THE SENATE INTEL REPORT: SO MUCH FOR 'BUSH LIED'

New York Post ^ | 07/10/04 | John Podhoretz

[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.

[Christian4Bush]

Podhoretz BUMP!

[WOSG]

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.

[WOSG]

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.

What nutcases.

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?

[cwb]

"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."

---

Isn't it also a little ironic that one of the few people to claim that Saddam wasn't looking to posses Yellow Cake and WMDs...and that Bush was lying, is now himself, proving to have been the liar? There's somthing disturbing about the idea that Bush was to believe this man and his investigation...above all other evidence, when it has now been shown through British Intelligence and their investigation, that Wilson was the one who was wrong.