Bipartisan Senate intel report conclusively shows Bush lied to justify war
The next time you hear someone say, “well, they thought Saddam was a threat too”… tell them about this report. UPDATE: CNN Story:
“The Bush administration misused intelligence to build a case for the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq… the White House exploited its ability to declassify intelligence selectively to bolster its case for war … The report also found that the administration misled the American people about contacts between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda.”
Slam dunk - Game Over - Bush LIED.
And some assholes say Scotty McClellen was lying to sell books, (i.e. A, B, C, D, E, F, G, idiot denialists etc…)
The report details Administration prewar statements that, on numerous occasions, misrepresented the intelligence and the threat from Iraq.
Although there was some prewar intel that supported the claim that Saddam possessed WMD, the Iraq war was packaged and sold to Americans in a deliberately deceptive way. The Committee’s report cites several conclusions in which the Administration’s public statements were NOT supported by the intelligence. They include:
Ø Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-Qa’ida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qa’ida with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence.
Ø Statements by the President and the Vice President indicating that Saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attacks against the United States were contradicted by available intelligence information.
Ø Statements by President Bush and Vice President Cheney regarding the postwar situation in Iraq, in terms of the political, security, and economic, did not reflect the concerns and uncertainties expressed in the intelligence products.
Ø Statements by the President and Vice President prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq’s chemical weapons production capability and activities did not reflect the intelligence community’s uncertainties as to whether such production was ongoing.
Ø The Secretary of Defense’s statement that the Iraqi government operated underground WMD facilities that were not vulnerable to conventional airstrikes because they were underground and deeply buried was not substantiated by available intelligence information.
Ø The Intelligence Community did not confirm that Muhammad Atta met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in 2001 as the Vice President repeatedly claimed.
These findings completely undermine John McCain’s claims that ‘every assessment’ justified war in Iraq. WRONG… LIAR.
Also, McCain told MSNBC’s Chris Matthews that “absolutely” a “large number of Iraqis” will “treat us as liberators.“ Bush/McSame ignored a pre-war intelligence report - a January 2003 Intelligence Community Assessment warned that “Iraq was a deeply divided society that likely would engage in violent conflict unless an occupying power prevented it.”
Every poll ever taken shows Iraqis and every nation in the world want the US out of Iraq. 72% do not support the presence of US forces in Iraq (latest poll q.#20) and majorities say the surge and continued presence of US has made things worse.
Well, we’ve heard this from Scotty, we’ve heard this from retired Generals, we’ve heard this from Richard Clarke, Paul O’Neil, and many others… and now from an exhaustive Senate investigation. Is it starting to sink in yet?? For most thinking individuals it is, but not for the authoritarians … they will remain in denial.
(H/T: TP)
Then serve him article II, section 4. I have no problem with that.
Do you really want Cheney loose in the Oval with only a couple of months, a vendetta, and no repercussions? I suppose he could be impeached as well, but it will be a little more difficult and likely won’t happen before January 20th at noon.
Yes, go ahead and impeach ‘em William.
Oh, and I see your 2008 strategy taking shape . . . you’re find-and-replacing every instance of “Bush” with “McCain,” so now McCain is the LIAR!!!. Clever. I guess all the Dems that reached the same conclusions that McCain did before voting are “LIARS!!!,” too? Can you provide us a list of exactly who was a victim of Bush/Cheney’s lies and who wasn’t so that we can keep up with you?
In any event, “wrong” doesn’t equal “liar.”
In any event, “wrong” doesn’t equal “liar.”
It’s not just ‘wrong’ - they knew better - they knew they were misleading.
Bush Administration’s public statements NOT supported by the intelligence = LIES
I guess all the Dems that reached the same conclusions that McCain did before voting are “LIARS!!!”
Like who?
They were lied to. Intel and opinions that were not supportive of the invasion was suppressed.
There’s a great tendency to attack the messenger here, especially when the messenger is named “william,” but these are very serious allegations. Do the conservatives in the peanut gallery really not have a problem with any of this? That seems to be at odds with the “rule of law” aspect of conservatism. If liberals were guilty of giving Slick Willy too much of a free pass ten years ago, I fail to see how conservatives aren’t at least as guilty of the same thing with Bush now. Even those who are willing to fault Bush generally do so not for a bad war or lying about it, but for not being properly “conservative” enough (cf., Glen Dean).
Bottom line is, if these allegations are true — and there’s plenty of evidence to suggest that they are — then there ought to be serious consequences for those responsible. And that shouldn’t be a partisan issue. The fact that it seems to be one says very bad things about the state of political discourse in this country.
Honestly, can you only play one song William?
A one trick pony has more to offer.
Do you understand the meaning of the word redundant?
Grain. Of. Salt.
And thanks for listing me as Asshole A. I’ll be sure to include that in with “fat fuck”, “dumb fuck”, and a few other civilized pleasantries you’ve leveled my way.
And you have to stop lying Mikey…
Thanks for continuing to show us that right wing authoritarian conservatives are more likely to make many incorrect inferences from evidence and that you remain in denial.
Here is the real News: Stupid Congress failed to declare war.
tgirsch,
I haven’t read the report to which william linked, but every time I’ve gone to the effort, he is guilty of histrionics. It (histrionics) appears to be a symptom of something. My suspicion is that this is not new information, though it may be a new package for said information. And the old information has been argued over ad nauseum.
By the way, william, did you actually ADD “asshole” to the post and list me in that number? Wow, you’re something . . . updating a post to be more vitriolic and childish and offensive. You have serious character issues if you can’t disagree without name calling.
But, tgirsch, “attacking the messenger” is legitimate when credibility and characterizations of facts are at issue. (Does it go without saying that cut and pasted bullet points/conclusions from “Think Progress” isn’t all that credible with me?)
But, to the point of my comment above . . . McCain isn’t Bush . . . neither were the 20 some odd Dems that voted to go to war way back when.
[…] quotes at my personal blog back in November 2005. Here we are two and a half years later and the same stupid partisan Democrats are saying the same stupid things. But if we are going to convict the liars, I say go for […]
That’s funny. Ever read what you link to, William, I mean, Captain Plagiarism?
There’s no statute of limitations in play here.
There are highly credible legal scholars that have concluded, based on the evidence, that Bush II, et al., may be facing the death penalty.
This is not some joke you can laughingly attribute to BDS and sweep under the rug. This is for real. It’s time to wake up.
“Hear” me now, believe me later.
Is it okay if I wake up once y’all have actually impeached him/them/us/everyone-who -isn’t-a-member-of moveon.org?
Okay, just now reading the CNN (ahem) report on the matter; sorry, but this is a yawner:
The CIA, among others, believed Iraq was trying to acquire nuclear weapons, but the Department of Energy disagreed, the report said.
Conflicting opinions is no shocker, but which agency is or should be more reliable in this area?
The report also took the administration to task for its predictions about the aftermath of the invasion, including Vice President Dick Cheney’s assertion that U.S. troops would be greeted as liberators.
Bush and Cheney did not request intelligence reports about the post-war situation, and their public statements did not reflect doubts and uncertainties in the intelligence community, the report said.
But did Democrats/armchair voters purchase the Buyer’s Protection plan being sold by the Administration? That’s the key. Otherwise, guarantees that everything would be hunkydory after the invasion are enforceable.
But, but, but . . . Scott McClellan said . . .
“Bush and his advisers knew that the American people would almost certainly not support a war launched primarily for the ambitious purpose of transforming the Middle East. Rather than open this Pandora’s Box, the administration chose a different path — not employing out-and-out deception, but shading the truth,” McClellan wrote in his memoir, “What Happened.”
Current and former White House officials have dismissed McClellan’s accusations, saying he was not in a position to know about top-level White House decision-making before the war when he was deputy press secretary.
D’oh! Scott had no basis for making that assertion! (McClellan has admitted as muc). But that’s just shooting the messenger, I guess.
When there are 4100 Americans dead and 30,000 seriously wounded, a trillion spent and no end in sight… you’re going to sit there and rationalize… ‘oh - those lies weren’t all that bad.’ ?
[…] calling me/us out for seemingly rationalizing lies about the Iraq War in the comments over at his “slam dunk for impeachment” post. When there are 4100 Americans dead and 30,000 seriously wounded, a trillion spent and no end in […]
Did Bush sell the war? Sure, just like Clinton sold our participation in the Balkans. The fact remains the ME was never going to be healed with Saddam sitting in the middle of it, WMDs or no. The Democrats can take quotes and claim whatever they want in their feeble efforts to re-write their own history and gain more political power, and no doubt the MSM will help because they themselves have a long track record of broadcasting horror stories about the Butcher before it was uncool. It’s all rather tawdry and shameless but hardly surprising.
Did Bush sell the war? Sure, just like Clinton sold our participation in the Balkans.
1.) How many American troops gave their lives in the Balkans, again?
2.) Didn’t the U.N. approve the military action in the Balkans?
Right. No difference.
.
The US made up 15% of the NATO force in Kosovo. What is the % in Iraq?
1.) How many American troops gave their lives in the Balkans, again?
And that matters how in terms of selling America the need to go to war? There was certainly a potential for death and injury by getting involved. In that case our direct national security was not jeopardized but being NATO signatories, we acted to help our Euro friends. Most of them did not return the favor with Iraq, except those few in eastern Europe who owe their freedom to guys like Ronald Reagan.
2.) Didn’t the U.N. approve the military action in the Balkans? Right. No difference.
No they did not approve. It was a NATO operation.