Bush misused Iraq intelligence: Senate report

[Husker_Power]

WASHINGTON (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.

 

Such assertions had a strong resonance with a U.S. public, still reeling after al Qaeda's September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States. Polls showed that many Americans believed Iraq played a role in the attacks, even long after Bush acknowledged in September 2003 that there was no evidence Saddam was involved.

 

The report also said administration prewar statements on Iraq's weapons programs were backed up in most cases by available U.S. intelligence, but officials failed to reflect internal debate over those findings, which proved wrong.

 

PUBLIC CAMPAIGN

 

The long-delayed Senate study supported previous reports and findings that the administration's main cases for war -- that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and was spreading them to terrorists -- were inaccurate and deeply flawed.

 

"The president and his advisors undertook a relentless public campaign in the aftermath of the (September 11) attacks to use the war against al Qaeda as a justification for overthrowing Saddam Hussein," Rockefeller said in written commentary on the report.

 

"Representing to the American people that the two had an operational partnership and posed a single, indistinguishable threat was fundamentally misleading and led the nation to war on false premises."

 

A statement to Congress by then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld that the Iraqi government hid weapons of mass destruction in facilities underground was not backed up by intelligence information, the report said. Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon said Rumsfeld's comments should be investigated further, but he stopped short of urging a criminal probe.

 

The committee voted 10-5 to approve the report, with two Republican lawmakers supporting it. Sen. Christopher Bond of Missouri and three other Republican panel members denounced the study in an attached dissent.

 

"The committee finds itself once again consumed with political gamesmanship," the Republicans said. The effort to produce the report "has indeed resulted in a partisan exercise." They said, however, that the report demonstrated that Bush administration statements were backed by intelligence and "it was the intelligence that was faulty."

 

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said: "We had the intelligence that we had, fully vetted, but it was wrong. We certainly regret that and we've taken measures to fix it."

 

PUBLIC SUPPORT

U.S. public opinion on the war, supportive at first, has soured, contributing to a dive in Bush's popularity.

 

The conflict is likely to be a key issue in the November presidential election between Republican John McCain, who supports the war, and Democrat Barack Obama, who opposed the war from the start and says he would aim to pull U.S. troops out within 16 months of taking office in January 2009.

 

Rockefeller has announced his support for Obama.

 

The administration's record in making its case for Iraq has also been cited by critics of Bush's get-tough policy on Iran. They accuse Bush of overstating the potential threat of Iran's nuclear program in order to justify the possible use of force.

 

A second report by the committee faulted the administration's handling of December 2001 Rome meetings between defense officials and Iranian informants, which dealt with the Iran issue. It said department officials failed to share intelligence from the meeting, which Rockefeller said demonstrated a "fundamental disdain" for other intelligence agencies.

 

(Additional reporting by Andy Sullivan, Donna Smith)

 

(Editing by Frances Kerry)

[HSKRNOKC]

We had the intelligence that we had, fully vetted, but it was wrong. We certainly regret that and we've taken measures to fix it."

 

What exactly are those measures??

[rawhide]

they wait until CNN comes up with conflicting data.

[HuskerfaninOkieland]

[BIGREDIOWAN]

Nothing can be done to reverse the last 7 years total that this war has taken thus far and nothing can bring back the thousands of U.S. Soldiers who gave their lives in the ultimate sacrifice. It's sad and I'm past the point of being pissed off about it because it's a waste of time with this president.

[Blackshirtsguru]

Nothing can be done to reverse the last 7 years total that this war has taken thus far and nothing can bring back the thousands of U.S. Soldiers who gave their lives in the ultimate sacrifice. It's sad and I'm past the point of being pissed off about it because it's a waste of time with this president.

 

 

 

AND the party as a whole!

[I See Red People]

[AR Husker Fan]

Odd that the Republican members denounced the report - considering the unanimous conclusions drawn by the bi-partisian 911 Commission, which, while crouched in less directly confrontational language, said much the same thing...

[sarge87]

Odd that the Republican members denounced the report - considering the unanimous conclusions drawn by the bi-partisian 911 Commission, which, while crouched in less directly confrontational language, said much the same thing...

Oh I don't know, maybe because the long overdue report was due out last session, instead of 2 days after Obama's delegate win. Probably had to get the sexist Obama supporters and the racist Clinton supporters out of the news cycle, or maybe it's the other way around.

 

The 9/11 Commission was nothing but a bi-partisan cover their asses exercise. I found it intriguing how some of the major players in the intelligence breakdown were serving on that panel, such as Lee Hamilton and Jamie Gorelick. (Does the data mining operation Able Danger ring a bell?) Sandy Berger’s theft and destruction of original documents during the Clinton administration from the National Archive, that were never reviewed by the commission, but let’s not get the facts confused with the “revisionist history“.

 

In 2002 Democrats who controlled the Senate 51-49 could have stopped the war, but 29 Democrats and 48 Republicans voted to authorize H.J Res. 114 (Public Law 107-243)Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.

 

Like I’ve said before, if Bush lied, then let us get to the impeachment. All the dog and pony shows are getting a little bit tedious. Seems that's all Democrats get done now days. The majorities in both houses are with the Democrats. So what’s the hold-up? I just find the intellectual dishonesty a little incredulous, for people that consistently tell us gun clinging Bible thumpers, how smart they are. Just distract the dummies with something shiny and claim it wasn't any of their doing, and if you say it enough times it will become the truth. So while I’m waiting for the impeachment proceedings to begin, let’s take a look at some of the quotes by Democrats, including the chairman of this committee, that some would like us to conveniently forget.

 

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."

- President William Jefferson Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

 

"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 William Jefferson 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."

- Secretary of State 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 William Jefferson Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

 

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulism toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production."

- Ex-UN Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 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 and current Speaker of the House), Dec. 16, 1998.

 

--President Bill Clinton Signs Iraq Liberation Act of 1998--

-October 31, 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 reinvigorated 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."

- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL) Dec. 2001.

 

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a 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 (D, TN, former Vice President and Global Warming Zealot) 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 (D, TN, former Vice President and ex-Presidential candidate ) Sept. 23, 2002.

 

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction."

- Dick Gephardt (D, MO former House Minority Leader and ex-Presidential candidate) September 2002

 

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeing and developing weapons of mass destruction."

- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA and ex-Presidential candidate), Sept. 27, 2002.

 

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. 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 and ex-Presidential candidate), Oct. 9, 2002.

 

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction."

- Patty Murray (D, CA), 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 Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.

 

"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."

- John 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 weapons 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 and current Presidential candidate), Oct 10, 2002

 

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction."

- John Edwards, (D, NC and ex-Presidential candidate), 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. "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 has 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 and ex-Presidential candidate), Jan. 23, 2003.

 

“Let me say something very clearly to everybody. We believed he had weapons of mass destruction. ... I believed it going back to my time in the Clinton administration when we were concerned about Iraq. I believed, on the basis of 10 years of following it, data that we'd seen, his deception, his denial, his thwarting of the UN. I believed it in my core that he had it.”

-George Tenet (CIA Director 1997-2004/Dep. CIA Director 1995-1997), May 1, 2007

[Touchdown Tommie]

Nothing can be done to reverse the last 7 years total that this war has taken thus far and nothing can bring back the thousands of U.S. Soldiers who gave their lives in the ultimate sacrifice. It's sad and I'm past the point of being pissed off about it because it's a waste of time with this president.

 

 

 

AND the party as a whole!

 

 

 

I feel so bad for all of the soldiers and their families b/c Bush is a complete moron. BRI is right, I am past the point of being pissed off too....the fact that Bush, Rice, Cheney, ect still won't admit they misled the entire US is beyond me.

[huskernumerouno]

Nothing can be done to reverse the last 7 years total that this war has taken thus far and nothing can bring back the thousands of U.S. Soldiers who gave their lives in the ultimate sacrifice. It's sad and I'm past the point of being pissed off about it because it's a waste of time with this president.

 

 

 

AND the party as a whole!

 

 

 

I feel so bad for all of the soldiers and their families b/c Bush is a complete moron. BRI is right, I am past the point of being pissed off too....the fact that Bush, Rice, Cheney, ect still won't admit they misled the entire US is beyond me.

So you are saying that all of congress with all of their resources couldn't see through the big "smoke screen" dreamed up by President Bush. Hind sight is 20/20. The people of the United States may have been misled but for congress to admit they fell for such an obvious lie is to admit their own incompetence. If we had not gone in when we did we would have had to do it sometime. Like it or not. Saddam had to go and now we need to help the Iraqis recover from years of his powerfull supression of them. Bush must be the smartest person around. He not only fooled all the so called leaders of this country he suckered the british, the aussies and all the other coalition members.

 

What we need is for someone that has never worked a job in his life and has little or no experience to run this country and be in charge of its security.

[sarge87]

Nothing can be done to reverse the last 7 years total that this war has taken thus far and nothing can bring back the thousands of U.S. Soldiers who gave their lives in the ultimate sacrifice. It's sad and I'm past the point of being pissed off about it because it's a waste of time with this president.

 

 

 

AND the party as a whole!

 

 

 

I feel so bad for all of the soldiers and their families b/c Bush is a complete moron. BRI is right, I am past the point of being pissed off too....the fact that Bush, Rice, Cheney, ect still won't admit they misled the entire US is beyond me.

So you are saying that all of congress with all of their resources couldn't see through the big "smoke screen" dreamed up by President Bush. Hind sight is 20/20. The people of the United States may have been misled but for congress to admit they fell for such an obvious lie is to admit their own incompetence. If we had not gone in when we did we would have had to do it sometime. Like it or not. Saddam had to go and now we need to help the Iraqis recover from years of his powerfull supression of them. Bush must be the smartest person around. He not only fooled all the so called leaders of this country he suckered the british, the aussies and all the other coalition members.

 

What we need is for someone that has never worked a job in his life and has little or no experience to run this country and be in charge of its security.

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

 

This much we pledge -- and more. - President John F. Kennedy- January, 1961 Inaugural Address

 

It's too bad, this message seems to be lost in todays world. Sad.

[HuskerExpat]

 

So you are saying that all of congress with all of their resources couldn't see through the big "smoke screen" dreamed up by President Bush. Hind sight is 20/20. The people of the United States may have been misled but for congress to admit they fell for such an obvious lie is to admit their own incompetence. If we had not gone in when we did we would have had to do it sometime. Like it or not. Saddam had to go and now we need to help the Iraqis recover from years of his powerfull supression of them. Bush must be the smartest person around. He not only fooled all the so called leaders of this country he suckered the british, the aussies and all the other coalition members.

 

What we need is for someone that has never worked a job in his life and has little or no experience to run this country and be in charge of its security.

 

Not to make light of the sacrifices of our citizens in the armed forces, but your statement, which I bolded above, is just a guess. We have effectuated change in other countries without invading. Libya was once a terrorist state and supported terrorist activities, now even the Bush administration doesn't believe that anymore. And they didn't even change leaders from then and now. There have been a lot of countries in the world that have gone from our enemy to at least peacefully coexisting with us, without us invading.

 

The right answer to threats in the world is very rarely war. That doesn't appeal to our macho instinct, but it is true, nonetheless.

[HuskerExpat]

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

 

This much we pledge -- and more. - President John F. Kennedy- January, 1961 Inaugural Address

 

It's too bad, this message seems to be lost in todays world. Sad.

 

It is a simpleton approach to interpret that quote as Kennedy saying we will always go to war in the name of assuring the success of liberty. Don't forget that it was Kennedy that exercised restraint and did not choose military conflict when the Soviet Union parked nuclear warheads 90 miles from the United States in Cuba.

 

Sometimes bearing "any burden" in support of liberty means not going to war when that would be the easy answer.

 

And it seems pretty foolish to be suggesting that Bush's war is about liberty, when he is, at the same time making moves to restrict the liberty of our own citizens (i.e., warrantless wiretaps, indefinite detention of citizens without judicial review, etc., etc.).

[huskernumerouno]

 

So you are saying that all of congress with all of their resources couldn't see through the big "smoke screen" dreamed up by President Bush. Hind sight is 20/20. The people of the United States may have been misled but for congress to admit they fell for such an obvious lie is to admit their own incompetence. If we had not gone in when we did we would have had to do it sometime. Like it or not. Saddam had to go and now we need to help the Iraqis recover from years of his powerfull supression of them. Bush must be the smartest person around. He not only fooled all the so called leaders of this country he suckered the british, the aussies and all the other coalition members.

 

What we need is for someone that has never worked a job in his life and has little or no experience to run this country and be in charge of its security.

 

Not to make light of the sacrifices of our citizens in the armed forces, but your statement, which I bolded above, is just a guess. We have effectuated change in other countries without invading. Libya was once a terrorist state and supported terrorist activities, now even the Bush administration doesn't believe that anymore. And they didn't even change leaders from then and now. There have been a lot of countries in the world that have gone from our enemy to at least peacefully coexisting with us, without us invading.

 

The right answer to threats in the world is very rarely war. That doesn't appeal to our macho instinct, but it is true, nonetheless.

Libya and its leader had an awakining after a missle was shot into their leaders bedroom and killed his daughter. He saw the error of his ways and changed because he probably assumed that the next step was to come and get his ass one way or another.

War should be the last resort but where had sanctions and talks and more sanctions by the UN get anyone. CONGRESS voted to give permission to go to war. No one held a gun to their head and made them vote yes. We are here and we must stay until Iraq is ready to stand on their own and be able to protect themselves. To leave before that would be criminal as to what will probably happen if we leave to soon. War is not pretty or glamorous and yes there are better ways to resolve a issue most of the time. This however was not one of those. Of course that is my opinion.