckn grip lady.

What we want, what America deserves is the TRUTH....and the truth is.... that CIA Director George Tenet took the 16 damn words OUT of the SOU because there was ZERO justification for it...but Hadley put them back and and WORSE George Bush read the damn LIE. KNEW it was a LIE.

Your intellectual dishonesty is annoying at best, but soooo pathetically typical of hard rightwing denial. I for one refuse to sit here and let you think you are getting away with this dishonesty you pull all over this site.

Well, sue...I have nothing to be ashamed of. I can read. I can read information from multiple sources from different time frames and manage to follow where it all leads without being sidetracked by my personal vendetta, my warped personal view, or my inability to keep track of who is in the WH at what period of time.

In 1998, 1999, & 2000 - William Jefferson Clinton was in the WH - not Bush. HE provided this same information to Congress too. Pelosi was a member of the HOUSE Intelligence Committe. You think she didn't see the exact same things that Clinton and Bush saw? REPUBLICAN talking points? Bullshit - these were Democrats who saw the very same fucking intelligence that Bush saw. This is the UN that had doubts as to whether or not Hussein had destroyed or otherwise gotten rid of those unaccounted for WMD's. There are foreign leaders, foreign intelligence agencies that said the same things long before Bush entered the picture.

As for the first report which put the blame for the wrong intel squarely on the CIA and other agencies - it was approved by the SIC UNANIMOUSLY - that means DEMOCRATS approved the content as well as Republicans.

So why don't YOU get a fucking grip, lady. Judging by your absolute refusal to even consider a possible alternative to YOUR viewpoints, you're in no position to fault Bush for his failure to consider ALL other viewpoints. By all appearances on this forum you share that particular characteristic.

And as for this little gem I for one refuse to sit here and let you think you are getting away with this dishonesty you pull all over this site. You can sit there and diddle yourself till the cows come home for all I care. My "intellectual dishonesty" is trumped every time by your sanctimonious, holier-than-thou, self-righteous, close-minded zealotry.

[tecoyah]

You are contradicting yourself. Post all the, "ample contradictory intel", for us.

The real truth is that we don't know what information, confirming one way or the other, that they were looking at. Why? Because no one on this forum has that kind of security clearance.

So, spare the, "liar, liar, pant's on fire", bullshit. Please?


One would hope....at the very least our federal Gov't had access to Data above that which we can now access...if not....they suck hard wind anyway, and I am badly disappointed regardless....just in a different way.

[apdst]

One would hope....at the very least our federal Gov't had access to Data above that which we can now access...if not....they suck hard wind anyway, and I am badly disappointed regardless....just in a different way.

Yeah, it would be awsome if our government were omnipotent. Sometimes, that just ain't the case and you gotta go with what you know. Most of the time, when dealing with human intelligence, we're forced to make an educated guess. If we were to wait around for info that proved things without a shadow of a doubt, then we would never accomplish anything. Read anything by intel operatives, or about intel operatives and you'll see what I mean.

Waiting around for beyond a shadow of a doubt info is the reason that al-Qaeda wasn't destroyed in the 90's. I know the Clintonites don't like to hear that, but it's a fact. The Clinton administration didn't react more aggresively, because the intel they had wasn't of the same reliability that would stand up in court. It's time for some folks to figger out that this isn't a courtroom, but a battlefield. We can't let the enemy walk on a technicality. There's no more disfunctional way to fight a threat. How many of you remember all the folks that claimed UBL was innocent in the days after 9/11?

[ECW]

What???? Where in the world do you come up with this stuff?

I was going to ask you the same thing but I already know where you got your stuff from: the White House. Because George Bush told you so.

First of all, I never claimed, nor will I ever claim that "I" know whether or not WMD'S existed, when, or where. I am simply not "in the loop" for that kind of information. Judging from UN reports prior to the war that known WMD stockpiles had not all been accounted for, judging from what I have read from this administration, the previous administration, other world leaders several points are clear to me:

1 - Iraq DID have WMD's
2 - Iraq DID use WMD's
3 - UN inspectors did not find caches of WMD's prior to the war
4 - All KNOWN Iraqi WMD's were NOT accounted for prior to the war
5 - Intelligence sources from around the world agreed that that Iraq still had WMD's
6 - Intelligence after the war revealed that Iraqi military leaders believed Iraq had WMD's

If Bush lied, then there were MANY liars telling the very same lies.

All based on the same forged intel that Bush himself used to get us into this war. When you show people the same incomplete and inaccurate intel that you yourself used to rush to war, they will follow the same lies because they don't know they are being lied to by their president. We all know that the truth about Iraq and George Bush's truth about Iraq are two very different things. That's what the Senate report showed. That's what some of us knew from the get go because we figured out that Bush was incapable of being straight with folks. Six years as governor taught me that much about the boy.

More to the point, if Saddam had the WMDs after 1991, which we all know he did not, why didn't he use them? He had opportunity and motive. He fooled almost everyone with his bluster and stonewalling. The biggest fool was the president of the United States.

A few quotes:

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." Bill Clinton - 1998 (4 years AFTER Iraq supposedly disarmed)

"We must combat an unholy axis of new threats from terrorists, international criminals, and drug traffickers...Together, we must confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons and the outlaw states, terrorists, and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade and much of his nation's wealth not on providing for the Iraqi people but on developing nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them." Bill Clinton, 1/98

If Bill Clinton knew these things, why didn't he go to war over them? He knew better because the inspectors were not finished looking for the WMDs.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." Hillary Clinton - 10/02

"My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. I'm a co-sponsor of the bipartisan Resolution (http://www.freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html#Li6mUSanCu) that's presently under consideration in the Senate. Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave threat to America and our allies. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today, that he's used them in the past, and that he's doing everything he can to build more. Every day he gets closer to his long-term goal of nuclear capability." John Edwards, 10/02

Both Hillary and Edwards were outraged when it was revealed that the intel had been skewed by the WH. It made them look like fools for saying these things when they discovered, belatedly, they had been lied to.

"People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons." Bill Clinton, 7/03

...and the UN weapons inspectors were still on the ground looking for them. Saddam, for all his bluster, was not in a position to threaten the United States with any of them if, in fact, he still had them, which, in fact, he did not.

"Saddam Hussein, who has a long record of supporting terrorism, is trying to rebuild his intelligence network overseas -- assets that would allow him to establish a terrorism network. US sources say he is reaching out to Islamic terrorists, including some who may be linked to Osama bin Laden, the wealthy Saudi exile accused of masterminding the bombing of two US embassies in Africa last summer. US intelligence has had reports of contacts between low-level agents. Saddam and bin Laden have interests -- and enemies -- in common. Both men want US military forces out of Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden has been calling for all-out war on Americans, using as his main pretext Washington's role in bombing and boycotting Iraq." Newsweek, 1/99

...and we left SA as a result. The Saudis did not want the shit to hit the fan on their home turf.

"Clarke said U.S. intelligence does not know how much of the substance was produced at El Shifa or what happened to it. But he said that intelligence exists linking bin Laden to El Shifa's current and past operators, the Iraqi nerve gas experts, and the National Islamic Front in Sudan." The Washington Post, 1/99

They were still looking for it. Nothing surfaced to indicate that it was an imminent threat (in the words of the Bushies) to the USA.


"Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance -- not even today -- of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace." Hans Blix, 1/03

"There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared, and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date. It might still exist. Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was, indeed, destroyed in 1991." Hans Blix, 1/03

Which is why the UN inspectors wanted more time, time that Bush, et al, were not willing to grant because they were in the rush to war.

Look at the dates, ECW. Four years after Hussein supposedly disarmed completely, everyone and his brother was insisting that Hussein still had WMDs. They were certain of it. Immediately prior to the war, Blix was convinced that some of the WMD's could still exist. What was learned AFTER the start of the war does not change what was believed prior to that.

There are MANY, MANY more quotes from everyone from Pelosi, Kerry, Kennedy, etc. to back this up. Pelosi was on the SIC for crying out loud BEFORE Bush came into office! She was saying the same things! If Bush lied, then so did almost every blasted member of Congress, the Clinton administration and every other person with access to information on Iraq!

Four years after he supposedly disarmed, the UN was still looking. Ten years later they were still looking. Saddam had not used any WMDs after he gassed his own people. He got rid of them. Had not there been an all-fire hurry to invade by George & Company, these facts would have come out. In fact, afterwards they DID come out. Saddam was subdued by the no-fly zone and a constant watch over Iraq. He wasn't going anywhere and he wasn't using the WMDs he supposedly had.

Some of us had this game figured out from the beginning and opted not to play. Some of them had to lie to get others of us into the game. I'll let you figure out who is who. The Senate report laid it all out for you.