FINALLY

Email Print posted by Chinese Democracy 06/05/2008 02:01:36 PM EST

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
If you like this story, digg it!
Senate Report: Bush used Iraq intel he knew was false.

Some highlights

-- Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-Qa'ida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qa'ida with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence.

-- Statements by the President and the Vice President indicating that Saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attacks against the United States were contradicted by available intelligence information.

-- Statements by President Bush and Vice President Cheney regarding the postwar situation in Iraq, in terms of the political, security, and economic, did not reflect the concerns and uncertainties expressed in the intelligence products.

-- Statements by the President and Vice President prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq's chemical weapons production capability and activities did not reflect the intelligence community's uncertainties as to whether such production was ongoing.

-- The Secretary of Defense's statement that the Iraqi government operated underground WMD facilities that were not vulnerable to conventional airstrikes because they were underground and deeply buried was not substantiated by available intelligence information.

-- The Intelligence Community did not confirm that Muhammad Atta met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in 2001 as the Vice President repeatedly claimed.

link

< What direction are we headed in? | No More Dynasties >
 Display:
FINALLY | 9 comments (9 topical, 0 hidden)
"old hat" (none / 0)

No one will notice this.  All of this has been conventional wisdom for years now.  The Republicans deny, deny, deny, and then several years after the fact, when nobody believes their lies anymore and an investigation reveals that they were, in fact, lying they say "Well this is just the same stuff they've been saying for years". 

I think the prosecutions will begin next year after the elections. 

by bfaul on 06/05/2008 02:36:07 PM EST

and also (none / 0)
"We're looking toward the future. Dwelling on the past will only feed partisan rancor. You're being partisan."

by hazmat on 06/05/2008 02:55:00 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Don't repeat history (none / 0)
Clinton cut Reagan and Bush slack and look at what it got him.

Being nice to them is like handing an enemy a knife to stick you with.

Their propaganda worked so well, it has been repeated here ad nauseum. Funny all those alleged scandals, all the billions spent and absolutely nothing of substance to any of them but (the clintons were scandal ridden) is all anyone remembers

We need to remind the people what the pubs are all about, what type of goverment they are all about. If for no other reason than to show them that we can fight back

by LORD FOUL on 06/05/2008 03:54:30 PM EST

[ Parent ]
just in case (none / 0)
note that I enclosed my post in quotes--meaning that this is the tactic republicans use to divert attention from their wrongdoing. My intention was the opposite of what your reply is cautioning me against. In other words, I completely agree with you.

by hazmat on 06/05/2008 05:13:47 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The Whole World Is Laughing! (none / 0)
at Chinese Democracy who parrots a HuffPo idiot trumping up this lame-ass report from Jay Rockefeller:
“The key findings released by Rockefeller and his divided committee brings the five-part "Phase II" of the committee's report on prewar intelligence to completion. The investigation's first phase was released on July 2004, and two less controversial parts of "Phase II" were declassified in September 2006.”

Now then. Read what Jay Rockefeller said about Saddam Hussein in 2003, during the heat of the moment!
As you read the Rockefeller statement, you’ll realize why this report is receiving absolutely zero press coverage.

There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.

When Saddam Hussein obtains nuclear capabilities, the constraints he feels will diminish dramatically, and the risk to America’s homeland, as well as to America’s allies, will increase even more dramatically. Our existing policies to contain or counter Saddam will become irrelevant.

Americans will return to a situation like that we faced in the Cold War, waking each morning knowing we are at risk from nuclear blackmail by a dictatorship that has declared itself to be our enemy. Only, back then, our communist foes were a rational and predictable bureaucracy; this time, our nuclear foe would be an unpredictable and often irrational individual, a dictator who has demonstrated that he is prepared to violate international law and initiate unprovoked attacks when he feels it serves his purposes to do so.

The global community -- in the form of the United Nations -- has declared repeatedly, through multiple resolutions, that the frightening prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam cannot come to pass. But the U.N. has been unable to enforce those resolutions. We must eliminate that threat now, before it is too late.
But this isn’t just a future threat. Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East.
And he could make those weapons available to many terrorist groups which have contact with his government, and those groups could bring those weapons into the U.S. and unleash a devastating attack against our citizens. I fear that greatly.

We cannot know for certain that Saddam will use the weapons of mass destruction he currently possesses, or that he will use them against us. But we do know Saddam has the capability. Rebuilding that capability has been a higher priority for Saddam than the welfare of his own people -- and he has ill-will toward America.
I am forced to conclude, on all the evidence, that Saddam poses a significant risk.

by KenTX on 06/09/2008 02:41:51 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Need a better header? (none / 0)
This will look good as a prosecution exhibit at Bush's war crimes trial.

Bush misused Iraq intelligence: Senate report

(Reuters) - President George W. Bush and his top policymakers misstated Saddam Hussein's links to terrorism and ignored doubts among intelligence agencies about Iraq's arms programs as they made a case for war, the Senate intelligence committee reported on Thursday.
 
The report shows an administration that "led the nation to war on false premises," said the committee's Democratic Chairman, Sen. John Rockefeller of West Virginia. Several Republicans on the committee protested its findings as a "partisan exercise."

 


The committee studied major speeches by Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and other officials in advance of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003, and compared key assertions with intelligence available at the time.

Statements that Iraq had a partnership with al Qaeda were wrong and unsupported by intelligence, the report said.

It said that Bush's and Cheney's assertions that Saddam was prepared to arm terrorist groups with weapons of mass destruction for attacks on the United States contradicted available intelligence.

Rest of story

by MedfordTim on 06/05/2008 02:57:49 PM EST

no not really (none / 0)
I dont need a better header...  

Im happy to hear that  someone in an offical capacity said bush is a liar..

thats all

by Chinese Democracy on 06/05/2008 04:36:29 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I know, messing around (none / 0)

More of a laugh at myself as I posted my comment as it's own post before reading yours. Didn't know it had anything to do with the same subject. No big deal, I just deleted my post & put it in yours.

by MedfordTim on 06/05/2008 05:22:03 PM EST

[ Parent ]
What could be more important? (none / 0)
Timing is everything. If the Senate calls people they will take the fifth, but if they call Scott McClellan, then you'll probably have him contradicting grand jury testimony in the Libby case. The point is though, if this happens before Bush leaves office, do I smell, hmm, what's that bakin', is it, could it be, yes, it is, I smell some pardons.

Then with a new AG, you'll probably see some more special prosecutor cases. But this 100 page report might as well have just been 2 pages, an open invitation to McClellan. Sure they might have saved on the caligraphy and they would have had to use fancier paper for the RSVP invite, but come on, they could have saved a few trees.

I think they are going after Condi, but I could be wrong. I don't think they have the balls to go after Bush, Cheney or even pudgy wudgy Rovey-wovey. I doubt they will go after Libby again and McClellan will obviously get immunity.

Somewhere Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson have to be smiling. But what they really need is one of the Brits, the 10 Downing Street Memo is the key to all this.

I can understand if you believe that taking out Saddam was worth lying and breaking the constitution, and the lives of 4,000 American men and women. Then fine it is old news with no impact and we need to move forward. And yes it is true it won't bring back those lives, and it doesn't really help the war effort now, it doesn't catch Osama, it doesn't bring the troops home, it might even alienate some centrist republicans that might be needed if anything starts with say Iran (to keep McCain from repeating these mistakes if he wins) or are needed for some other important vote in congress. Obviously you can't count on some democrats for some votes, say, a Joe Lieberman, let's just say. You need support from both sides, and true all this might do is alienate some of those votes.

I know, I know, it doesn't matter because McCain won't win, and because we couldn't possibly ever make the same mistakes again. I don't know, I hope that is true, but if you are so confident, then really what is the harm in looking at this? I just do not understand this mentality. I think in 2004 the republicans framed the argrument that Kerry and the democrats just wanted to look back and blame. And as they framed the argument, that was the reason they won. Come on, they won because they stole it again, and letting them frame the argument in the first place is the big mistake.

But is it unimportant to find out where we went wrong, find out who lied and why? How could that be unimportant? What could be more important?

by tiggerporn on 06/06/2008 12:09:43 AM EST

FINALLY | 9 comments (9 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: