So Now Dems are 'Rewriting History'?

[Nbadan]

President Bush today responded to accusations that his administration manipulated intelligence about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction to justify the war. Speaking at a Veterans Day event in Tobyhanna, Pennsylvania, Bush said, "it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began." Earlier this week, senior White House officials told CNN they were working on a "campaign-style" strategy to respond to stepped-up Democratic criticism.

--


"Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and mislead the American people about why we went to war," Bush said. He said those critics have made those allegations although they know that a Senate investigation "found no evidence" of political pressure to change the intelligence community's assessments related to Saddam's weapons program. Bush also said they know the United Nations passed more than a dozen resolutions citing Saddam's development and possession of weapons of mass destruction.

"More than 100 Democrats in the House and the Senate who had access to the same intelligence voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power," he said. Bush did not single out any critics by name but said many of them had supported Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., his rival for the White House in last year's presidential elections. The president said the criticism has taken a toll on U.S. forces. "These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America's will," Bush said. "As our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of life, they deserve to know that their elected leaders who voted to send them to war continue to stand behind them," the president said. "Our troops deserve to know that this support will remain firm when the going gets tough. And our troops deserve to know that, whatever our differences in Washington, our will is strong, our nation is united and we will settle for nothing less than victory." "We will never back down. We will never give in. We will never accept anything less than complete victory," Bush declared.

Bush said the United States and its allies are determined to keep weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of extremists and prevent them from gaining control of any country. Bush singled out Syria for particular criticism, saying its government had taken "two disturbing steps" in recent days. He cited the arrest of Syria pro-democracy activist Kamal Labwani and a "strident speech" by President Bashar Assad. In that speech, Assad said his government would cooperate with a U.N. investigation that implicated Syrian officials in the killing of a Lebanese leader, but warned he would no longer "play their game" if Syria "is going to be harmed." Bush said Syria "must stop exporting violence and start importing democracy."

more:link (http://www.normantranscript.com/feeds/apcontent/apstories/apstorysection/D8DQE3BO0.xml.txt/resources_apstoryview)

CNN (http://www.cnn.com/)


I guess someone forgot to tell W that a majority of Americans now oppose the continued occupation of Iraq.

[Oh, Gee!!]

http://www.socialpress.it/IMG/dubya.jpg

[ididnotnothat]

Can our president get any dumber?

[j-6]

I actually see the point of this. Bush isn't saying, "Look how great this war is going!" He's saying, "Many of you helped pass the war resolution a few years ago no matter what your opinion is now."

It kind of reminds me of when my girlfriend reminds me of something I agreed to do months before and then starts bitching after I try and get out of it.

[Vashner]

Dan didn't you move to San Fransico or Canada yet?

[exstatic]

The only re-writing going on was the administration's "embellishment" of the intel. Based on those falsehoods, yes, some Democrats voted to support the war. Don't get your panties in a wad, Dubyah, because new info causes them to change their stance, the new info being the administration's trail and pack of lies.

[gtownspur]

^^Quit reading your "Code Pink" flyers. There has been a bi partisan commitee that has already dismissed the charges you leftist have said about the embellishment of intel.

[boutons]

Reid's Rule 21 "stunt" was to kick the Repubs in the butt to get they enquiry going on pre-war intelligence, something the Repubs absolutely don't want to do, since they no the intell was shit, and the Repub hyping of it was shit.

dubya basically said to Congress: "I'm going to war. STFU and approve it". There was almost no discussion in (Repub) Congress of the intel, the number of troops needed, the post-invastion planning, the exit strategy, etc. Now dubya, his ass stuck in a tarpit of a mess, is trying tar the Dems with his shit.

That dubya and dickhead even show their faces on Veterans' Day is a disgrace, because they've wasted 2000+ US military lives and 15K bodies, plus all the minds that are fucked up.

[efrem1]

These stories about misleading people into war in Iraq should go into the dustbin of history with the Maine Conspiracy before the Spanish-American War, the Conspiracy of Munitions makers before World War I, the conspiracy of opening Pearl Harbor to Japanese attack before World War II and the misinformation about the Gulf of Tonkin incident before the Vietnam War. My father who passed away a few months ago, proudly served in Korea and Vietnam and knew that he fought for American freedom. To Boutons and all of you naysayers out there, I would say that the people we are fighting are vermin. People who have the gall to explode bombs in front of solders handing out candy to Iraqi children. Go back and watch Paris Hilton on TV!!!

[efrem1]

Here is the link to the World War I "conspiracy"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nye_Committee

[boutons]

The Repubs running the country are vermin.
This is a Repub war for mysterious Repub reasons.
Has nothing to do with the war on terror.

The US versmin have fucked over the US military with this war, something you people who wrap yourselves in the flag, think "my country right or wrong", and discourage all dissenters as traitors refuse to see. The US military has been disrespected and betrayed by the Repugs with this Repug war.

btw, do you see that they surveyed the Maine wreck and the explosion that sent it down was from the inside, not from an attack on the outside.

Just because the US military fights a war doesn't justify and sacralize the war.

[efrem1]

Always backing up my argument as a librarian-in-training, I am supply the story of children being killed by these thugs:

Bombing in Iraq Kills Mostly Children
27 Die in Suicide Attack in Baghdad as U.S. Troops Hand Out Candy and Toys
By Andy Mosher and Khalid Alsaffar
Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, July 14, 2005; A19



BAGHDAD, July 13 -- Inside the morgue at Kindi Hospital lay the remains of Amjad Kudeer. Flying shrapnel from a suicide car bomb struck him in the head and chest Wednesday, killing him instantly. He was 13.

Outside the door to the refrigerated room, Amjad's sobbing mother called his name over and over, as if trying to summon him back to life. Then she looked up and asked: "What did he do to deserve this? They are killing children. Why? Why?"

Amjad and more than a dozen other children from east Baghdad's al-Khalij neighborhood made up the majority of the 27 people killed when a suicide bomber drove into a crowd that had gathered around U.S. soldiers who were handing out candy and small toys, police said. The attack also killed one soldier, according to the U.S. military, and wounded at least 50 people.
In north Baghdad, meanwhile, 11 Sunni Muslim men were found dead hours after being arrested by Iraqi police, according to the head of the government agency that administers Sunni religious affairs.

The suicide bombing occurred at 10:50 a.m. in al-Khalij, a mostly Shiite Muslim district adjacent to a U.S. military base in the Iraqi army's former Rashid Barracks. Two Army Humvees had parked in the street, and their crews blocked off a small area with razor wire and began giving gifts to children who immediately swarmed around them. A speeding Suzuki sedan plowed into their midst and exploded, turning a festive scene into one of carnage, witnesses said.

"The kids were laughing and playing with the solders when the suicide bomber drove his car bomb very fast into the crowd and blew himself up, killing all the kids who were around the soldiers, and some cleaners who were there," said Ali Hussein, a police officer.

The attack was grimly reminiscent of one last September, when several bombs detonated at a ceremony celebrating the opening of a sewage plant, killing 35 children who were accepting candy from American soldiers. In addition, it was the second suicide bombing in Baghdad in four days to kill more than 20 people. On Sunday, a man wearing an explosive belt blew himself up at the entrance to a military recruiting center, killing at least 21 people.

Iraqi security forces and foreign troops have been frequent targets during the nearly two-year-old insurgency in Iraq. But Hussein, who was shot in the right leg last week in an attack that killed another officer, said targeting children was beyond comprehension. "I do not know how anyone in the world -- whether they believe or do not believe in God -- could do something like kill a kid," he said. The attackers "are after us and the American forces, and we understand that because we are after them, too. But how could they hurt those innocent kids?"

A U.S. military spokesman, Maj. Russ Goemaere, said in a statement that "the terrorist undoubtedly saw the children around the Humvee as he attacked. The complete disregard for civilian life in this attack is absolutely abhorrent."

The car bombing also destroyed two houses, killing several people inside. Ahmad Kareem, 17, said he had been in one of the houses with six members of his family when the bomber struck.

"I was sitting in the living room, and there were some U.S. soldiers and Hummers outside. The kids gathered around the solders," Ahmad said afterward, a bandage around his head and his shirt covered with blood. "All of a sudden I heard a big boom, and my head started bleeding. The house became dark, as if the night had come back again, and black smoke was the only thing I could see."

Ahmad said he was the only one in the house who had been able to come home from the hospital. "Thank God, no one died, but my oldest sister is in critical condition," he said.

In the north Baghdad neighborhood of Rabee, 11 Sunnis who had been taken from their homes Wednesday morning were found dead, said Adnan Dulaimi, a Sunni leader who heads the government's Sunni Endowment. "We ask the government to investigate, as these people were arrested at dawn during curfew time without any warrant. Now, when anyone is arrested, his family expects him dead within a few days," Dulaimi said.

The Reuters news agency reported that angry mourners carrying the coffins of three of the men through the streets put the number of dead at 13 or 14 and said the bodies showed signs of torture. The Iraqi Interior Ministry said the incident was being investigated, Reuters reported.

Iraqi police have been accused of abuses with increasing frequency in recent weeks, notably the deaths by suffocation of 10 Sunni men who were arrested Sunday and left in a shipping container in Baghdad's searing heat. Sunnis accuse the police, made up predominantly of Shiites because many Sunnis have shunned any association with Iraq's government, of carrying out sectarian vendettas. Police officials have denied such accusations.

After the suicide bombing Wednesday, most of the dead and wounded were taken to nearby Kindi Hospital. While the parents of Amjad and other children who were killed bitterly mourned their losses, those whose loved ones had been spared were thankful.

As Zahra Abdulla walked slowly behind the wheelchair that was carrying her son, Talal Ali, 9, out of surgery on his wounded left leg, she recalled the bedlam she witnessed when she rushed out of her house upon hearing the explosion. "Blood and bits of flesh were everywhere. I was lucky I found Talal and brought him here," said Abdullah, 28. "Thank God, his condition is better than the others. I feel terrible for the other boys. Why are they attacking children?"

In the shattered neighborhood, children's shoes and sandals lay in the street. Piles of ruined possessions pulled from the wrecked homes still smoldered a few hours after the attack. Neighbors argued over whether the Americans should be blamed for attracting the children and creating a target.

A woman whose son had been wounded and taken to the hospital said responsibility lay solely with the insurgents and their leader, Abu Musab Zarqawi. "I swear to God," said the woman, who identified herself as Umm Salam, "if my son dies, I will drink from Zarqawi's blood."

Special correspondents Naseer Nouri and Bassam Sebti contributed to this report.

[Nbadan]

^^Quit reading your "Code Pink" flyers. There has been a bi partisan commitee that has already dismissed the charges you leftist have said about the embellishment of intel.

Wrong.

Senator Roberts (R) has been delaying the Phase 2 investigation into faulty intelligence for 2.5 years, this is exactly why the Democrats closed the Senate last week. So in essence, W is commenting on a still on-going investigation.

[mookie2001]

Wrong.

Senator Roberts (R) has been delaying the Phase 2 investigation into faulty intelligence for 2.5 years, this is exactly why the Democrats closed the Senate last week. So in essence, W is commenting on a still on-going investigation.owned.
(.)*

*period

[Nbadan]

These stories about misleading people into war in Iraq should go into the dustbin of history

We have no recourse to correct the injustices of the past. What has been, either through conspiracy or not, propagated against the American people and the people of the world in the past cannot now be undone. We cannot refight the Spanish-American war, nor WW1 or WW2, or for that matter we can-not keep refighting Vietnam. However, in Iraq we still have a chance to set things right, but in order to do this Americans have to start being honest about the circumstances that led our country to war, and whether the administration cherry-picked and manipulated intelligence that fit it's plans. Only when we reach this ultimate truth can we start reversing the ground we have lost in the last 3 years on this war on religious fanaticism.

[MannyIsGod]

:lmao

The administration that has continuously looked for new justification for their presence in Iraq is complaining to others about the rewriting of history? I laughed when I heard this tonight. Amazing!

Of course an American public which falls for a play against Kerry because of their weak understaing of the legislative process (I voted for it before I voted against it) will fall for this as well.

[Nbadan]

By Dana Milbank and Walter Pincus
Saturday, November 12, 2005; A01


President Bush and his national security adviser have answered critics of the Iraq war in recent days with a two-pronged argument: that Congress saw the same intelligence the administration did before the war, and that independent commissions have determined that the administration did not misrepresent the intelligence.

Neither assertion is wholly accurate.

The administration's overarching point is true: Intelligence agencies overwhelmingly believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and very few members of Congress from either party were skeptical about this belief before the war began in 2003. Indeed, top lawmakers in both parties were emphatic and certain in their public statements.

But Bush and his aides had access to much more voluminous intelligence information than did lawmakers, who were dependent on the administration to provide the material. And the commissions cited by officials, though concluding that the administration did not pressure intelligence analysts to change their conclusions, were not authorized to determine whether the administration exaggerated or distorted those conclusions.

National security adviser Stephen J. Hadley, briefing reporters Thursday, countered "the notion that somehow this administration manipulated the intelligence." He said that "those people who have looked at that issue, some committees on the Hill in Congress, and also the Silberman-Robb Commission, have concluded it did not happen."

Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/11/AR2005111101832.html)

Stephen J. Hadley? Geez, this guy was one of the main propagandaist pushing the bogus claims against Iraq.

[Dos]

yes unfortunetly the dems can only remember back in history to 2001... we've been screwing with iraq since the 60's... care to find out who really put saddam in power,
you'd be surprised to find out... but oh well it's all about the present isn't it... ?

[Dos]

I guess all these people lied too..

But the consensus on which Bush relied was not born in his own administration. In fact, it was first fully formed in the Clinton administration. Here is Clinton himself, speaking in 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.

Here is his Secretary of State Madeline Albright, also speaking in 1998:

Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risk 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.

Here is Sandy Berger, Clinton’s National Security Adviser, who chimed in at the same time with this flat-out assertion about Saddam:

He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.

Finally, Clinton’s Secretary of Defense, William Cohen, was so sure Saddam had stockpiles of WMD that he remained “absolutely convinced” of it even after our failure to find them in the wake of the invasion in March 2003.

Nor did leading Democrats in Congress entertain any doubts on this score. A few months after Clinton and his people made the statements I have just quoted, a group of Democratic Senators, including such liberals as Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, and John Kerry, urged the President

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.

Nancy Pelosi, the future leader of the Democrats in the House, and then a member of the House Intelligence Committee, added her voice to the chorus:

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.

This Democratic drumbeat continued and even intensified when Bush succeeded Clinton in 2001, and it featured many who would later pretend to have been deceived by the Bush White House. In a letter to the new President, a number of Senators led by Bob Graham declared:

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.

Senator Carl Levin also reaffirmed for Bush’s benefit what he had told Clinton some years earlier:

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.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton agreed, speaking in October 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.

Senator Jay Rockefeller, vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, agreed as well:

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.

Even more striking were the sentiments of Bush’s opponents in his two campaigns for the presidency. Thus Al Gore in September 2002:

We know that [Saddam] has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.

And here is Gore again, in that same year:

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.

Now to John Kerry, also speaking in 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.

[spvrs]

this Clinton quoting is such bullshit. If you deciding to go to war like bush and especially Cheney did years before you better get much better intel than if you are just making a speech about it. Instead they formed a marketing group and a little group of neo cons 'researchers' who new what they wanted and pimped any lying idiot who preached doomsday senarios.

Now it comes out that cheney was restricted the flow of information to the senate intelligence committee and his cabal was brow beating alternate opinions and showing up CIA. Add the lies that Cheney still says about at 9/11 connection, the constant harping on the bogus connection to terrorism in general, the feeding bogus info to the press and you arrive at people who should be in jail not in power.

[xrayzebra]

Dan, mookie and manny. You are the type people Bush was talking about. You need to tell us one more time you support our troops but not the war. What a load of BS,
you would accept defeat of this country just to get Bush out of office. For what God only knows. The only thing you all know how to do is shout over and over and over Bush started the war and we need to get out of Iraq. All of you are a bunch of people who would love to see the 60's come back. Best one I heard was of someone
referring to the state of Ma. as the KKK state.. Kennedy-Kerry Klan. Sounds about right to me. Neither of them can remember yesterday and only Kennedy may have an excuse, he was more than likely too drunk to remember what he said an hour ago.

You parrot the dimm-o-craps, and like them offer nothing in place of Bush's policy.
You folks memory is about as long as my pecker.

[boutons]

"who really put saddam in power"

Who really pumped up Saddam's power in 80s, made him dangerous, as a counterweight to Iran? Reagan, Bush, dickhead.

No matter what the history before 2003, only the Cheney cabal and Repubs are solely responsible for choosing, among lots of other options, to hard-sell and start this war, which was in the Cheney neo-con cabal plans even before winning in 2000. Even 9/11 didn't side-track their Iraq monomania.

What we are seeing now is the Repugs refusing, yet again, to accept full responsibility for the Iraq disaster, trying to smear and pull down the Dems with the Repugs' sinking ship.

Sorry, assholes, the Iraq disaster, in concept and in execution, belongs EXCLUSIVELY to the dubya/dickhead/rice/powell/feith/wolfy/rummy/Repub criminals.

[Vashner]

If freedom is a disaster I don't know what planet you live on Mr dean.. err boutons.

Iraq is going good right now. We are on the offensive, people voting. Fresh UN authorization for troops. Kofi and Condi visits..

Lookin good... democrats starting to look like chumps on Iraq.

[Dos]

boutons only hears and see's what he wants to see...

The sole point of the non-findings of the Fitzgerald non-investigation, into the non-commission of non-crimes and the non-outing of a non-covert CIA bureaucrat, is (as Messrs. Kerry, Krugman, Rich, and others keep reminding us) that it might even yet trigger the long-awaited inquest into the Iraq intervention. I very strongly hope that there is a full-dress post-mortem into this country's Iraq policy, though I am not ready to assume that "inquest" or "post-mortem" are the correct terms for it. Let's just say a serious blue-ribbon, bipartisan, full-out inquiry. This inquiry, however, could hardly be confined—as Kerry, Krugman, and Rich so obviously hope—to the years 2001-05.

At the very minimum, the starting point of such a retrospective should be the decision, in 1991, to confirm Saddam Hussein in power after his expulsion from Kuwait and to keep his population under international sanctions. Another place to begin might be the apparent "green light," given by the Carter administration, for Saddam Hussein's invasion of Iran. Real specialists and buffs might wish to start with the role of the CIA in the 1960s military coup—or coups—that brought the Baath Party to power in Baghdad in the first place...

[spurster]

"Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and mislead the American people about why we went to war," Bush said.

Like Nixon saying "I am not a crook."

[boutons]

"trigger the long-awaited inquest into the Iraq intervention"

Why need it be "triggered" now when it's supposed to have been completed by now (without the Plame game), or certainly not totally stopped by the Repubs? That was the whole point of the Reid stunt.

The Repubs don't want the investigation into pre-war intelligence to proceed, and will do everything possible to string it out, to limit its scope, to water down conclusions and culpability. When an investigation is impeded, the immediate suspicion, with a very high probability of accuracy, esp with these lying Repugs, is COVERUP.

Going to war with Iraq was never the ONLY option and priority in the war on terror.

Going to war with Iraq was not the IMMEDIDATE option (2003 election campaign was the immediate motivation).

What the Repubs can't COVERUP is the horrible failure to plan for and provide enough troups and equipment (Repubs gave the money away in tax cuts to rich+corps), to secure the infrastructure, the re-building of infrastructure, and public safety. Lying before the war, incompetence in executing the war.

"stay the course" is dumbshit dubya's slogan, not an exit strategy.

The Repubs who started this war were adults during the VN war. How could they possibly assume, in good faith, that the Americans would support the Iraq war for year and years? The Repubs were going to start the Iraq war NO MATTER WHAT.

And now, the entire justiification for the war was absent, has not made the US safer, is costing 1000's of US casualties, the end is not in sight, and the majority US is calling BULLSHIT.

[gtownspur]

Wrong.

Senator Roberts (R) has been delaying the Phase 2 investigation into faulty intelligence for 2.5 years, this is exactly why the Democrats closed the Senate last week. So in essence, W is commenting on a still on-going investigation.


That's even farther from the truth.

The Bipartisan Silbermann-Robb commission is a totally seperate investigation that targeted solely wether the administration used political pressure to influence intelligence gathering. That commision found no evidence of wrong doing whatsoever.

The other Senate investigation is about wether the intelligence itself was faulty. Two very different investigations especially since The admin itself doesn't formulize intelligence reports. The various national agencies do.

Both reports are not linked to each other and have no correlation to one another.

Nice spin.

[Nbadan]

http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/ap/20051115/capt.akag10211150211.bush_asia_akag102.jpg

"Some Democrats who voted to authorize the use of force are now rewriting the past," Bush said. "They're playing politics with this issue and they are sending mixed signals to our troops and the enemy. That is irresponsible."

:lol

[Nbadan]

"President Bush and his administration spent 18 months trying to convince the American people that there was a tie between Saddam Hussein and al Qaida and even to the 9/11 attacks. There wasn't. There was never any evidence for that. But they knew the charge would be effective. And, for them, that was more than enough.

"They can't wash out the taint of that cynicism and infamy no matter how much they try and no matter how loud they yell.

"As I said above, many Democrats ran scared in the face of this once-popular president's onslaught and said many things they probably now wish they hadn't. Let's catalog those statements and let them answer for their cowardice and wobbliness. But the president was president -- a fact of accountability he never seems to grasp. He drove the train. He and his advisors cynically worked to convince the public that Saddam was tied to 9/11 -- an explosive claim in the aftermath of the 9/11 horror. That's something they knew wasn't true and which none of the president's critics, to be the best of my knowledge, ever agreed with or argued for. President Bush and his administration are on the line for that.

"Now they want to go back and try to wriggle out from under the past we all remember. So to use his words, bring it on. The facts indict him. And his White House's ferocious desperation in response shows they know it.

"Let them dig through the transcripts. And if there's collateral damage among today's accusers, so be it. Let the facts get hashed out and the chips fall. There's only one side of this argument running scared from the truth. We know what happened. We were there. We all remember."

Josh Marshall, Talking Points Memo (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/007005.php)

[Nbadan]

Bush's Reverse Slam Dunk


On Friday, President Bush skipped the traditional Veterans Day wreath-laying at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in order to deliver a promised "hit back" against those calling for a strategy for success in Iraq. One senior administration official described the speech as the "most direct refutation" of Iraq critics "you've seen probably since the election," and said it marked the first stage of a coordinated "offensive" that "will play out over several weeks." (The offensive continued this weekend with remarks by National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley and Ken Mehlman, former White House deputy to Karl Rove.) Before the war, the Bush administration presented its pre-war intelligence as a "slam dunk"; now it wants to engage in revisionist history. President Bush's latest case (which is notably similar to past efforts) is based upon three fundamentally flawed arguments: 1) that Congress had access to the same intelligence as the White House prior to the war; 2) that the bipartisan Senate investigation found that the Bush administration did not misrepresent prewar intelligence; and 3) that intelligence agencies around the world agreed with the Bush administration's assessment of the Iraqi threat. Bush is entitled to his own opinion as to how the administration got it so wrong on Iraq; however, he is not entitled to his own facts.

FACT: CONGRESS DID NOT HAVE THE "SAME INTELLIGENCE" AS THE WHITE HOUSE: In his speech, President Bush claimed that members of Congress who voted for the 2002 Iraq war resolution "had access to the same intelligence" as his administration. This is false. As the Washington Post pointed out Saturday, "Bush and his aides had access to much more voluminous intelligence information than did lawmakers, who were dependent on the administration to provide the material." For instance, in the lead up to war, the Bush administration argued that Iraq had made several attempts to "buy high-strength aluminum tubes used in centrifuges to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons." The White House sent 15 intelligence assessments to Congress supporting this notion, but according to the New York Times, "not one of them" informed readers that experts within the Energy Department believed the tubes could not be used to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program. Even Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts (R-KS) -- who has led efforts to delay and downplay the need for investigating prewar intelligence -- confirmed this broader point yesterday. Asked whether the differences between the intelligence available to the White House and to Congress was a "legitimate concern," Roberts acknowledged that it "may be a concern to some extent."

FACT: SENATE INTEL REPORT SHOWED MANIPULATION OF THE EVIDENCE: Bush claimed that "a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs." That argument is wrong on at least two counts. First, "the only committee investigating the matter in Congress, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, has not yet done its inquiry into whether officials mischaracterized intelligence by omitting caveats and dissenting opinions." The so-called Phase II of the pre-war intel investigation is not expected to be completed this year. Second, the Senate Intelligence Committee's Phase I report found, according to the Los Angeles Times (7/10/04), that the unclassified public version of the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) was manipulated. "arefully qualified conclusions were turned into blunt assertions of fact." For example, the classified version of the NIE said, "Although we have little specific information on Iraq’s CW stockpile, Saddam Hussein probably has stocked at least 100 metric tons" of certain poisons. The phrase "although we have little specific information" was deleted from the unclassified version. Instead, the public report said, "Saddam probably has stocked a few hundred metric tons of CW agents."

FACT: THE WORLD WAS NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH BUSH: One frequent talking point of Bush's defenders is that the pre-war intelligence failure was a global failure. "Every intelligence agency in the world, including the Russians, the French...all reached the same conclusion," Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said on CBS's "Face the Nation." Similarly, Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS) claimed, "This was a worldwide intelligence failure," citing the French and Russians, among others. In fact, many of our friends and allies believed that, based on the intelligence they had, the threat of Iraq did not rise to the level of justifying immediate force. French President Jacques Chirac said, "e just feel that there is another option, another way, a less dramatic way than war." German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer said he did not believe the threat rose to the level requiring the "'ultima ratio,' the very last resort." And Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said, "It is our deep conviction that the possibilities for disarming Iraq through political means do exist."

Progress America (mailto: [email protected])

[xrayzebra]

We have no recourse to correct the injustices of the past. What has been, either through conspiracy or not, propagated against the American people and the people of the world in the past cannot now be undone. We cannot refight the Spanish-American war, nor WW1 or WW2, or for that matter we can-not keep refighting Vietnam. However, in Iraq we still have a chance to set things right, but in order to do this Americans have to start being honest about the circumstances that led our country to war, and whether the administration cherry-picked and manipulated intelligence that fit it's plans. Only when we reach this ultimate truth can we start reversing the ground we have lost in the last 3 years on this war on religious fanaticism.


Why cant we dan? You and your brethren are using the same tactics that was used during the VN war. No different. In one post you say the military
is killing the innocent and in the next you say you support them. You, sir, are a liar and have no other motive other than seeing the US go down in defeat so you can bring the dimm-o-craps back into power. You just follow the script of the talking points handed down from your leaders in the dimm-0-crapic party.

[boutons]

shrub's polls on leadership, direction of country, trustiworthiness, morality vs earlier admins, all continue to crater, and probably haven't seen the bottom yet. I bet if you asked those pollees to read this succinct article on why shrub/Repugs have shot themselves in the foot, they'd probably agree:

btw, belows "deny" is a civilized euphemism for "lie"

=========================

November 15, 2005
Editorial NYTIMES

Decoding Mr. Bush's Denials

To avoid having to account for his administration's misleading statements before the war with Iraq, President Bush has tried denial, saying he did not skew the intelligence. He's tried to share the blame, claiming that Congress had the same intelligence he had, as well as President Bill Clinton. He's tried to pass the buck and blame the C.I.A. Lately, he's gone on the attack, accusing Democrats in Congress of aiding the terrorists.

Yesterday in Alaska, Mr. Bush trotted out the same tedious deflection on Iraq that he usually attempts when his back is against the wall: he claims that questioning his actions three years ago is a betrayal of the troops in battle today.

It all amounts to one energetic effort at avoidance. But like the W.M.D. reports that started the whole thing, the only problem is that none of it has been true.

Mr. Bush says everyone had the same intelligence he had - Mr. Clinton and his advisers, foreign governments, and members of Congress - and that all of them reached the same conclusions. The only part that is true is that Mr. Bush was working off the same intelligence Mr. Clinton had. But that is scary, not reassuring. The reports about Saddam Hussein's weapons were old, some more than 10 years old. Nothing was fresher than about five years, except reports that later proved to be fanciful.

Foreign intelligence services did not have full access to American intelligence. But some had dissenting opinions that were ignored or not shown to top American officials. Congress had nothing close to the president's access to intelligence. The National Intelligence Estimate presented to Congress a few days before the vote on war was sanitized to remove dissent and make conjecture seem like fact.

It's hard to imagine what Mr. Bush means when he says everyone reached the same conclusion. There was indeed a widespread belief that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons. But Mr. Clinton looked at the data and concluded that inspections and pressure were working - a view we now know was accurate. France, Russia and Germany said war was not justified. Even Britain admitted later that there had been no new evidence about Iraq, just new politics.

The administration had little company in saying that Iraq was actively trying to build a nuclear weapon. The evidence for this claim was a dubious report about an attempt in 1999 to buy uranium from Niger, later shown to be false, and the infamous aluminum tubes story. That was dismissed at the time by analysts with real expertise.

The Bush administration was also alone in making the absurd claim that Iraq was in league with Al Qaeda and somehow connected to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. That was based on two false tales. One was the supposed trip to Prague by Mohamed Atta, a report that was disputed before the war and came from an unreliable drunk. The other was that Iraq trained Qaeda members in the use of chemical and biological weapons. Before the war, the Defense Intelligence Agency concluded that this was a deliberate fabrication by an informer.

Mr. Bush has said in recent days that the first phase of the Senate Intelligence Committee's investigation on Iraq found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence. That is true only in the very narrow way the Republicans on the committee insisted on defining pressure: as direct pressure from senior officials to change intelligence. Instead, the Bush administration made what it wanted to hear crystal clear and kept sending reports back to be redone until it got those answers.

Richard Kerr, a former deputy director of central intelligence, said in 2003 that there was "significant pressure on the intelligence community to find evidence that supported a connection" between Iraq and Al Qaeda. The C.I.A. ombudsman told the Senate Intelligence Committee that the administration's "hammering" on Iraq intelligence was harder than he had seen in his 32 years at the agency.

Mr. Bush and other administration officials say they faithfully reported what they had read. But Vice President Dick Cheney presented the Prague meeting as a fact when even the most supportive analysts considered it highly dubious. The administration has still not acknowledged that tales of Iraq coaching Al Qaeda on chemical warfare were considered false, even at the time they were circulated.

Mr. Cheney was not alone. Remember Condoleezza Rice's infamous "mushroom cloud" comment? And Secretary of State Colin Powell in January 2003, when the rich and powerful met in Davos, Switzerland, and he said, "Why is Iraq still trying to procure uranium and the special equipment needed to transform it into material for nuclear weapons?" Mr. Powell ought to have known the report on "special equipment"' - the aluminum tubes - was false. And the uranium story was four years old.

•

The president and his top advisers may very well have sincerely believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. But they did not allow the American people, or even Congress, to have the information necessary to make reasoned judgments of their own. It's obvious that the Bush administration misled Americans about Mr. Hussein's weapons and his terrorist connections. We need to know how that happened and why.

Mr. Bush said last Friday that he welcomed debate, even in a time of war, but that "it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began." We agree, but it is Mr. Bush and his team who are rewriting history.

[boutons]

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/ta/2005/ta051116.gif

"If you're against me, you're against America"

It didn't work for Nixon, it's not working for shrub

[boutons]

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/sc/2005/sc051116.gif