Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Senate's Intelligence
New York Sun ^ | June 9, 2008 | The Editors

Posted on 06/09/2008 7:12:23 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach

"Our evidence suggests that Baghdad is strengthening a relationship with al-Qaeda that dates back to the mid-1990s, when senior Iraqi intelligence officers established contact with the network in several countries."

"We have some evidence that Iraqi Intelligence has been in contact with elements in the northeastern area. And the al-Qaeda operatives there are in regular contact with other operatives located in Baghdad. The Iraqi government has also received information from other sources alerting it to the presence of al-Qaeda operatives in Baghdad."

"We have hard evidence that al-Qaeda is operating in several locations in Iraq with the knowledge and acquiescence of Saddam's regime."

***

Guess who wrote that? If you have been following the Democratic Party's narrative on Iraq, you might guess Ahmad Chalabi, Douglas Feith, Vice President Cheney or some neoconservatives hell bent on twisting intelligence to overstate the connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. But those words are from Carl Ford, assistant state secretary for intelligence and research, whose bureau was singled out for praise after the war for its dissenting assessment of Iraq's nuclear program.

The quotes are taken from Mr. Ford's memo to Secretary Powell before Mr. Powell's presentation to the United Nations Security Council on the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. They were reprinted in last week's declassified report of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on pre-Iraq war intelligence. That report was widely offered as a confirmation of the Democratic party's narrative that Mr. Bush played fast and loose with the intelligence in the run up to the Iraq war. Quoth Senator Rockefeller: "Sadly, the Bush administration led the nation into war under false pretenses."

(Excerpt) Read more at nysun.com ...


TOPICS: Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Government; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: alqaeda; iraq; prewarintelligence; rockefeller; saddam; senate; wmd
Well not exactly. On many key judgments before the war, the report itself found that statements on Iraq's biological weapons capacity, its nuclear and chemical weapons programs, the president and his cabinet secretaries generally followed the intelligence assessments of the spy services. On some issues there was disagreement.
1 posted on 06/09/2008 7:12:23 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

I haven’t read the article yet.

Is it satire?


2 posted on 06/09/2008 7:14:58 PM PDT by wastedyears (Like a bat outta Hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
The Senate's Intelligence

Oxymoron!

3 posted on 06/09/2008 7:16:33 PM PDT by Just A Nobody (PISSANT for President '08 - NEVER AGAIN...Support our Troops! Beware the ENEMEDIA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Just A Nobody

The Senate intelligence briefings happen at the Senate Lounge and are hosted by Senator “Buy me a drink” Kennedy.


4 posted on 06/09/2008 7:21:53 PM PDT by o_zarkman44 (No Bull in 08!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Just A Nobody; gonzo; freekitty; oswegodeee; Free ThinkerNY; Clintonfatigued; romanesq; ...

In the entire US Congress, Senate and House, there is no intelligence, no guts, no spine, no fortitude, no patriotism, no concern for America’s security, no concern for the US economy, and absolutely no concern for our children and grandchildren’s futures. IMO, the Senate and the House are a national disgrace and inhabited by, in many instances, traitors. At some point, the anger of the American people will explode and be directed at the Congress where it belongs. Only then will we be able to vote them all out of office and start over with Americans that put the country before their own quest for power, greed, and egos.


5 posted on 06/09/2008 7:25:44 PM PDT by ExTexasRedhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: All
H/T to the JAWA Report for pointing to the Editorial:

As It Turns Out, ROCKEFELLER Lied

****************************************

Update: The New York Sun's editorial board notes that Rockefeller deliberately manipulated data for his committee's report to support the "Bush Lied" meme:

Mr. Rockefeller decided to exclude a handwritten note from the CIA's terrorism analyst of the Mr. Bush's 2002 speech in Cincinnati on the eve of the Congressional vote authorizing the war saying the paragraphs about Iraq and terrorism were "all-Okay." Wrote Senators Bond, Chambliss, Hatch, and Burr in an addendum to the report: "Apparently the majority did not think this was something the public needed to know since they denied our request to include it and did not allow a vote on the amendment offered to fix this shortcoming."
*****

Fred Hiatt in the Washington Post, of all places:

But dive into Rockefeller's report, in search of where exactly President Bush lied about what his intelligence agencies were telling him about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and you may be surprised by what you find.

On Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates."

On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president's statements "were substantiated by intelligence information."

On chemical weapons, then? "Substantiated by intelligence information."

On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information." Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? "Generally substantiated by available intelligence." Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information."

Hiatt also brings up Rockefeller's own inconvenient quote from October 2002:
"There has been some debate over how 'imminent' a threat Iraq poses. I do believe Iraq poses an imminent threat. I also believe after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. . . . To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can."
Verdict: Jay Rockefeller is a hyper-partisan weasel trying to project his own lack of character on others.

Hat tip: The Anchoress, via email.
By Bluto | l digg this

6 posted on 06/09/2008 7:28:36 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach (No Burkas for my Grandaughters!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

There was a threat in Iraq and the threat is gone. The Democrats have been doing what the left always does to history. They rewrite it and retell it to suit their political agenda. Now we need to eliminate the threat in Iran and to a lesser degree Syria. Syria may take care of itself if we take care of Iran, Libya was quick to cough up its nuclear program when Iraq was invaded. If we do take care of Iran then it will be a message to the world and to terrorists that the resolve of the US has not lessened because there are weak in heart and mind among us.

More has been accomplished in the MiddleEast by invading Iraq than would’ve been accomplished in 100 years of diplomacy. If we choose to retreat even from the threat of war with Iran we will have set the stage for an even greater nuclear problem in the MiddleEast as nation by Islamic nation obtains nuclear weapons. There is no leaving the job half finished because it is too hard.

Iraq was considered too hard but look what has happened since then. We buckled down learned from the mistakes and did not retreat and we are winning the day. The evidence is clear that Iraq is healing and that health will leave us with a strong allies as was the case with Germany, Italy, and Japan.


7 posted on 06/09/2008 7:29:13 PM PDT by Maelstorm (Retreat when you are not faced with a superior enemy is an invitation for attack.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: o_zarkman44

LOL! That would explain a lot!


8 posted on 06/09/2008 7:29:55 PM PDT by Just A Nobody (PISSANT for President '08 - NEVER AGAIN...Support our Troops! Beware the ENEMEDIA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: wastedyears; Just A Nobody; o_zarkman44; ExTexasRedhead; NormsRevenge; Grampa Dave; SierraWasp; ...

See the update...from the JAWA Report just above...


9 posted on 06/09/2008 7:35:06 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach (No Burkas for my Grandaughters!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: All
From the The Anchoress :

WaPo: Bush “substantiated by intelligence” - UPDATED

******************EXCERPT*******************

What a long, strange trip it’s been, and here, some years later, we finally get someone in the press to tell it straight: Bush did not lie.

There’s no question that the administration, and particularly Vice President Cheney, spoke with too much certainty at times and failed to anticipate or prepare the American people for the enormous undertaking in Iraq.

But dive into Rockefeller’s [Intelligence Committee] report, in search of where exactly President Bush lied about what his intelligence agencies were telling him about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and you may be surprised by what you find.

On Iraq’s nuclear weapons program? The president’s statements “were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates.”

On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president’s statements “were substantiated by intelligence information.”

On chemical weapons, then?Substantiated by intelligence information.”

On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? “Generally substantiated by intelligence information.” Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? “Generally substantiated by available intelligence.” Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? “Generally substantiated by intelligence information.”

As you read through the report, you begin to think maybe you’ve mistakenly picked up the minority dissent. But, no, this is the Rockefeller indictment. So, you think, the smoking gun must appear in the section on Bush’s claims about Saddam Hussein’s alleged ties to terrorism.

But statements regarding Iraq’s support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda “were substantiated by intelligence information.” Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaedawere substantiated by the intelligence assessments,” and statements regarding Iraq’s contacts with al-Qaedawere substantiated by intelligence information.” The report is left to complain about “implications” and statements that “left the impression” that those contacts led to substantive Iraqi cooperation.
[,,,]
After all, it was not Bush, but Rockefeller, who said in October 2002: “There has been some debate over how ‘imminent’ a threat Iraq poses. I do believe Iraq poses an imminent threat. I also believe after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. . . . To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can.” [all emphasis mine - admin]

One reads this and thinks…it’s really too bad that when this story of Dems on the Intel Committee plotting against Bush broke in 2003, the mainstream press ignored it, taking umbrage that anyone would leak a memo (!) and ignoring its content. Why, suddenly, is the WaPo deciding, after 5 years of supporting and promoting the “Bush lied” meme, to clarify?

1) Perhaps they see things improving so much in Iraq that there is going to be a slow turning around of the narrative - like turning around the Titanic - so that Democrats can stop pretending they never voted for the action, and get ready to claim a share in victory. Then it gives room to the presumed Democrat president to settle the Iraq matter with an American “presence” in Iraq - comparable to our presences in Germany, and elsewhere - so that he can get on with the business of “changing” America domestically. After all, the WaPo editorial board warned Obama just last week that he needed to update his thinking on Iraq.

2) Perhaps they see that the relentless pounding the press has given Bush for the last 5 years has impacted him negatively enough that there is no risk of his having any sort of rehabilitation, either in the polls or in history, and so they figure they can put away the flamethrowers.

3) Perhaps there are still some journalists who are more interested in telling the whole story than in framing and enshrining a narrative.

I want to believe it’s #3.

The article’s writer, Fred Hiatt, acknowledges that at this point, people will believe what they’ve been told for the past 5 years, and this report is unlikely to change anyone’s opinion on anything - we’re too far gone for that - the narratives have been erected in stone, but he writes:

…the phony “Bush lied” story line distracts from the biggest prewar failure: the fact that so much of the intelligence upon which Bush and Rockefeller and everyone else relied turned out to be tragically, catastrophically wrong.


The phony “Bush lied story line…

Pinch me, I’m dreaming. Say it with me: The phony “Bush lied story line…

There, in black and white, in The Washington Post. Imagine that. The Emily Litella Press says “nevermind”. I’m stunned. And even, a little…dare I be…hopeful.

Martin Luther King said that “a lie won’t stand forever.”

Bush did not lie. Others did - lots of others - but Bush did not lie. All he ever said was the same thing Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Jay Rockefeller, John Kerry, John Edwards, Madeline Albright and so many others said, over, and over, and over. Either they were all lying, or none of them were, and our intelligence (and much of the world’s and the UN’s) was a catastrophic failure.

Let’s take any remaining steps available, to see that the intel is more reliable in future.

UPDATE: Ed Morrissey fleshes the story out (Ed was, I think, perhaps the only person in America (besides Stephen Hayes) actually paying attention to the Iraq/AlQaeda links being discovered in the tens of thousands of documents out of Iraq). Also, read this from the New York Sun:

“We have hard evidence that al-Qaeda is operating in several locations in Iraq with the knowledge and acquiescence of Saddam’s regime.”

Guess who wrote that? If you have been following the Democratic Party’s narrative on Iraq, you might guess Ahmad Chalabi, Douglas Feith, Vice President Cheney or some neoconservatives hell bent on twisting intelligence to overstate the connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. But those words are from Carl Ford, assistant state secretary for intelligence and research, whose bureau was singled out for praise after the war for its dissenting assessment of Iraq’s nuclear program.

Martin Luther King was right.

Also, it might be difficult for President Lightworker to prosecute Bush for war crimes when his own party says…he didn’t lie.

Gateway Pundit - as ever - has more


10 posted on 06/09/2008 7:45:12 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach (No Burkas for my Grandaughters!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Rockefeller...Mr. Rockefeller...Jay Rockefeller...

Is that the same Rockefeller that went to Syria "by himself" to warn let them know that he thought President Bush may be preparing to invade Iraq? That guy?

11 posted on 06/09/2008 7:49:01 PM PDT by Just A Nobody (PISSANT for President '08 - NEVER AGAIN...Support our Troops! Beware the ENEMEDIA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: All; jveritas
From Hot Air:

Hiatt on Rockefeller Report: Partisan nonsense, and dangerous

*******************EXCERPT*********************************

posted at 9:00 am on June 9, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

Fred Hiatt perused the report issued by Jay Rockefeller and the Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee accusing George Bush and Dick Cheney of deception and misdirection leading up to the war on Iraq, and finds something missing: evidence. Not only does Rockefeller fail to substantiate his accusations, the report itself contradicts his public conclusions. It also sets a bar so high for action on intelligence that its absorption could paralyze the US in confronting threats until far too late.

So what did the SIC find about Bush’s statements on contemporaneous intel?

On Iraq’s nuclear weapons program? The president’s statements “were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates.”

On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president’s statements “were substantiated by intelligence information.”

On chemical weapons, then? “Substantiated by intelligence information.”

On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? “Generally substantiated by intelligence information.” Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? “Generally substantiated by available intelligence.” Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? “Generally substantiated by intelligence information.”

As you read through the report, you begin to think maybe you’ve mistakenly picked up the minority dissent. But, no, this is the Rockefeller indictment. So, you think, the smoking gun must appear in the section on Bush’s claims about Saddam Hussein’s alleged ties to terrorism.

But statements regarding Iraq’s support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda “were substantiated by intelligence information.” Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda “were substantiated by the intelligence assessments,” and statements regarding Iraq’s contacts with al-Qaeda “were substantiated by intelligence information.” The report is left to complain about “implications” and statements that “left the impression” that those contacts led to substantive Iraqi cooperation.

After the war, as we noted on several occasions, captured Iraqi documents confirmed two explicit connections between AQ and Iraq. Saddam Hussein’s IIS provided funds to two AQ terrorist groups. The Army of Mohammed, based in Bahrain, told the IIS that they wanted to attack American assets throughout the region, and the IIS supplied them with funds while attempting to cover their tracks, knowing what exposure would mean after 9/11. The IIS also supplied funds for Egyptian Islamic Jihad, Ayman al-Zawahiri’s organization which provided AQ with most of its leadership.

The New York Sun reminds everyone that in January 2003, the State department also had intelligence of ties between AQ and Saddam Hussein, and it came from the same group that dissented on the status of the Iraqi nuclear-weapons program:

His words demolish a talking point for Democrats who still say Al Qaeda had nothing to do with Iraq until the coalition of the willing invaded. Mr. Ford wrote that the former emir of Al Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Musab Zarqawi “has had a good relationship with Iraqi intelligence officials.” He added that intelligence on Qaeda “revealed the presence of safe house facilities in the city as well as the clear intent to remain in Baghdad. Also, foreign NGO workers outside of Iraq who are believed to provide support to al-Qaeda have also expressed their intent to set up shop in Baghdad.”

Hiatt also takes a look at the dissenting report from the Republicans, who — surprise! — didn’t get a chance to participate in the main report’s writing. Kit Bond (R-MO) reminded Rockefeller that he called Iraq an “imminent threat” in October 2002, not Bush, and that Rockefeller himself said, “To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can.” And Rockefeller saw the same intelligence that Bush did.

What Rockefeller does in this report is to walk back the threshold, saying now that we should have waited for more evidence. That may or may not be true; after 9/11, which was the specific frame of reference Rockefeller himself used in his “imminent threat” speech, waiting for more evidence could mean waiting until an attack occurs, especially in an era of asymmetric warfare. That would at least be an honest debate, but Rockefeller eschews that for unsupported accusations of dishonesty in what turns out to be a dishonest report. He certainly felt in 2002 that Bush used the right threshold after seeing the same intel that Bush had. If we have to wait for Perry Mason-like evidence, it ensures that the US will never take action on its intelligence until it is far, far too late.  (via the Anchoress)

12 posted on 06/09/2008 7:50:59 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach (No Burkas for my Grandaughters!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Just A Nobody

Same Guy!


13 posted on 06/09/2008 7:54:02 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach (No Burkas for my Grandaughters!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach; RaceBannon; Shermy; Peach; ravingnutter

Thanks! I was on my other ‘puter trying to find saved files. They must be on the dead one. ;*(

Here is the most complete list of links and info on Iraq and pre-war intel that I have ever seen which was compiled by Race Bannon, Shermy, Peach and ravingnutter:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1990628/posts?page=5#5


14 posted on 06/09/2008 8:00:16 PM PDT by Just A Nobody (PISSANT for President '08 - NEVER AGAIN...Support our Troops! Beware the ENEMEDIA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: All
We have a thread on the Washington Post article:

'Bush Lied'? If Only It Were That Simple.

15 posted on 06/09/2008 8:05:44 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach (No Burkas for my Grandaughters!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

This one is good enough to bookmark. Thanks.


16 posted on 06/09/2008 8:07:18 PM PDT by BOBTHENAILER (One by one, in small groups or in whole armies, we don't care how we do it, but we're gonna getcha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

Thought so! Hey...look what I am listening to, skewering Reagan/Bush and Bush/Quayle for ... get ready ...

Gore criticizes Bush for ignoring Iraq’s ties to terrorism
September 29, 1992 —
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JE48XHKG64


17 posted on 06/09/2008 8:08:28 PM PDT by Just A Nobody (PISSANT for President '08 - NEVER AGAIN...Support our Troops! Beware the ENEMEDIA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Just A Nobody

ROFL....Just Damn!!!


18 posted on 06/09/2008 8:16:14 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach (No Burkas for my Grandaughters!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
He looks good and actually sounds sane in that video.

Losing a presidential bid really causes insanity, doesn't it?

19 posted on 06/09/2008 8:23:52 PM PDT by Just A Nobody (PISSANT for President '08 - NEVER AGAIN...Support our Troops! Beware the ENEMEDIA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: wastedyears

No,sir, it is five years late but absolutely for real.


20 posted on 06/09/2008 8:35:05 PM PDT by singfreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ExTexasRedhead
In the entire US Congress, Senate and House, there is no intelligence, no guts, no spine, no fortitude, no patriotism, no concern for America’s security, no concern for the US economy, and absolutely no concern for our children and grandchildren’s futures.

I agree, but with a few exceptions.
There are about 12-15 House members that are good. Sadly, 3 will be leaving after this year.
I could only come up with 6 in the SINate, worth a dang. Only 3 are reliable and one of them has gone a bit wobbly of late.

21 posted on 06/09/2008 8:39:37 PM PDT by Just A Nobody (PISSANT for President '08 - NEVER AGAIN...Support our Troops! Beware the ENEMEDIA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
...Carl Ford, assistant state secretary for intelligence and research, whose bureau was singled out for praise after the war for its dissenting assessment of Iraq's nuclear program.

Well, mkay, fine. Now, who made the following comment(?):

"The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he [Saddam] can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

Do you see the "problem"?

22 posted on 06/09/2008 8:45:16 PM PDT by LjubivojeRadosavljevic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Just A Nobody

God....this makes me so MAD!


23 posted on 06/09/2008 8:46:13 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach (No Burkas for my Grandaughters!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
If you are mad now, let's get back to this WMD issue.

There are a number of our troops that actually guarded the WMD sites in Iraq and some of them have bizarre diseases to prove it. One of the guys told me about the trucks heading to Syria as they were trying to advance from the south.

There continues to be a vast wealth of information that has not gotten out. When our troops decide it is time to talk, have a comfortable chair ready!

24 posted on 06/09/2008 8:54:44 PM PDT by Just A Nobody (PISSANT for President '08 - NEVER AGAIN...Support our Troops! Beware the ENEMEDIA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Just A Nobody
I hope you are counting my two among the reliable, Senators Inhofe and Dr. Coburn.
25 posted on 06/09/2008 9:02:22 PM PDT by singfreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Just A Nobody

Not good odds and tragic for America and her future. The American people better wake up or we will be going the way of Germany in 1933.


26 posted on 06/09/2008 9:09:09 PM PDT by ExTexasRedhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

The words Senate and intelligence should never appear in the same sentence. Doesn’t exist.


27 posted on 06/09/2008 9:10:19 PM PDT by Jo Nuvark (Those who bless Israel will be blessed, those who curse Israel will be cursed. Gen 12:3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach; Maelstorm; Just A Nobody

I am glad I save all my Iraq letters to the editor, because the left never tires of trotting out the same lies. Here is the latest I sent.

The Senate intelligence report ignores the Congressional record. David Kay’s inspections identified missile development, with ranges exceeding UN limitations, as the tent center pole under which Hussein would rebuild his WMD’s, while sanctions further deteriorated. Senators ignored findings of VX gas precursor, and anthrax freeze-drying research. Senators ignored British intelligence findings that Hussein sought yellow cake in Niger. Senate findings ignored Mahdi Obeidi, Hussein’s leading nuclear scientist, revelations that hundreds of knowledgeable scientists could apply existing designs, and a centrifuge prototype to jumpstart the nuclear program. Senators ignored Kay’s inspections, and later captured Iraqi document analysis confirming secular and radical Islamic terrorist groups operated freely alongside state sponsored terrorists.

The report obscures reality two Congressional and seventeen U.N. resolutions finally confronted Hussein with invasion for breach of international obligations. Possession of WMD stockpiles was never the issue. U.N.’s ultimatums in Resolutions 678 and 1441 authorized disarming Hussein’s regime “to restore international peace and security in the area”, and not to merely expel him from Kuwait. Korean War precedent ensured U.N. authorization intended invasion of Iraq. “In the area” was phraseology confirmed by Congress and the U.N. for military action above the 38th parallel to disarm North Korea.

Bush #2 obeyed U.N. and confirming Congressional mandates in heading a coalition exceeding that Churchill and Roosevelt assembled to confront Hitler. Toppling Hussein’s regime forced the U.N. to confront the primary reason for its’ existence.

This election year revisionism represents a media “show trial” by the dominant political party.


28 posted on 06/09/2008 9:12:47 PM PDT by Retain Mike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach; All
EVERYONE, and I mean everyone, should phone Sen. Rockefeller's office tomorrow and thank him for being such an “honest, dedicated public servant”. That we truly appreciate his “petty partisan” efforts during a time when our troops needed to know the entire country—especially Congress—was backing them. /Deepest Sarcasm

I would then suggest a “follow up”, during which you tell him what you REALLY think of his petty, infinitely cowardly, partisan effort to pervert history.

29 posted on 06/09/2008 9:20:34 PM PDT by singfreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach; AdmSmith; Berosus; Convert from ECUSA; dervish; Fred Nerks; george76; ...

The Senate Intel Report: So Much For ‘Bush Lied’
New York Post | 07/10/04 | John Podhoretz
Posted on 07/10/2004 2:21:28 AM PDT by conservative in nyc
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1168711/posts

Sen Intel Committee Releases Another Report to Show Bush LIED About Saddam
Flopping Aces | 06-06-08 | Scott Malensek
Posted on 06/06/2008 8:02:29 AM PDT by Starman417
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2027077/posts

Author reveals ‘biggest unknown scandal of the Clinton years’
OneNewsNow.com | July 31, 2007 | Chad Groening
Posted on 08/01/2007 11:12:07 AM PDT by GFritsch
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1874830/posts

Thanks Ernest.

Rep. Kucinich Introduces Bush Impeachment Resolution
Associated Press | June 9, 2008
Posted on Monday, June 09, 2008 10:45:48 PM by Free ThinkerNY
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2028660/posts

‘Bush Lied’? If Only It Were That Simple
The Washington Post | Monday, June 9, 2008 | Fred Hiatt
Posted on 06/09/2008 1:47:10 AM PDT by edpc
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2028201/posts


30 posted on 06/09/2008 10:05:13 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/_________________________Profile updated Friday, May 30, 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
Related thread:

Harboring al Qaeda ( What the new Senate Intelligence Report says about Saddam's hospitality)

31 posted on 06/09/2008 10:38:13 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach (No Burkas for my Grandaughters!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: singfreedom

Absolutely! Although Dr. Coburn has made me go “Huh?” a lot lately.


32 posted on 06/09/2008 11:16:42 PM PDT by Just A Nobody (PISSANT for President '08 - NEVER AGAIN...Support our Troops! Beware the ENEMEDIA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: ExTexasRedhead
The American people better wake up or we will be going the way of Germany in 1933.

We already have one foot on the banana peel.

33 posted on 06/09/2008 11:19:28 PM PDT by Just A Nobody (PISSANT for President '08 - NEVER AGAIN...Support our Troops! Beware the ENEMEDIA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Retain Mike

Outstanding letter! Perhaps you could do a thread a day by posting your letters. The truth needs to be exposed over and over and over again. Thank you!


34 posted on 06/09/2008 11:23:20 PM PDT by Just A Nobody (PISSANT for President '08 - NEVER AGAIN...Support our Troops! Beware the ENEMEDIA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: ExTexasRedhead

“the american people better wake up or we will be going the way of germany in 1933”

Heil Hillary!!!


35 posted on 06/10/2008 4:23:25 AM PDT by ripley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: ExTexasRedhead

You are right. There is none there.


36 posted on 06/10/2008 5:04:25 AM PDT by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

Hopefully more conservative and somewhat neutral news papers will pick up on all that has been available. As more people read this stuff, it is just possible they will realize they had better stay with the Republican candidate this time around.


37 posted on 06/10/2008 5:20:53 PM PDT by Marine_Uncle (Duncan Hunter was our best choice...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Just A Nobody

Thank you and you are welcome. I scan the posts most days and record my letters as comments to articles. This one I am sending to all Senators and my Congressman as well.


38 posted on 06/10/2008 6:39:47 PM PDT by Retain Mike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Retain Mike
I'll have to remember to do a daily search of your name...unless you have a ping list.
You chose a good one to send directly. ;*)
39 posted on 06/10/2008 9:58:20 PM PDT by Just A Nobody (PISSANT for President '08 - NEVER AGAIN...Support our Troops! Beware the ENEMEDIA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Just A Nobody

Here is a link to another Free Republic article about the Senate report. Somebody named Scott did a lot of work.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2029743/posts?page=1


40 posted on 06/11/2008 5:46:56 PM PDT by Retain Mike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson