Posted on 06/17/2005 10:54:05 AM PDT by Graybeard58
WASHINGTON -- Congress should conduct an official inquiry to determine whether President Bush intentionally misled the nation about the reasons for toppling Saddam Hussein, a senior House Democrat suggested Thursday.
New York Rep. Charles Rangel was among Democratic House members who participated in a forum to air demands that the White House provide more information about what led to the decision to go to war in Iraq.
"Quite frankly, evidence that appears to be building up points to whether or not the president has deliberately misled Congress to make the most important decision a president has to make, going to war," said Rangel, senior Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee.
Rep. John Conyers and other Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee organized the forum to investigate implications in a British document known as the "Downing Street memo." The memo says the Bush administration believed that war was inevitable and was determined to use intelligence about weapons of mass destruction to justify the ouster of Saddam.
Conyers pointed to statements by Bush in the run-up to invasion that war would be a last resort. "The veracity of those statements has -- to put it mildly -- come into question," he said.
In the opening hours of the forum, witnesses spoke mainly about their views on the decision to go to war and not the memo, which the Bush administration has dismissed.
"We are having this discussion today because we failed to have it three years ago when we went to war," former Ambassador Joseph Wilson said.
"It used to be said that democracies were difficult to mobilize for war precisely because of the debate required," Wilson said, going on to say the lack of debate allowed the war to happen.
Wilson wrote a 2003 newspaper opinion piece criticizing the Bush administration's claim that Iraq had sought uranium in Niger. After the piece appeared someone in the Bush administration leaked the identity of Wilson's wife as a CIA operative, exposing her cover.
Wilson has said he believes the leak was retaliation for his critical comments. The Justice Department is investigating.
The Downing Street memo states the "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
recounting a July 23, 2002, meeting of Prime Minister Tony Blair and his national security team. The meeting took place just after British officials returned from Washington.
U.S. officials and Blair deny the assertion about intelligence and facts being "fixed," a comment that the memo attributes to the chief of British intelligence at the time.
"This is simply rehashing old debates that have already been discussed," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Thursday.
The London Sunday Times disclosed the contents of the memo May 1. It also reported on an eight-page briefing paper prepared for Blair that concluded the U.S. military had given "little thought" to the aftermath of a war in Iraq.
The briefing paper of July 21, 2002, said that a postwar occupation of Iraq could lead to a protracted and costly nation-building exercise and that "as already made clear, the U.S. military plans are virtually silent on this point. Washington could look to us to share a disproportionate share of the burden."
"You want an apology to go with the explanation?"
Naa. I responded before reading it.
LOL! That's great. Liberated from any need for actual evidence of anything, Bush and his loyal bushpublicans march on in pursuit of pure Wilsonian Utopianism, safe in the knowledge that Sean Hannity will approve of this new war from his safe radio booth!
Newsflash: Saddam didn't knock down the towers. Osama did. Where's Osama? Did we get him yet?
"What did Saddam attack the Iranian army and defenseless Kurdish villages with back in the 1980's - spitballs?"
No, stuff that Rumsfeld sold them. We then destroyed the majority of it in Desert Storm.
Sorry, but every single inspection team, UN or Bush-handpicked guys, have all come to same conclusion: Saddam had no WMDs in 2003.
Germany and Italy both declared war on the US on Dec. 11, 1941. We responded by declaring war on them.
Iraq was in an official state of war with us since 1990.
No - it has little to do with 9-11, I will grant that. However, I think that the cease-fire, coupled with a few other Iraq items, more than justies the current situation.
Broken condom in a cash transaction.
Osama did not knock down the towers, all the people that knocked down the towers were killed when the planes crashed into the towers.
The fact that terrorist knocked down the towers led us evaluate the situation in the middle east.
Instead of trying to catch the loosely organized individuals that have been attacking U.S. interests for the last 30 years it was deemed more practical to take away their hiding places, reform rogue nations,and address environments that create hostile attitudes.
Iraq was chosen as an opening because they fit all three categories and whose population was recently democratic, educated and would probably be easier to reconstitute than some of the others.
Then Iraq could serve as a positive example to the other surrounding states who would slowly become more moderate as they interact with a democracy.
That would have been Tora Bora.
I appreciate the frank acknowledgement re: 9-11. I just get the feeling that this has been a cluster you know what. I don't have a lot of confidence in GWB. I didn't vote for him in 00. I voted principle that year. Then came 9-11. Then the Iraq war. Then John Kerry. Put up against the traitor from Massachusetts, while at war, it would have been irresponsible not to vote for GWB, even if they are a bunch of bunglers and screw ups. Imagine if a democrat had GW's record so far.
You've said this about 10 times now and it's been pointed out about 10 times Bush never said going in to Iraq was about connecting Iraq and 9-11.
Bush was very smart in that 100% of everything he said about Iraq was also said by Bill Clinton and the policy he carried out was 100% Bill Clintons but Clinton didn't have the balls to execute the plan.
You argument is exactly as this:
"Germany didn't attack the US so they are not our enemy"
He is a race-baiting huckster.
That about says it all, I think.
I'm responding to posts like #2, #34, #37, #51.
They're all over the world, but most of their recruits come out of the Middle East.
Saudi Arabia, if I recall correctly. How many of those who actually did attack us on 9-11 (that excludes all Iraqis) were Saudi? I forget. 18? 19?
You are losing focus, go back a read # 109, it is about the overall situation in the middle east.
I read it. It's called Wilsonianism.
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.