Skip to comments.THE SENATE INTEL REPORT: SO MUCH FOR 'BUSH LIED'
Posted on 07/10/2004 2:21:28 AM PDT by conservative in nyc
THE Senate Intelligence Committee report on the intelligence failures gov erning run-up to the Iraq war is a devastating document for those who might have thought the sole reason to go to war in 2003 was Saddam Hussein's presumed stockpile of weapons of mass destruction.
The thing is, I don't know a single such person.
Those who supported the war, in overwhelming numbers, believed there were multiple justifications for it.
Those who opposed and oppose it, in equally overwhelming numbers, weren't swayed by the WMD arguments. Indeed, many of them had no difficulty opposing the war while believing that Saddam possessed vast quantities of such weapons.
Take Sen. Edward Kennedy. "We have known for many years," he said in September 2002, "that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." And yet only a few weeks later he was one of 23 senators who voted against authorizing the Iraq war.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
the report destroys the entire edifice of the "BUSH LIED" temple. Here's the key sentence:"The committee found no evidence that the [intelligence community's] mischaracterization or exaggeration of weapons of mass destruction capabilities was the result of political pressure."
Good luck getting the Kool-Aid drinkers to actually read this report,much less understand it.
I don't know.
Neutering the UN with the Oil and Food program and breaking the backs of Germany's and France's black market economy by supplying illegal goods is justification enough for me.
After we freed the folks we abandoned in 1991, this is icing on the cake.
I used to be a Kool-Aid drinker. Where there's life, there's hope :)
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry ( D - MA), and others Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." - Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. BobGraham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"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 ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do." - Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapon stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. 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." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation .. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
SO NOW THESE SAME DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, AND THAT HE TOOK US TO WAR UNECESSARILY !
TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT THE PRESIDENT LEADING US TO WAR!
The 'rats just can't seem to realize that President Bush doesn't lie. He may not predict the future correctly (who can?) and he may change his mind when new facts show up, but I cannot think of a single instance where he stated something as true that he knew to be false. This is one of the main things that leads them to underestimate him while they jump into the Briar Patch.
Maybe these dems did not read about the briar patch when they were young. They constantly project behavior on to our President that they would do. They do not face reality.
The 9/11 commission wanted to say that the Administration did not take action soon enough from intelligence information. This commission says that the Administration took action too soon from intelligence information.
I'd say that both of these commissions have neutered each other.
The House and Senate need to be investigated for their dereliction of duty that allowed the "CIA" to become what it has become.
Me too. Clintons first term fixed that.Throw in Waco/Chinagate/Elian/et al and that was all she wrote.Then I found FreeRepublic.So I can relate.But some people would rather stay asleep.
Especially this line:
The basis for the war in Iraq was not that Saddam could kill us all in 2003. It was that he might be in a position to do us and the world incomparable harm in the coming decade, and that the lesson of 9/11 was that (as President Bush said in June 2002) "if we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long."
It should be memorized for use with knee-jerk libs.
Let me cite the most dramatic example I've found so far in this lengthy report. In July 2003, former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson claimed he had proof that the administration ignored anti-WMD information because he had gone to Niger for the CIA and reported back that there was no evidence Iraq had obtained uranium there.
The White House knew of his mission, Wilson said, and therefore had trumped up charges about Iraq's nuclear program. This was the first source of the "BUSH LIED" trope that has become a staple of the Left over the past year.
The Senate Intelligence Committee has an eye-opening refutation of all this: "Because CIA analysts did not believe that the [Wilson] report added any new information to clarify the issue," the report states flatly on page 46, "they did not use the report to produce any further analytical products or highlight the report for policymakers. CIA's briefer did not brief the vice president on the report, despite the vice president's previous questions about the issue."
The Senate report has determined unquestioningly that Dick Cheney never heard about Wilson's trip. A major "BUSH LIED" pillar has just collapsed.
I did not google for Kennedy's comments (I am sure he was one of them) but some Democrats feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeel that because public opinion polls have shown that most Americans believe the WMD and the "imminent" threat stories the President is lying by not doing enough to dissuade the public. I am not making this up. We're dealing with Rats here.
The Rats' spin on this was from the beginning and I've heard several callers over the months accuse the President of lying because he should have done more to get the word out that the WMD threat was not imminent. Never mind that that was what he said from the beginning. Again, I am not making this up.
Sheesh...if I hadn't saved the news release about the UNMOVIC report, I'd think I just imagined the whole thing. What I can't imagine is why the freakin' chicken-sh** Pubbies are not only letting the Commies get away with accusing them of lying, but now they're even playing along with them! I catch myself asking the same question about Bush II as I did about his father...is he trying to lose?
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
Good reasons you cite:
"1Neutering the UN with the Oil and Food program and breaking the backs of Germany's and France's black market economy by supplying illegal goods is justification enough for me.
After we freed the folks we abandoned in 1991, this is icing on the cake."
I'd add: Deposing a dictator who funded (Palie terrorist bounties for suicide bombers), aided (Al Aeda and GIA links), trained (Salman Pak terror training camp), and harbored (Abu Nidal and others) terrorists.
The Liars are those who say we had no reason to liberate Iraq.
It is entirely consistent of the Democrats to have believed in the WMD threat as much a Republicans and have wanted *not* to deal with it properly.
This is how they behaved in the Cold War, they didnt want to defeat Communism they wanted to live with it.
In the war on terror, they dont want to destroy the swamp of Muslim tyranny and terrorism sponsorship, they want us to wait for it to be so overwhelming that we are forced to beomce like the civilizaed French and negotiate and accomodate it.
"The Rats' spin on this was from the beginning and I've heard several callers over the months accuse the President of lying because he should have done more to get the word out that the WMD threat was not imminent."
Uh huh. The Pres should have told people not too worry, let's wait until Saddam and terrorists attack us again, and having working WMDs pointing right at us, and *then* we can be sure they are threatening us.
Reagan won the Cold War doing the *opposite* of what these boneheads advised. Do we think we'll win the war on terror going the Reagan-style or going Carter-style now?
Hmmm. Come to think of it ... ARE THE DEMOCRATS EVEN INTERESTED IN WINNING THE WAR ON TERROR?
"Let me cite the most dramatic example I've found so far in this lengthy report. In July 2003, former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson claimed he had proof that the administration ignored anti-WMD information because he had gone to Niger for the CIA and reported back that there was no evidence Iraq had obtained uranium there.
The White House knew of his mission, Wilson said, and therefore had trumped up charges about Iraq's nuclear program. This was the first source of the "BUSH LIED" trope that has become a staple of the Left over the past year....The Senate report has determined unquestioningly that Dick Cheney never heard about Wilson's trip. A major "BUSH LIED" pillar has just collapsed."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.