This is exactly why this country is divided and partisanship rules the day.


By LIZ SIDOTI
Associated Press Writer


WASHINGTON


Democrats forced the Republican-controlled Senate into an unusual closed session Tuesday, questioning intelligence that led to the Iraq war and deriding a lack of congressional inquiry.

"I demand on behalf of the America people that we understand why these investigations aren't being conducted," Democratic leader Harry Reid said.



Taken by surprise, Republicans derided the move as a political stunt.

"The United States Senate has been hijacked by the Democratic leadership," said Majority Leader Bill Frist. "They have no convictions, they have no principles, they have no ideas," the Republican leader said.

Reid demanded the Senate go into closed session. The public was ordered out of the chamber, the lights were dimmed, and the doors were closed. No vote is required in such circumstances.

Reid's move shone a spotlight on the continuing controversy over intelligence that President Bush cited in the run-up to the war in Iraq. Despite prewar claims, no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, and some Democrats have accused the administration of manipulating the information that was in their possession.

Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, was indicted last Friday in an investigation that touched on the war, the leak of the identity of a CIA official married to a critic of the administration's Iraq policy.

"The Libby indictment provides a window into what this is really all about, how this administration manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to sell the war in Iraq and attempted to destroy those who dared to challenge its actions," Reid said before invoking Senate rules that led to the closed session.

Libby resigned from his White House post after being indicted on charges of obstruction of justice, making false statements and perjury.

Democrats contend that the unmasking of Valerie Plame was retribution for her husband, Joseph Wilson, publicly challenging the Bush administration's contention that Iraq was seeking to purchase uranium from Africa. That claim was part of the White House's justification for going to war.

Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., said Reid was making "some sort of stink about Scooter Libby and the CIA leak."

A former majority leader, Lott said a closed session was appropriate for such overarching matters as impeachment and chemical weapons _ the two topics that last sent the senators into such sessions.

In addition, Lott said, Reid's move violated the Senate's tradition of courtesy and consent. But there was nothing in Senate rules enabling Republicans to thwart Reid's effort.

As Reid spoke, Frist met in the back of the chamber with a half-dozen senior GOP senators, including Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts, who bore the brunt of Reid's criticism. Reid said Roberts reneged on a promise to fully investigate whether the administration exaggerated and manipulated intelligence leading up to the war.

B-b-but Clinton had a BJ.

/obligatory Republican statement.

That was a good article, not sure how it's partisan though. Some people want answers to why nothing that was promised (i.e. WMD's, Al Qaeda ties to Saddam, where's Osama, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. ) didn't come to be. I think we owe the 2000 (and climbing) dead soldiers families at least a decent answer.

That was a good article, not sure how it's partisan though. Some people want answers to why nothing that was promised (i.e. WMD's, Al Qaeda ties to Saddam, where's Osama, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. ) didn't come to be. I think we owe the 2000 and climbing dead soldiers families at least a decent answer.

Yes, I'm still waiting for Vitas and MonsterMark to answer my questions on the matter.

Great! Let's investigate the crap out of this thing, including, but not limited to: Why Clinton bombed Iraq in '98 saying he was a WMD threat, Joe Wilson's lies, who in the Senate (including Kerry and the Dems) said Iraq was a threat, the media's complicity, etc. Let's get it all on the table so we can resolve this!

Here's your reason.

2000+ Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, Airman and Coast Guardsmand voluntarily joined the Armed Forces of the United States of America. We vowed to defend not only our country soil and people but her interests as well. This includes the stability of Southwest Asia. The obvious reason being the massive oil reserves that our country apparently cannot live without. One of the byproducts of this is that we managed to plant a seed of freedom and hope in an area that has seen little of either. We now have a responsibility to see it through.

It is far too easy to think that the only reason we should involve ourselves militarily in world affairs is to protect our own freedom and democracy. We actually haven't done that since the war of 1812 (and WE started that one). Or when the world gets together to fight together like a big all star team. Well that doesn't work either because it ends up being mostly us and the brits with one french guy to wave a flag. Been there...seen that.

Oh but then there's the "Saddam wasn't hurting anybody" bit. Well I would like you to meet some fighter pilots that were regularly shot at. I believe they could shoot holes all through that theory. Saddam was in direct violation of the UN resolutions from one day after Operation Desert Storm until the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

The reasons for going into Iraq that were touted on television screens were wrong. I willingly admit to that. But there were far better reasons. Reasons that others understood and were not front page news. Some may not like them. They may not like that oil apparently is worth the blood of our sons and daughters. But that certainly doesn't stop them from filling up the Excursion.

Oh and Saddam had WMD's...where they are I do not know. We may never know. But just because Ted Kennedy ain't got any liquor on him doesn't mean he doesn't drink.

If there were better reasons for going into Iraq, I seriously think the Bush admin would of been happy to of said those than the one's touted on TV, which were wrong as you admit. That's like willingly telling a bad lie when you know the truth will be more acceptable.

If you know these better reasons please do tell, it would put many people at ease and definately help Bush with his war.

And if Saddam had WMD's, the terrorist we apparently are fighting in Iraq would of used them by now as someone else pointed out. Why kill 4-5 soldiers at a time with a human driven car bomb when one could let off a nuke or lay out some serine gas and kill hundreds if not thousands for example.

Here's your reason.

2000+ Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, Airman and Coast Guardsmand voluntarily joined the Armed Forces of the United States of America. We vowed to defend not only our country soil and people but her interests as well. This includes the stability of Southwest Asia. The obvious reason being the massive oil reserves that our country apparently cannot live without. One of the byproducts of this is that we managed to plant a seed of freedom and hope in an area that has seen little of either. We now have a responsibility to see it through.

It is far too easy to think that the only reason we should involve ourselves militarily in world affairs is to protect our own freedom and democracy. We actually haven't done that since the war of 1812 (and WE started that one). Or when the world gets together to fight together like a big all star team. Well that doesn't work either because it ends up being mostly us and the brits with one french guy to wave a flag. Been there...seen that.

Oh but then there's the "Saddam wasn't hurting anybody" bit. Well I would like you to meet some fighter pilots that were regularly shot at. I believe they could shoot holes all through that theory. Saddam was in direct violation of the UN resolutions from one day after Operation Desert Storm until the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

The reasons for going into Iraq that were touted on television screens were wrong. I willingly admit to that. But there were far better reasons. Reasons that others understood and were not front page news. Some may not like them. They may not like that oil apparently is worth the blood of our sons and daughters. But that certainly doesn't stop them from filling up the Excursion.

Oh and Saddam had WMD's...where they are I do not know. We may never know. But just because Ted Kennedy ain't got any liquor on him doesn't mean he doesn't drink.

I don't see why we need to involve ourselves in SW Asia. Let me ask, is it our 'right' to impose 'democracy' on other nations by force, if necessary? (Condi Rice said as much in her talk at Princeton University recently.) Whatever happened to self-determination?

So you're admitting that this is basically a war to protect our oil interests.

Ah, so it's ok to waste money on a special prosecutor and convene Congress for impeachment hearings b/c Clinton 'wasn't forthcoming about oral sex', where as it's not ok to waste money on a special prosecutor and convene Congress b/c Bush/LibbyCheney 'weren't forthcoming about war'?

I would think that misrepresentation about the justification for war is just as important, if not more so, than misrepresentation of oral sex in the Oval office.

Ah, so it's ok to waste money on a special prosecutor and convene Congress for impeachment hearings b/c Clinton 'wasn't forthcoming about oral sex', where as it's not ok to waste money on a special prosecutor and convene Congress b/c Bush/LibbyCheney 'weren't forthcoming about war'?

I would think that misrepresentation about the justification for war is just as important, if not more so, than misrepresentation of oral sex in the Oval office.


I think it's a little more important, 2000 (and climbing) soldiers plus countless Iraqi men women and children didn’t die because Clinton lied about a BJ. Was it wrong that he lied and cheated on his wife? Sure it was, but the only casulty was one blue dress.

I'm curious to see what the conservatives respond with to your post.

A simple question would be, if it were Clinton who invaded Iraq on the pretext of WMDs, don't you think the right would be clamoring for his impeachment and a special investigation?

If there were better reasons for going into Iraq, I seriously think the Bush admin would of been happy to of said those than the one's touted on TV, which were wrong as you admit...

Ah, but in saying that you verify that Bush didn't lie, but rather that the intelligence by which we went to war was faulty. Big difference. If there were better reasons, then he definitely would have said them? Then there weren't, right? So what he told us was what he believed. And what the press believed, and what the Brits believed, and what the Democrats believed, and what Clinton believed, ad infinitum.

Totally contradicts your previous assertions that Bush deliberately lied, not to mention the fact that you've never offered any proof that Bush lied.



If you know these better reasons please do tell, it would put many people at ease and definately help Bush with his war.

And if Saddam had WMD's, the terrorist we apparently are fighting in Iraq would of used them by now as someone else pointed out. Why kill 4-5 soldiers at a time with a human driven car bomb when one could let off a nuke or lay out some serine gas and kill hundreds if not thousands for example.

Why indeed.

Your cause-and-effect argument doesn't hold water. Your assumption is that the only reason we haven't seen the WMDs used is because they don't exist. There are plenty of possible reasons why they haven't been used, some of which are these:

1. The terrorists don't have them.
2. Syria's government has them.
3. They are being smuggled over to use on our homeland like 9/11.
4. They are being saved/smuggled for use against Israel.
5. They are being saved by the Syrian government for defense purposes.
6. They were so well hidden that no one can find them.

There. That took more time to write than to think of.

I bet if I thought for five minutes more I could think of another six reasons.

For you to assert your paper-thin argument assumes that all of the above (and several other possibilities) are not possible, and you simply can't do that because you just DON'T KNOW. Go back to the drawing board and use another argument, or better yet, how about presenting some facts for a change.

A simple question would be, if it were Clinton who invaded Iraq on the pretext of WMDs, don't you think the right would be clamoring for his impeachment and a special investigation?

Actually, Clinton bombed Iraq on WMD suspicions, and nobody said a word.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

From CNN.com, December 16, 1998
Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike

CLINTON: Good evening.

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.

Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability.

The inspectors undertook this mission first 7.5 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire.

The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.

The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.

The United States has patiently worked to preserve UNSCOM as Iraq has sought to avoid its obligation to cooperate with the inspectors. On occasion, we've had to threaten military force, and Saddam has backed down.

Faced with Saddam's latest act of defiance in late October, we built intensive diplomatic pressure on Iraq backed by overwhelming military force in the region. The UN Security Council voted 15 to zero to condemn Saddam's actions and to demand that he immediately come into compliance.

Eight Arab nations -- Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Oman -- warned that Iraq alone would bear responsibility for the consequences of defying the UN.

When Saddam still failed to comply, we prepared to act militarily. It was only then at the last possible moment that Iraq backed down. It pledged to the UN that it had made, and I quote, a clear and unconditional decision to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors.

I decided then to call off the attack with our airplanes already in the air because Saddam had given in to our demands. I concluded then that the right thing to do was to use restraint and give Saddam one last chance to prove his willingness to cooperate.

I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing UN resolutions and Iraq's own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning.

Now over the past three weeks, the UN weapons inspectors have carried out their plan for testing Iraq's cooperation. The testing period ended this weekend, and last night, UNSCOM's chairman, Richard Butler, reported the results to UN Secretary-General Annan.

The conclusions are stark, sobering and profoundly disturbing.

In four out of the five categories set forth, Iraq has failed to cooperate. Indeed, it actually has placed new restrictions on the inspectors. Here are some of the particulars.

Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites. For example, it shut off access to the headquarters of its ruling party and said it will deny access to the party's other offices, even though UN resolutions make no exception for them and UNSCOM has inspected them in the past.

Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary evidence. For example, Iraq obstructed UNSCOM's effort to photograph bombs related to its chemical weapons program.

It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions.

Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the building, removing not just documents but even the furniture and the equipment.

Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection.

So Iraq has abused its final chance.

As the UNSCOM reports concludes, and again I quote, "Iraq's conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in the fields of disarmament.

"In light of this experience, and in the absence of full cooperation by Iraq, it must regrettably be recorded again that the commission is not able to conduct the work mandated to it by the Security Council with respect to Iraq's prohibited weapons program."

In short, the inspectors are saying that even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham.

Saddam's deception has defeated their effectiveness. Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors.

This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance.

And so we had to act and act now.

Let me explain why.

First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.

Second, if Saddam can crippled the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community -- led by the United States -- has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday -- make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past.

Third, in halting our air strikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance, not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspection system that controls his weapons of mass destruction program; we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region.

That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team -- including the vice president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of state and the national security adviser -- I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq.

They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors.
At the same time, we are delivering a powerful message to Saddam. If you act recklessly, you will pay a heavy price. We acted today because, in the judgment of my military advisers, a swift response would provide the most surprise and the least opportunity for Saddam to prepare.

If we had delayed for even a matter of days from Chairman Butler's report, we would have given Saddam more time to disperse his forces and protect his weapons.

Also, the Muslim holy month of Ramadan begins this weekend. For us to initiate military action during Ramadan would be profoundly offensive to the Muslim world and, therefore, would damage our relations with Arab countries and the progress we have made in the Middle East.

That is something we wanted very much to avoid without giving Iraq's a month's head start to prepare for potential action against it.

Finally, our allies, including Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain, concurred that now is the time to strike. I hope Saddam will come into cooperation with the inspection system now and comply with the relevant UN Security Council resolutions. But we have to be prepared that he will not, and we must deal with the very real danger he poses.

So we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction and work toward the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people.

First, we must be prepared to use force again if Saddam takes threatening actions, such as trying to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems, threatening his neighbors, challenging allied aircraft over Iraq or moving against his own Kurdish citizens.

The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War.
Second, so long as Iraq remains out of compliance, we will work with the international community to maintain and enforce economic sanctions. Sanctions have cost Saddam more than $120 billion -- resources that would have been used to rebuild his military. The sanctions system allows Iraq to sell oil for food, for medicine, for other humanitarian supplies for the Iraqi people.

We have no quarrel with them. But without the sanctions, we would see the oil-for-food program become oil-for-tanks, resulting in a greater threat to Iraq's neighbors and less food for its people.

The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.
The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.

The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties.
Indeed, in the past, Saddam has intentionally placed Iraqi civilians in harm's way in a cynical bid to sway international opinion.

We must be prepared for these realities. At the same time, Saddam should have absolutely no doubt if he lashes out at his neighbors, we will respond forcefully.

Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people.

And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.
Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future.

Let me close by addressing one other issue. Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down.

But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so.
In the century we're leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community, fear and hope. Now, in the new century, we'll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past, but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace.

Tonight, the United States is doing just that. May God bless and protect the brave men and women who are carrying out this vital mission and their families. And may God bless America.

If you know these better reasons please do tell, it would put many people at ease and definately help Bush with his war.



I already stated the reason in my post. He repeatedly violated UN resolutions by firing on US aircraft and violating the no-fly zone. The UN was far too inept to do anything about it. This alone was reason enough to go to war but the majority of Americans didn't find this a valid reason for us to do so. So in order to placate the narrow minded "I only care about my world" people the administration had to use another reason that was far less concrete.

Clinton allowed us to be pushed around by bullies for too long. It took a determined administration to show the world that we were no longer the paper tiger that they had thought us to be.

Ah, but in saying that you verify that Bush didn't lie, but rather that the intelligence by which we went to war was faulty. Big difference. If there were better reasons, then he definitely would have said them? Then there weren't, right? So what he told us was what he believed. And what the press believed, and what the Brits believed, and what the Democrats believed, and what Clinton believed, ad infinitum.

Totally contradicts your previous assertions that Bush deliberately lied, not to mention the fact that you've never offered any proof that Bush lied.




Why indeed.

Your cause-and-effect argument doesn't hold water. Your assumption is that the only reason we haven't seen the WMDs used is because they don't exist. There are plenty of possible reasons why they haven't been used, some of which are these:

1. The terrorists don't have them.
2. Syria's government has them.
3. They are being smuggled over to use on our homeland like 9/11.
4. They are being saved/smuggled for use against Israel.
5. They are being saved by the Syrian government for defense purposes.
6. They were so well hidden that no one can find them.

There. That took more time to write than to think of.

I bet if I thought for five minutes more I could think of another six reasons.

For you to assert your paper-thin argument assumes that all of the above (and several other possibilities) are not possible, and you simply can't do that because you just DON'T KNOW. Go back to the drawing board and use another argument, or better yet, how about presenting some facts for a change.

Ah fossten, pulling the Syria card as expected. Really, you should try to keep up with more current sources.

Try this article for starters; Report finds no evidence of WMD transfers to Syria, Jane's Intelligence Review, 1 June 2005.

Let's consider all the possibilities for why we haven't found the WMDs yet.

1) They don't exist.
2) They're too well hidden.

Since you don't seem inclined to believe #1, let's look at #2. Why is it that before the war, the Bush administration said they knew exactly where the WMDs were? Given that the ISG has conducted an exhaustive review, searched the corners of Iraq, interviewed thousands of Iraqis without turning up a link, and discovered that many Iraqis who previously said that there were WMDs were lying to gain permanent asylum- well, reason #2 is just a bum reason.

Heck, I could say, that there are WMDs at fossten's house, and if I don't find them, arrest you anyway and say that you must have hidden them somewhere? Maybe, smuggling them to Vitas' house? The burden of proof to produce evidence is on the accuser, and probability wise, it doesn't look like the US can produce such evidence, making #2 very unlikely.

I already stated the reason in my post. He repeatedly violated UN resolutions by firing on US aircraft and violating the no-fly zone. The UN was far too inept to do anything about it. This alone was reason enough to go to war but the majority of Americans didn't find this a valid reason for us to do so. So in order to placate the narrow minded "I only care about my world" people the administration had to use another reason that was far less concrete.

Clinton allowed us to be pushed around by bullies for too long. It took a determined administration to show the world that we were no longer the paper tiger that they had thought us to be.

So, the reason we're going to war is b/c he broke a few UN resolutions (and breaking them did not automatically give carte blanche for war) and because it's time for the US to flex its muscles and practice war on some 3rd world country?

Actually, Clinton bombed Iraq on WMD suspicions, and nobody said a word.



Too bad Lincoln didn't make the LS back in the 90s, otherwise you would've heard me complaining about the bombings, and the NATO bombings of Serbia.

So obviously, if you think Clinton erred in bombing Iraq for false WMD reasons, then you must also agree that Bush is also in error.

QED.

I don't see why we need to involve ourselves in SW Asia.

You are demonstrating the exact reason why we have so many problems today. For too long the United States was willing to sit idle while our enemies plotted against us and probed our defenses. You say we should not get involved in southwest Asia when the security of that region is strategically imperative to our national security. I would like to think you are not that shortsighted.


Let me ask, is it our 'right' to impose 'democracy' on other nations by force, if necessary? (Condi Rice said as much in her talk at Princeton University recently.) Whatever happened to self-determination?

Once again you state that we are imposing our will on a people. Let me tell you, many of these people had no idea what true freedom was. They went about their daily lives in fear. Fearing for their lives and the lives of their families. Those who managed to find some sort of freedom far away from civilization were forced to stay there in order to have some semblence of a free life. We did not go there to conquer...we went there because we knew that a free society would be a far better partner in managing the resources of the world. I am not ignorant to the fact that petrolium is extremely important to the future stability of every country in the world...especially ours. I would hope that you are not as well.

So you're admitting that this is basically a war to protect our oil interests.

Pretty much answered this one already...although not the way you would have liked.


Remember that our enemies constantly plot against us. We must remain ever vigilant of those who seek to take what we hold dear. To turn your back on your enemy is to invite his blade. We must strategically plan for the future and never forget the past. Far too many people in this country make a habit of forgetting...and turning their backs.

Ah fossten, pulling the Syria card as expected. Really, you should try to keep up with more current sources.

Try this article for starters; Report finds no evidence of WMD transfers to Syria, Jane's Intelligence Review, 1 June 2005.

Let's consider all the possibilities for why we haven't found the WMDs yet.

1) They don't exist.
2) They're too well hidden.

Since you don't seem inclined to believe #1, let's look at #2. Why is it that before the war, the Bush administration said they knew exactly where the WMDs were? Given that the ISG has conducted an exhaustive review, searched the corners of Iraq, interviewed thousands of Iraqis without turning up a link, and discovered that many Iraqis who previously said that there were WMDs were lying to gain permanent asylum- well, reason #2 is just a bum reason.

Heck, I could say, that there are WMDs at fossten's house, and if I don't find them, arrest you anyway and say that you must have hidden them somewhere? Maybe, smuggling them to Vitas' house? The burden of proof to produce evidence is on the accuser, and probability wise, it doesn't look like the US can produce such evidence, making #2 very unlikely.

Your feeble attempts to pigeonhole me and my beliefs fall pitifully short. I have never stated that I don't believe #1. Any attempt on your part to put words in my mouth and then leap to a conclusion will go ignored.

Furthermore, your subsequent assertions don't prove a thing. You haven't personally searched Syria, or any other Arab country for that matter. Neither have we. It's interesting how you like to focus on how we need to find bin Laden, yet we should abandon trying to find the WMDs because they don't exist.

It's clear that the Bush administration was acting on intelligence that was supplied to them. Anybody can see that Bush didn't search Iraq personally. The fact that they weren't where the intelligence said they were STILL DOESN'T PROVE THAT BUSH WAS LYING. Too bad.

In addition to that, it's far less of a stretch, given the history of Saddam's use of chemical weapons on his own people, to believe that the weapons were disposed of or hidden in some way at the last minute, than to believe that this is some diabolical conspiracy fomented by George Bush himself, whom you libs believe doesn't have the intelligence to tell a rhino from a gnat. In asserting that Bush lied you must produce a viable motive for that. And don't give me that BIG OIL crap. I've seen Bush spend enough effort trying to get more of our own energy reserves increased to tell that we don't need Iraq's oil. And even further, if there were any corruption in BIG OIL, it would be the so-called United Nations who took bribes from Saddam's oil-for-food program. I don't hear even one of you liberals mentioning that, yet it's now public knowledge.

Finally, your own quote shows that if anybody was lying, it was the Iraqis who were giving us the intel. It's not lying to rely on someone else's word in good faith. Furthermore, based upon the stinging attacks by the Dems and the media on Bush for not being ready for 9/11, who could blame him for being nervy about a second possible threat? If it had been you, standing in the shadow of 9/11, you would have ignored the intelligence that was coming from all sides?

Get real.

So, the reason we're going to war is b/c he broke a few UN resolutions (and breaking them did not automatically give carte blanche for war) and because it's time for the US to flex its muscles and practice war on some 3rd world country?

OMG!!!

So that guy that broke into your neighbors house and raped his wife and killed his sons does not deserve to be punished? He broke the PEACE TREATY. We had every right to go in there and sieze control. I cannot understand how you continue to think that if we turn a blind eye to misconduct it will all work out in the end.

YES!!! We are the big boy on the block. As the sole superpower and the country to which every other looks for guidance we must set an example. We may not be perfect but we are the best. I truly believe that what we do we do to better the world. You may believe that US foreign policy is evil and full of contempt but I have been on the tip of that policy and I am here to tell you we are the good guys. When will you people realize that sometimes daddy has to spank you for your own good. Or maybe you don't believe in spanking. I forgot...it takes a village to raise a child...or some liberal drivel like that.

Once again you state that we are imposing our will on a people. Let me tell you, many of these people had no idea what true freedom was.


You speak like an idealist FreeFaller, and I respect that. However, the US isn't going into Iraq to give Iraqis true freedom; the US is supporting its own selfish interests. Where was true freedom when we supported Saddam in the 80s, when we gave him the chemical weapons to drop on his own people? Where was true freedom when Rumsfeld supported Saddam? Where was true freedom when the US supported Iraq's using WMD against Iran?

OMG!!!

So that guy that broke into your neighbors house and raped his wife and killed his sons does not deserve to be punished? He broke the PEACE TREATY. We had every right to go in there and sieze control. I cannot understand how you continue to think that if we turn a blind eye to misconduct it will all work out in the end.



Read the fine print for Resolution 1441 and 678, not just what newsmax tells you. And your analogy doesn't make sense, being in material breach is not the same thing as raping my neighbor's wife.

Too bad Lincoln didn't make the LS back in the 90s, otherwise you would've heard me complaining about the bombings, and the NATO bombings of Serbia.

So obviously, if you think Clinton erred in bombing Iraq for false WMD reasons, then you must also agree that Bush is also in error.

QED.

Interestingly partisan choice of words. You libs previously assert that Bush lied, but Clinton only erred?

If it was an error on both their parts, then you must also differentiate between lying and erring.

Too bad Lincoln didn't make the LS back in the 90s, otherwise you would've heard me complaining about the bombings, and the NATO bombings of Serbia.



So the lawful intervention of the slaughter of countless civilians that threatened to destabilize the entire Baltic region and quite possibly spread further into europe was not a good enough reason. Ever hear of WWI and WWII? How do you think they started?

Ah, but in saying that you verify that Bush didn't lie.

No, I think he lied to sell us his war, I have said so. I was quoting someone else's 'he had better reason than what he said' bit. Which I stand by, 'If he had better reasons, why not use the better ones.' the world knows his 'Its not my fault, I was told wrongful information' speech.

Your cause-and-effect argument doesn't hold water. Your assumption is that the only reason we haven't seen the WMDs used is because they don't exist. There are plenty of possible reasons why they haven't been used, some of which are these.

Listen, I don't know where they could be IF they ever did exist which I don't think they did. But I do not have the resources of the United States Goverment, the CIA and the worlds best army at my disposal to do a search. I would think with these resources at Bush's disposal they would be found if they existed. Yes you gave plenty of 'maybe' reasons. But 'maybe' isn’t good enough to go to war over. You assume yourself that the WMD’s do exist because they haven’t been found, yet I am wrong for assuming and you are not?

Go back to the drawing board and use another argument, or better yet, how about presenting some facts for a change.

Want a fact?

1) No (zero) Weapons Of Mass Destruction have been found. Thats a FACT
.

Your feeble attempts to pigeonhole me and my beliefs fall pitifully short. I have never stated that I don't believe #1. Any attempt on your part to put words in my mouth and then leap to a conclusion will go ignored.

Furthermore, your subsequent assertions don't prove a thing. You haven't personally searched Syria, or any other Arab country for that matter. Neither have we. It's interesting how you like to focus on how we need to find bin Laden, yet we should abandon trying to find the WMDs because they don't exist.

It's clear that the Bush administration was acting on intelligence that was supplied to them. Anybody can see that Bush didn't search Iraq personally. The fact that they weren't where the intelligence said they were STILL DOESN'T PROVE THAT BUSH WAS LYING. Too bad.

In addition to that, it's far less of a stretch, given the history of Saddam's use of chemical weapons on his own people, to believe that the weapons were disposed of or hidden in some way at the last minute, than to believe that this is some diabolical conspiracy fomented by George Bush himself, whom you libs believe doesn't have the intelligence to tell a rhino from a gnat. In asserting that Bush lied you must produce a viable motive for that. And don't give me that BIG OIL crap. I've seen Bush spend enough effort trying to get more of our own energy reserves increased to tell that we don't need Iraq's oil. And even further, if there were any corruption in BIG OIL, it would be the so-called United Nations who took bribes from Saddam's oil-for-food program. I don't hear even one of you liberals mentioning that, yet it's now public knowledge.

Finally, your own quote shows that if anybody was lying, it was the Iraqis who were giving us the intel. It's not lying to rely on someone else's word in good faith. Furthermore, based upon the stinging attacks by the Dems and the media on Bush for not being ready for 9/11, who could blame him for being nervy about a second possible threat? If it had been you, standing in the shadow of 9/11, you would have ignored the intelligence that was coming from all sides?

Get real.

I never said you didn't belive #1. I said you don't SEEM inclined to believe #1. You, the master of semantics, should know the difference.

So if I searched Syria personally and found no weapons, then I could rightfully declare that there were no weapons in Syria? I don't think you understand debating fossten. The purpose of a debate is to quote credible, non-partisan articles that support your position. Telling someone that because they haven't personally done something therefore results in a fallacy is ludicrous.

I don't have to search Syria personally, because, if you bothered to read the article I found for you, the Iraqi Survey Group, appointed by Bush to search for WMD passed to Syria, already did the searching for me.

"In asserting that Bush lied you must produce a viable motive for that. And don't give me that BIG OIL crap." That's funny, FreeFaller seems to belive in using our military to secure big oil, so it's obviously a viable motive.

Interestingly partisan choice of words. You libs previously assert that Bush lied, but Clinton only erred?

If it was an error on both their parts, then you must also differentiate between lying and erring.

Clinton didn't lie about the airtrikes in Iraq. And I never said he lied about the airstrikes, your reading comprehension needs some work. He lied about Lewinsky, and that's a known fact.

Your feeble attempts to pigeonhole me and my beliefs fall pitifully short. I have never stated that I Clinton didn't lie. Any attempt on your part to put words in my mouth and then leap to a conclusion will go ignored.

So the lawful intervention of the slaughter of countless civilians that threatened to destabilize the entire Baltic region and quite possibly spread further into europe was not a good enough reason. Ever hear of WWI and WWII? How do you think they started?

Why do you think the UN was created after WWII? To prevent single countries from acting unilaterally.

You speak like an idealist FreeFaller, and I respect that. However, the US isn't going into Iraq to give Iraqis true freedom; the US is supporting its own selfish interests. Where was true freedom when we supported Saddam in the 80s, when we gave him the chemical weapons to drop on his own people? Where was true freedom when Rumsfeld supported Saddam? Where was true freedom when the US supported Iraq's using WMD against Iran?

Thank you...that same respect is returned.

Now, I am not defending the actions of the past. In fact I am wholeheartedly damning them. It is our own inability to realize the stew we were cooking by our country's own inaction the led us to our current situation. That is why I stated that we must learn from the past. For learning from your mistakes is the only true way to make sure they are not repeated. We have a long road ahead of us. Let us hope we have the strength to walk it...mile by mile...until we reach our objective.

I already stated the reason in my post. He repeatedly violated UN resolutions by firing on US aircraft and violating the no-fly zone. The UN was far too inept to do anything about it. This alone was reason enough to go to war but the majority of Americans didn't find this a valid reason for us to do so. So in order to placate the narrow minded "I only care about my world" people the administration had to use another reason that was far less concrete.
Clinton allowed us to be pushed around by bullies for too long. It took a determined administration to show the world that we were no longer the paper tiger that they had thought us to be.

Wow, "people the administration had to use another reason that was far less concrete"

Sounds like they were willing to do whatever it took to go to war, even lie. Scary.

Thank you...that same respect is returned.

Now, I am not defending the actions of the past. In fact I am wholeheartedly damning them. It is our own inability to realize the stew we were cooking by our country's own inaction the led us to our current situation. That is why I stated that we must learn from the past. For learning from your mistakes is the only true way to make sure they are not repeated. We have a long road ahead of us. Let us hope we have the strength to walk it...mile by mile...until we reach our objective.

Man is fallen, we are sinners, and despite our best intentions, we intervene for less than altruistic reasons. Looking at the history of US foreign policy post WWII, I am less than optimistic for the future.

However, FreeFaller, don't you think that instead of seizing stocks of oil in SW Asian countries, the better thing to do would be, to develop alternative fuel technologies?

Want a fact?

1) No (zero) Weapons Of Mass Destruction have been found. Thats a FACT...


...that STILL doesn't prove that Bush lied.

...that STILL doesn't prove that Bush lied.

True, it doesn't prove he lied, but it does prove that he misrepresented the facts in order to rush to war.

I never said you didn't belive #1. I said you don't SEEM inclined to believe #1. You, the master of semantics, should know the difference.

So if I searched Syria personally and found no weapons, then I could rightfully declare that there were no weapons in Syria? I don't think you understand debating fossten. The purpose of a debate is to quote credible, non-partisan articles that support your position. Telling someone that because they haven't personally done something therefore results in a fallacy is ludicrous.

I don't have to search Syria personally, because, if you bothered to read the article I found for you, the Iraqi Survey Group, appointed by Bush to search for WMD passed to Syria, already did the searching for me.
"In asserting that Bush lied you must produce a viable motive for that. And don't give me that BIG OIL crap." That's funny, FreeFaller seems to belive in using our military to secure big oil, so it's obviously a viable motive.


Sorry, wrong. See here:

CIA can't rule out WMD move to Syria


By Rowan Scarborough
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

The CIA's chief weapons inspector said he cannot rule out the possibility that Iraqi weapons of mass destruction were secretly shipped to Syria before the March 2003 invasion, citing "sufficiently credible" evidence that WMDs may have been moved there.
Inspector Charles Duelfer, who heads the Iraq Survey Group (ISG), made the findings in an addendum to his final report filed last year. He said the search for WMD in Iraq -- the main reason President Bush went to war to oust Saddam Hussein -- has been exhausted without finding such weapons. Iraq had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons in the early 1990s.
But on the question of Syria, Mr. Duelfer did not close the books. "ISG was unable to complete its investigation and is unable to rule out the possibility that WMD was evacuated to Syria before the war," Mr. Duelfer said in a report posted on the CIA's Web site Monday night.
He cited some evidence of a transfer. "Whether Syria received military items from Iraq for safekeeping or other reasons has yet to be determined," he said. "There was evidence of a discussion of possible WMD collaboration initiated by a Syrian security officer, and ISG received information about movement of material out of Iraq, including the possibility that WMD was involved. In the judgment of the working group, these reports were sufficiently credible to merit further investigation."
But Mr. Duelfer said he was unable to complete that aspect of the probe because "the declining security situation limited and finally halted this investigation. The results remain inconclusive, but further investigation may be undertaken when circumstances on the ground improve."
Arguing against a WMD transfer to Syria, Mr. Duelfer said, was the fact that all senior Iraqi detainees involved in Saddam's weapons programs and security "uniformly denied any knowledge of residual WMD that could have been secreted to Syria."
"Nevertheless," the inspector said, "given the insular and compartmented nature of the regime, ISG analysts believed there was enough evidence to merit further investigation."
He said that even if all leads are pursued someday, the ISG may never be able to finally determine whether WMDs were taken across the border. "Based on the evidence available at present, ISG judged that it was unlikely that an official transfer of WMD material from Iraq to Syria took place," his report stated. "However, ISG was unable to rule out unofficial movement of limited WMD-related materials."
Speculation on WMDs in Syria was fueled by the fact that satellite images picked up long lines of trucks waiting to cross the border into Syria before the coalition launched the invasion. Mr. Duelfer previously had reported that Syria was a major conduit for materials entering Iraq that were banned by the United Nations.
Saddam placed such importance on illicit trade with Syria that he dispatched Iraqi Intelligence Service agents to various border crossings to supervise border agents, and, in some cases, to shoo them away, senior officials told The Washington Times last year.
Today, U.S. officials charge that Syria continues to harbor Saddam loyalists who are directing and financing the insurgency in Iraq. The Iraq-Syria relationship between two Ba'athist socialist regimes has further encouraged speculation of weapons transfers.
Several senior U.S. officials have said since the invasion that they thought WMD went to Syria.
Retired Marine Lt. Gen. Michael DeLong, the deputy commander of U.S. Central Command during the war, said in his book, "Inside CentCom," that intelligence reports pointed to WMD movement into Syria.
In October, John A. Shaw, then the deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security, told The Times that Russian special forces and intelligence troops worked with Saddam's intelligence service to move weapons and material to Syria, Lebanon and possibly Iran.
"The organized effort was done in advance of the conflict," he said.

Further notes:

Actually, the purpose of debating is to attempt to change the minds of others by the use of your own persuasion. But you keep on quoting others until you get some opinions of your own.

By the way, I disagree with FreeFaller on that particular statement.

True, it doesn't prove he lied, but it does prove that he misrepresented the facts in order to rush to war.

First of all, I don't agree with your unsupported claim that there were no WMD programs in place in Iraq prior to the war. In fact, all evidence demonstrates that there WAS a program in place. The most optomistic scenario states that the program was simply dormant for the time being as Hussein waited for the French to accomplish their goal of lifting the sanctions.

But even if this wasn't the case. And even if the materials hadn't been found. And even if it wasn't suspected that the available arms were not smuggled into Iran and Syria- the Bush administration didn't "misrepresent" anything in order to go to war.

And they certainly didn't "Rush." The military sat on the border for six months waiting for full Iraqi compliance. Did you forget all this?

But misrepresent clearly implies that you think that some kind of deception was involved. That's nonsense. Unless you think the Clinton administration was also involved in this plan of deception too. As I'm sure you remember, it was under Clinton the America adopted the Policy of Regime Change in Iraq, not GWB. This is not to mention every other internation intelligence agency that also suspected Iraq of having WMDs and the programs necessary to develop them.

First of all, I don't agree with your unsupported claim that there were WAS WMD programs in place in Iraq prior to the war. In fact, all evidence demonstrates that there WAS a program in place.

First of all, I don't understand any difference between those two sentences.

First of all, I don't agree with your unsupported claim that there were no WMD programs in place in Iraq prior to the war. In fact, all evidence demonstrates that there WAS a program in place. The most optomistic scenario states that the program was simply dormant for the time being as Hussein waited for the French to accomplish their goal of lifting the sanctions.

But even if this wasn't the case. And even if the materials hadn't been found. And even if it wasn't suspected that the available arms were not smuggled into Iran and Syria- the Bush administration didn't "misrepresent" anything in order to go to war.

And they certainly didn't "Rush." The military sat on the border for six months waiting for full Iraqi compliance. Did you forget all this?

But misrepresent clearly implies that you think that some kind of deception was involved. That's nonsense. Unless you think the Clinton administration was also involved in this plan of deception too. As I'm sure you remember, it was under Clinton the America adopted the Policy of Regime Change in Iraq, not GWB. This is not to mention every other internation intelligence agency that also suspected Iraq of having WMDs and the programs necessary to develop them.

I was confused by your first two sentences there until you edited it. :)

No, the most optimistic scenario would be that the UN inspectors had all the destroyed weapons accounted for. The Iraqis claimed they destroyed all their stockpiles, and since we haven't been able to find anything to the contrary, I'm inclined to believe them. The burden of proof is on the accuser, and if this were a court case, we'd be thrown out without evidence. How many times have you heard a prosecutor win a case for saying, 'Oh, we couldn't find the evidence, but I bet the perp is hiding it where we can't find it.'?

Of course I think deception was involved. For instance, Bush mentioned the Niger incident in his SotU address, along with the alumnium centrifugation tubes, both of which matters the WH was warned was false. Yet, they went ahead and used that 'evidence'.

Oh right, I recall the tactic, when talking about Bush, bring up Clinton. I assume you're referring to Public Law 105-338, signed by Clinton. I never said I agree with any sort of regime change, but political observer Frank Gaffney of the Washington Times (a very right wing commentator), observed that Clinton did nothing to implement regime change, while Bush has repeatedly pushed for, and done so.

That's funny, FreeFaller seems to belive in using our military to secure big oil, so it's obviously a viable motive.

I didn't say that I supported utilizing the military to secure big oil. I said that I support utilizing the military to secure our national interests. Without securing our national interests we would be in a world of hurt. Don't take this to mean that I feel we should trot around the globe invading every country that has something we want. That would be irresponsible and tragic. However, when we have the opportunity to provide a nation with the opportunity to take back their country from the hands of a tyrant, give them a means with which to prosper and become a global player, then we should...shouldn't we?

I'm afraid that in my postings I may be becoming a little misunderstood. I by no means downplay the loss of this nations heroes. I have actually had my friends pass on in front of my eyes. I harbor both sadness and pride for those who have fallen in the performance of their duty to this great country. But rather than become bitter about it I learned a little about how the world works. I learned that some things have to happen for the greater good. I've learned that the reasons that some people have to leave this life are not always the reasons we would like. I've learned what service before self really means.

How many times have you heard a prosecutor win a case for saying, 'Oh, we couldn't find the evidence, but I bet the perp is hiding it where we can't find it.'?


Hmmm. We just heard a similar case this week. The special prosecutor said that we didn't have any evidence of outing a CIA agent, but we did get somebody to lie about the non-crime, so we're indicting him for that.

The Iraqis claimed they destroyed all their stockpiles, and since we haven't been able to find anything to the contrary, I'm inclined to believe them.

Not quite. SOME Iraqis claimed they destroyed all their stockpiles, while OTHER Iraqis told our intel guys that they still had them.

9/11 was still on everyone's mind. Which would you rather do, ignore the warnings or play it safe and make sure we're not attacked? You certainly couldn't rely on the U.N. to actually do anything, since they were taking bribes.

Again: Bush was being attacked by everybody for not preventing 9/11, yet when he plays it safe and takes out a dictator who's been known to USE WMDs, he's castigated to this day.

Double standard.

Double standards, hypocrites. One and the same. I love the article

From CNN.com, December 16, 1998
Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike

CLINTON: Good evening.

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces.
Where was the coalition? You know. The French, Germans, Russians, Chileans and Arubans?

Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

But there is no WMD so what were you attacking there Bill?

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.
Hummm. Protect our national interests. But they didn't attack us, did they?

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.
Again Bill. What WMD are you talking about?

I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team,...
Where was the UN resolution? Did the Congress vote to give you the War Powers Act? Unanimous, Go It Alone policy!? Are you secretly from Texas?


Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries....

So maybe some of our intel came from other countries???

The inspectors undertook this mission first 7.5 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire.
Why was there a ceasefire? Was there a war or something?

The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.
But Bill, why not wait for Saddam to use them on us or to give them to someone else to use.

The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.
No he wouldn't. He is just bluffing. Trust him.

The United States has patiently worked to preserve UNSCOM as Iraq has sought to avoid its obligation to cooperate with the inspectors. On occasion, we've had to threaten military force, and Saddam has backed down.
See what threats will get you. You are creating the paper tiger Bill.



When Saddam still failed to comply, we prepared to act militarily. It was only then at the last possible moment that Iraq backed down. It pledged to the UN that it had made, and I quote, a clear and unconditional decision to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors.

I decided then to call off the attack with our airplanes already in the air because Saddam had given in to our demands. I concluded then that the right thing to do was to use restraint and give Saddam one last chance to prove his willingness to cooperate.
Pusssy. All you did was embolden Saddam. You proved to him we are the pussies. Thanks Bill.

I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing UN resolutions and Iraq's own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning.
You would RUSH to war! What? What about the coalition? What about the sanctions? And only with Great Britain?

Now over the past three weeks, the UN weapons inspectors have carried out their plan for testing Iraq's cooperation.
The conclusions are stark, sobering and profoundly disturbing.

In four out of the five categories set forth, Iraq has failed to cooperate.
4 out of 5 ain't bad Bill. Give him another chance.

And so we had to act and act now.

Let me explain why.

First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.

Second, if Saddam can crippled the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community -- led by the United States -- has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday -- make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past.

Third, in halting our air strikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance, not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspection system that controls his weapons of mass destruction program; we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region.

That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team -- including the vice president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of state and the national security adviser -- I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq.

They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors.
At the same time, we are delivering a powerful message to Saddam. If you act recklessly, you will pay a heavy price. We acted today because, in the judgment of my military advisers, a swift response would provide the most surprise and the least opportunity for Saddam to prepare.
You should have marched to his border Bill and given him 6 more months to comply.

If we had delayed for even a matter of days from Chairman Butler's report, we would have given Saddam more time to disperse his forces and protect his weapons.
IS THAT WHY we can't find the WMD? Hummm

Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people.
Now you're starting to get it Bill.

And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.
Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future.
Oh really! Tell that to your party faithful and all the peace-activists.

This is the most damning piece of evidence I have ever seen that clearly shows the hypocracy of the left and that of the Democratic Party.

Clearly Bush43 could have given the exact same speech and all we would hear is the whining from the left. As far as I am concerned, the left has no voice in US international political matters. Period.

Yup...Operation Desert Fox in December of '98.

Funny how that double standard works.

[QUOTE=captainalias]
Of course I think deception was involved. For instance, Bush mentioned the Niger incident in his SotU address, /QUOTE]


The British stand behind this assertion to this day. It was Joe Wilson who lied on this issue, not Bush.

[QUOTE=captainalias]
Of course I think deception was involved. For instance, Bush mentioned the Niger incident in his SotU address, /QUOTE]


The British stand behind this assertion to this day. It was Joe Wilson who lied on this issue, not Bush.

Really, would you like to prove that lie to me? And as far as Bush standing behind that assertion, it's quite the contrary. He hasn't brought that up as a reason since 2003.

This is getting tiresome...

Let's just pretend for a moment that the President did lie. And he was impeached and went to jail.

What would you guys do...I mean besides say "HAH! We were right!" pat yourselves on the back and look for something else to piss and moan about?

Sorry, wrong. See here:

CIA can't rule out WMD move to Syria


By Rowan Scarborough
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

[/B][/COLOR]

Let's see, which is more accurate with regards to defense matters? Jane's or Washington Times? That's a toughie.

This is getting tiresome...

Let's just pretend for a moment that the President did lie. And he was impeached and went to jail.

What would you guys do...I mean besides say "HAH! We were right!" pat yourselves on the back and look for something else to piss and moan about?

Frustrating when the shoe is on the other foot isn't it? Welcome to the Democratic party circa 1996.

Really, would you like to prove that lie to me?

July 12, 2004, 11:05 a.m.
Clifford D. May
NRO Contributor

Our Man in Niger
Exposed and discredited, Joe Wilson might consider going back.

[snip]

But now Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV — he of the Hermes ties and Jaguar convertibles — has been thoroughly discredited. Last week's bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report concluded that it is he who has been telling lies.

For starters, he has insisted that his wife, CIA employee Valerie Plame, was not the one who came up with the brilliant idea that the agency send him to Niger to investigate whether Saddam Hussein had been attempting to acquire uranium. "Valerie had nothing to do with the matter," Wilson says in his book. "She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip." In fact, the Senate panel found, she was the one who got him that assignment. The panel even found a memo by her. (She should have thought to use disappearing ink.)

Wilson spent a total of eight days in Niger "drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people," as he put it. On the basis of this "investigation" he confidently concluded that there was no way Saddam sought uranium from Africa. Oddly, Wilson didn't bother to write a report saying this. Instead he gave an oral briefing to a CIA official.

Oddly, too, as an investigator on assignment for the CIA he was not required to keep his mission and its conclusions confidential. And for the New York Times, he was happy to put pen to paper, to write an op-ed charging the Bush administration with "twisting," "manipulating" and "exaggerating" intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons programs "to justify an invasion."

In particular he said that President Bush was lying when, in his 2003 State of the Union address, he pronounced these words: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

We now know for certain that Wilson was wrong and that Bush's statement was entirely accurate.

The British have consistently stood by that conclusion. In September 2003, an independent British parliamentary committee looked into the matter and determined that the claim made by British intelligence was "reasonable" (the media forgot to cover that one too). Indeed, Britain's spies stand by their claim to this day. Interestingly, French intelligence also reported an Iraqi attempt to procure uranium from Niger.

[snip]

What you should do is read up on Joe Wilson. What a piece of crap this guy is. A liberal democrat whose wife works for the CIA. The CIA is at war with the Bush administration and fakes some documents (where have we seen this) to make their case against the White House.

Do some investigating. Maybe you'll see the light.

Let's see, which is more accurate with regards to defense matters? Jane's or Washington Times? That's a toughie.

Not to mention that your article is an older dated article by several months, April 27 vs. June 1.

July 12, 2004, 11:05 a.m.
Clifford D. May
NRO Contributor

Our Man in Niger
Exposed and discredited, Joe Wilson might consider going back.

[snip]

But now Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV — he of the Hermes ties and Jaguar convertibles — has been thoroughly discredited. Last week's bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report concluded that it is he who has been telling lies.
[/COLOR]

Give me the direct quote from the bipartisan intelligence committee report, and I'll believe you.

JANE'S INTELLIGENCE REVIEW - JUNE 01, 2005

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Report finds no evidence of WMD transfers to Syria
Anders Strindberg

There is no evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (WMD) having been transferred to Syria for safekeeping before the US-led invasion of the country in March 2003.

The findings were released in the final report of the Iraq Survey Group (ISG) on 25 April.

In October 2004, an initial ISG report concluded that the Iraqi government did not possess chemical or biological weapons and only had aspirations for a nuclear programme. The ISG determined that the 1991 Gulf War and subsequent UN sanctions destroyed Iraq's illegal weapons capabilities and that there was no evidence of "concerted efforts to restart the programme".

Edited: B/c it's a subscription service, I'll not post teh whole thing.

Frustrating when the shoe is on the other foot isn't it? Welcome to the Democratic party circa 1996.

Never wore that shoe to begin with. I was in Basic Training in 96. That whole year of my life is void :biggrin:

But seriously. Do I think we should have wasted our money on finding out if President Clinton was an adulterer. No... we all knew the answer. However, if I were to get into an extramarital affair in the USAF and I were convicted I would be discharged. Without all the congressional hearings. Is that fair? You all seem to think that his disloyalty to his wife was his own buisness. But it has a direct affect on this country and how it is run. He should have had some f*cking integrity. Because if I can't trust him with his own wife...how the hell can I trust him with his executive duties?

But this is off topic...and you dodged my question.

Heck, this is getting to the point where you could even attempt to justify the war by saying aliens transferred the WMD to Syria, but we don't know where the WMD is b/c we lack alien technology to locate them.

Without evidence you have nothing.

Senate Intelligence Committee Unanimously Approves Pre-War Intelligence Report

JUNE 17, 2004


WASHINGTON, DC– Senator Pat Roberts, Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, the Committee's Vice Chairman, issued the following joint statement:


"Today, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence voted unanimously to approve its report on pre-war intelligence regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs, ties to terrorists, threat to regional stability and violations of human rights. Today's vote is the culmination of over one year of intense scrutiny by the Committee of the Intelligence Community's pre-war assessments. The Committee is currently engaged with the Central Intelligence Agency over the issue of classification. The Committee is extremely disappointed by the CIA's excessive redactions to the report. Our goal is to release publicly as much of the report's findings and conclusions as soon as possible. We will work toward that goal, as we continue our work on phase two of the Committee's review."

Senate Intelligence Committee Unanimously Approves Pre-War Intelligence Report

JUNE 17, 2004


WASHINGTON, DC– Senator Pat Roberts, Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, the Committee's Vice Chairman, issued the following joint statement:


"Today, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence voted unanimously to approve its report on pre-war intelligence regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs, ties to terrorists, threat to regional stability and violations of human rights. Today's vote is the culmination of over one year of intense scrutiny by the Committee of the Intelligence Community's pre-war assessments. The Committee is currently engaged with the Central Intelligence Agency over the issue of classification. The Committee is extremely disappointed by the CIA's excessive redactions to the report. Our goal is to release publicly as much of the report's findings and conclusions as soon as possible. We will work toward that goal, as we continue our work on phase two of the Committee's review."

Why are you posting an article from 2004? We're discussing a report released in 2005.

Senator Roberts’ Statement on the Niger Documents

JULY 11, 2003

WASHINGTON, DC - U.S. Senator Pat Roberts, Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence today issued the following statement:


“Senator Rockefeller and I are committed to continue our close examination of all of the issues surrounding the Niger documents.


“So far, I am very disturbed by what appears to be extremely sloppy handling of the issue from the outset by the CIA.


“What now concerns me most, however, is what appears to be a campaign of press leaks by the CIA in an effort to discredit the President.


“Unnamed ‘intelligence officials’ are now claiming that they told the White House that attempts by Iraq to acquire uranium from countries in Africa were unfounded. I understand, however, that as late as mid-January, 2003, approximately ten days before the State of the Union speech, the CIA was still asserting that Iraq was seeking to acquire uranium from Africa and that those attempts were further evidence of Saddam’s efforts to reconstitute his nuclear program.


“I have seen no documentation that indicates that the CIA had reversed itself after January 17th and prior to the State of the Union. If the CIA had changed its position, it was incumbent on the Director of Central Intelligence to correct the record and bring it to the immediate attention of the President. It appears that he did not.


“This is not the type of responsibility that can be delegated to mid-level officials. The Director of Central Intelligence is the President’s principal advisor on intelligence matters. He should have told the President and it appears that he failed to do so.”

Never wore that shoe to begin with. I was in Basic Training in 96. That whole year of my life is void :biggrin:

But seriously. Do I think we should have wasted our money on finding out if President Clinton was an adulterer. No... we all knew the answer. However, if I were to get into an extramarital affair in the USAF and I were convicted I would be discharged. Without all the congressional hearings. Is that fair? You all seem to think that his disloyalty to his wife was his own buisness. But it has a direct affect on this country and how it is run. He should have had some f*cking integrity. Because if I can't trust him with his own wife...how the hell can I trust him with his executive duties?

But this is off topic...and you dodged my question.

Of course, I wholly supported the prosecution of Clinto, because perjury, under any circumstance, should not be condoned, especially if it involves a high ranking official. If there is the potential of perjury, we need to investigate, regardless of political party.

Senator Roberts’ Statement on the Niger Documents

JULY 11, 2003

WASHINGTON, DC - U.S. Senator Pat Roberts, Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence today issued the following statement:


“Senator Rockefeller and I are committed to continue our close examination of all of the issues surrounding the Niger documents.


“So far, I am very disturbed by what appears to be extremely sloppy handling of the issue from the outset by the CIA.


“What now concerns me most, however, is what appears to be a campaign of press leaks by the CIA in an effort to discredit the President.


“Unnamed ‘intelligence officials’ are now claiming that they told the White House that attempts by Iraq to acquire uranium from countries in Africa were unfounded. I understand, however, that as late as mid-January, 2003, approximately ten days before the State of the Union speech, the CIA was still asserting that Iraq was seeking to acquire uranium from Africa and that those attempts were further evidence of Saddam’s efforts to reconstitute his nuclear program.


“I have seen no documentation that indicates that the CIA had reversed itself after January 17th and prior to the State of the Union. If the CIA had changed its position, it was incumbent on the Director of Central Intelligence to correct the record and bring it to the immediate attention of the President. It appears that he did not.


“This is not the type of responsibility that can be delegated to mid-level officials. The Director of Central Intelligence is the President’s principal advisor on intelligence matters. He should have told the President and it appears that he failed to do so.”

That's still not direct from the bipartisan committee's report. That's the best, 'unnamed sources.' Might as well be Libby who told them that.

Still...nobody has answered my query.

Still...nobody has answered my query.

What was your query? It got lost in all the arguments.

Yeah...that happens in these threads... :biggrin:

I asked what your solution to the current situation in Iraq and Afganistan would be if the President were lying and he was impeached.

Give me the direct quote from the bipartisan intelligence committee report, and I'll believe you.
HERE YOU GO!

Please take the time to read this. I TOOK THE TIME to find it. The truth is NOT in the report because the Democraps wouldn't allow it. Why do Democrats hate this Country so much and why do they want to do it harm?

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - July 9. 2004

Iraq Pre-War Intelligence Report: Additional Views of Chairman Pat Roberts joined by Senator Christopher S. Bond, Senator Orrin G. Hatch


Despite our hard and successful work to deliver a unanimous report, however, there were two issues on which the Republicans and Democrats could not agree: 1) whether the Committee should conclude that former Ambassador Joseph Wilson’s public statements were not based on knowledge he actually possessed, and 2) whether the Committee should conclude that it was the former ambassador’s wife who recommended him for his trip to Niger.

Niger

The Committee began its review of prewar intelligence on Iraq by examining the Intelligence Community’s sharing of intelligence information with the UNMOVIC inspection teams. (The Committee’s findings on that topic can be found in the section of the report titled, “The Intelligence Community’s Sharing of Intelligence on Iraqi Suspect WMD Sites with UN Inspectors.”) Shortly thereafter, we expanded the review when former Ambassador Joseph Wilson began speaking publicly about his role in exploring the possibility that Iraq was seeking or may have acquired uranium yellowcake from Africa. Ambassador Wilson’s emergence was precipitated by a passage in President Bush’s January 2003 State of the Union address which is now referred to as “the sixteen words.” President Bush stated, “. . . the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” The details of the Committee’s findings and conclusions on this issue can be found in the Niger section of the report.

What cannot be found, however, are two conclusions upon which the Committee’s Democrats would not agree. While there was no dispute with the underlying facts, my Democrat colleagues refused to allow the following conclusions to appear in the report:

Conclusion: The plan to send the former ambassador to Niger was suggested by the former ambassador’s wife, a CIA employee. That makes Wilson a Liar

The former ambassador’s wife suggested her husband for the trip to Niger in February 2002. The former ambassador had traveled previously to Niger on behalf of the CIA, also at the suggestion of his wife, to look into another matter not related to Iraq. On February 12, 2002, the former ambassador’s wife sent a memorandum to a Deputy Chief of a division in the CIA’s Directorate of Operations which said, “[m]y husband has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity.” This was just one day before the same Directorate of Operations division sent a cable to one of its overseas stations requesting concurrence with the division’s idea to send the former ambassador to Niger.

Conclusion: Rather than speaking publicly about his actual experiences during his inquiry of the Niger issue, the former ambassador seems to have included information he learned from press accounts and from his beliefs about how the Intelligence Community would have or should have handled the information he provided.

At the time the former ambassador traveled to Niger, the Intelligence Community did not have in its possession any actual documents on the alleged Niger-Iraq uranium deal, only second hand reporting of the deal. The former ambassador’s comments to reporters that the Niger-Iraq uranium documents “may have been forged because ‘the dates were wrong and the names were wrong,’” could not have been based on the former ambassador’s actual experiences because the Intelligence Community did not have the documents at the time of the ambassador’s trip. In addition, nothing in the report from the former ambassador’s trip said anything about documents having been forged or the names or dates in the reports having been incorrect. The former ambassador told Committee staff that he, in fact, did not have access to any of the names and dates in the CIA’s reports and said he may have become confused about his own recollection after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported in March 2003 that the names and dates on the documents were not correct. Of note, the names and dates in the documents that the IAEA found to be incorrect were not names or dates included in the CIA reports.

Following the Vice President’s review of an intelligence report regarding a possible uranium deal, he asked his briefer for the CIA’s analysis of the issue. It was this request which generated Mr. Wilson’s trip to Niger. The former ambassador’s public comments suggesting that the Vice President had been briefed on the information gathered during his trip is not correct, however. While the CIA responded to the Vice President’s request for the Agency’s analysis, they never provided the information gathered by the former Ambassador. The former ambassador, in an NBC Meet the Press interview on July 6, 2003, said, “The office of the Vice President, I am absolutely convinced, received a very specific response to the question it asked and that response was based upon my trip out there.” The former ambassador was speaking on the basis of what he believed should have happened based on his former government experience, but he had no knowledge that this did happen.

These and other public comments from the former ambassador, such as comments that his report “debunked” the Niger-Iraq uranium story, were incorrect and have led to a distortion in the press and in the public’s understanding of the facts surrounding the Niger-Iraq uranium story. The Committee found that, for most analysts, the former ambassador’s report lent more credibility, not less, to the reported Niger-Iraq uranium deal.

During Mr. Wilson’s media blitz, he appeared on more than thirty television shows including entertainment venues. Time and again, Joe Wilson told anyone who would listen that the President had lied to the American people, that the Vice President had lied, and that he had “debunked” the claim that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa. As discussed in the Niger section of the report, not only did he NOT “debunk” the claim, he actually gave some intelligence analysts even more reason to believe that it may be true. I believed very strongly that it was important for the Committee to conclude publicly that many of the statements made by Ambassador Wilson were not only incorrect, but had no basis in fact.

In an interview with Committee staff, Mr. Wilson was asked how he knew some of the things he was stating publicly with such confidence. On at least two occasions he admitted that he had no direct knowledge to support some of his claims and that he was drawing on either unrelated past experiences or no information at all. For example, when asked how he “knew” that the Intelligence Community had rejected the possibility of a Niger-Iraq uranium deal, as he wrote in his book, he told Committee staff that his assertion may have involved “a little literary flair.”

The former Ambassador, either by design or through ignorance, gave the American people and, for that matter, the world a version of events that was inaccurate, unsubstantiated, and misleading. Surely, the Senate Intelligence Committee, which has unique access to all of the facts, should have been able to agree on a conclusion that would correct the public record. Unfortunately, we were unable to do so.

I hope this satisfies you. I'll patiently wait for the appropriate ...you know... ahem.

Yeah...that happens in these threads... :biggrin:

I asked what your solution to the current situation in Iraq and Afganistan would be if the President were lying and he was impeached.

Last reply, before I leave. Spent far too much time debating here.

Actually, perhaps it would be best if he weren't impeached, to prevent Cheney from becoming President. :) Honestly, I would never have gotten involved with Saddam in the first place in the 80s.

First, I'd put an end to the 'black' torture sites that the CIA has around the world on non-US soil. Physical torture is unproductive, and doesn't yield the best information. And, it's hurting our image in the Muslim world.

Second, I'd just be honest about the WMD situation, the world could always use more honesty. Since we're already in this mess, no other option but to withdraw in the future, but give a timetable. Everyone likes a timetable, instead of this vague handwaving.

Third, give the Iraqi police and Army some armored vehicles. Those poor guys are getting massacred in their Dodge pickups. There must be a bunch of surplus M113s that can be dug up and outfitted with slat or ERA armor.

send me the link, MM.

It is all right here (http://roberts.senate.gov/07-09a-2004.htm).

Stick around. You might learn something.

We need to hear more left-of-center arguments. It helps us on the right to keep our skills sharp.

When the going gets tough, the tough get going.

The truth shall set you free.

I predict by the time you hit 35, with a wife, house, kids, and a job, you'll join our side. It is inevitable. Trust the force Luke.

Last reply, before I leave. Spent far too much time debating here.

Actually, perhaps it would be best if he weren't impeached, to prevent Cheney from becoming President. :) Honestly, I would never have gotten involved with Saddam in the first place in the 80s.

I didn't has what you would have done but what you would do now. And lack of involvement in world affairs is what got us into this situation in the first place.

First, I'd put an end to the 'black' torture sites that the CIA has around the world on non-US soil. Physical torture is unproductive, and doesn't yield the best information. And, it's hurting our image in the Muslim world.

True...but if it's "black" than that means nobody knows about it...where's your proof?

Second, I'd just be honest about the WMD situation, the world could always use more honesty. Since we're already in this mess, no other option but to withdraw in the future, but give a timetable. Everyone likes a timetable, instead of this vague handwaving.

How can we have a timetable? It's not like saying "I'm gonna mow the lawn on friday". It isn't that simple. We didn't have a timetable during any conflict. We didn't have a timetable to leave Japan...we still haven't. We didn't have a timetable to leave Korea...we still haven't. Germany...nope. Where did all this timetable crud come from? You wanna ask the enemy when it's timetable is for not killing innocents anymore? I wonder what theirs is? Furnishing a hard timetable is not only impractical, it is impossible.


Third, give the Iraqi police and Army some armored vehicles. Those poor guys are getting massacred in their Dodge pickups. There must be a bunch of surplus M113s that can be dug up and outfitted with slat or ERA armor.


You mean like this?

The spies who pushed for war
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,999737,00.html
Julian Borger reports on the shadow rightwing intelligence network set up in Washington to second-guess the CIA and deliver a justification for toppling Saddam Hussein by force

Thursday July 17, 2003
The Guardian

As the CIA director, George Tenet, arrived at the Senate yesterday to give secret testimony on the Niger uranium affair, it was becoming increasingly clear in Washington that the scandal was only a small, well-documented symptom of a complete breakdown in US intelligence that helped steer America into war.

It represents the Bush administration's second catastrophic intelligence failure. But the CIA and FBI's inability to prevent the September 11 attacks was largely due to internal institutional weaknesses.

This time the implications are far more damaging for the White House, which stands accused of politicising and contaminating its own source of intelligence.

According to former Bush officials, all defence and intelligence sources, senior administration figures created a shadow agency of Pentagon analysts staffed mainly by ideological amateurs to compete with the CIA and its military counterpart, the Defence Intelligence Agency.

The agency, called the Office of Special Plans (OSP), was set up by the defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, to second-guess CIA information and operated under the patronage of hardline conservatives in the top rungs of the administration, the Pentagon and at the White House, including Vice-President Dick Cheney.

The ideologically driven network functioned like a shadow government, much of it off the official payroll and beyond congressional oversight. But it proved powerful enough to prevail in a struggle with the State Department and the CIA by establishing a justification for war.

Mr Tenet has officially taken responsibility for the president's unsubstantiated claim in January that Saddam Hussein's regime had been trying to buy uranium in Africa, but he also said his agency was under pressure to justify a war that the administration had already decided on.

How much Mr Tenet reveals of where that pressure was coming from could have lasting political fallout for Mr Bush and his re-election prospects, which only a few weeks ago seemed impregnable. As more Americans die in Iraq and the reasons for the war are revealed, his victory in 2004 no longer looks like a foregone conclusion.

The White House counter-attacked yesterday when new chief spokesman, Scott McClellan, accused critics of "politicising the war" and trying to "rewrite history". But the Democratic leadership kept up its questions over the White House role.

The president's most trusted adviser, Mr Cheney, was at the shadow network's sharp end. He made several trips to the CIA in Langley, Virginia, to demand a more "forward-leaning" interpretation of the threat posed by Saddam. When he was not there to make his influence felt, his chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, was. Such hands-on involvement in the processing of intelligence data was unprecedented for a vice-president in recent times, and it put pressure on CIA officials to come up with the appropriate results.

Another frequent visitor was Newt Gingrich, the former Republican party leader who resurfaced after September 11 as a Pentagon "consultant" and a member of its unpaid defence advisory board, with influence far beyond his official title.

An intelligence official confirmed Mr Gingrich made "a couple of visits" but said there was nothing unusual about that.

Rick Tyler, Mr Gingrich's spokesman, said: "If he was at the CIA he was there to listen and learn, not to persuade or influence."

Mr Gingrich visited Langley three times before the war, and according to accounts, the political veteran sought to browbeat analysts into toughening up their assessments of Saddam's menace.

Mr Gingrich gained access to the CIA headquarters and was listened to because he was seen as a personal emissary of the Pentagon and, in particular, of the OSP.

In the days after September 11, Mr Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, mounted an attempt to include Iraq in the war against terror. When the established agencies came up with nothing concrete to link Iraq and al-Qaida, the OSP was given the task of looking more carefully.

William Luti, a former navy officer and ex-aide to Mr Cheney, runs the day-to-day operations, answering to Douglas Feith, a defence undersecretary and a former Reagan official.

The OSP had access to a huge amount of raw intelligence. It came in part from "report officers" in the CIA's directorate of operations whose job is to sift through reports from agents around the world, filtering out the unsubstantiated and the incredible. Under pressure from the hawks such as Mr Cheney and Mr Gingrich, those officers became reluctant to discard anything, no matter how far-fetched. The OSP also sucked in countless tips from the Iraqi National Congress and other opposition groups, which were viewed with far more scepticism by the CIA and the state department.

There was a mountain of documentation to look through and not much time. The administration wanted to use the momentum gained in Afghanistan to deal with Iraq once and for all. The OSP itself had less than 10 full-time staff, so to help deal with the load, the office hired scores of temporary "consultants". They included lawyers, congressional staffers, and policy wonks from the numerous rightwing thinktanks in Washington. Few had experience in intelligence.

"Most of the people they had in that office were off the books, on personal services contracts. At one time, there were over 100 of them," said an intelligence source. The contracts allow a department to hire individuals, without specifying a job description.

As John Pike, a defence analyst at the thinktank GlobalSecurity.org, put it, the contracts "are basically a way they could pack the room with their little friends".

"They surveyed data and picked out what they liked," said Gregory Thielmann, a senior official in the state department's intelligence bureau until his retirement in September. "The whole thing was bizarre. The secretary of defence had this huge defence intelligence agency, and he went around it."

In fact, the OSP's activities were a com plete mystery to the DIA and the Pentagon.

"The iceberg analogy is a good one," said a senior officer who left the Pentagon during the planning of the Iraq war. "No one from the military staff heard, saw or discussed anything with them."

The civilian agencies had the same impression of the OSP sleuths. "They were a pretty shadowy presence," Mr Thielmann said. "Normally when you compile an intelligence document, all the agencies get together to discuss it. The OSP was never present at any of the meetings I attended."

Democratic congressman David Obey, who is investigating the OSP, said: "That office was charged with collecting, vetting and disseminating intelligence completely outside of the normal intelligence apparatus. In fact, it appears that information collected by this office was in some instances not even shared with established intelligence agencies and in numerous instances was passed on to the national security council and the president without having been vetted with anyone other than political appointees."

The OSP was an open and largely unfiltered conduit to the White House not only for the Iraqi opposition. It also forged close ties to a parallel, ad hoc intelligence operation inside Ariel Sharon's office in Israel specifically to bypass Mossad and provide the Bush administration with more alarmist reports on Saddam's Iraq than Mossad was prepared to authorise.

"None of the Israelis who came were cleared into the Pentagon through normal channels," said one source familiar with the visits. Instead, they were waved in on Mr Feith's authority without having to fill in the usual forms.

The exchange of information continued a long-standing relationship Mr Feith and other Washington neo-conservatives had with Israel's Likud party.

In 1996, he and Richard Perle - now an influential Pentagon figure - served as advisers to the then Likud leader, Binyamin Netanyahu. In a policy paper they wrote, entitled A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm, the two advisers said that Saddam would have to be destroyed, and Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Iran would have to be overthrown or destabilised, for Israel to be truly safe.

The Israeli influence was revealed most clearly by a story floated by unnamed senior US officials in the American press, suggesting the reason that no banned weapons had been found in Iraq was that they had been smuggled into Syria. Intelligence sources say that the story came from the office of the Israeli prime minister.

The OSP absorbed this heady brew of raw intelligence, rumour and plain disinformation and made it a "product", a prodigious stream of reports with a guaranteed readership in the White House. The primary customers were Mr Cheney, Mr Libby and their closest ideological ally on the national security council, Stephen Hadley, Condoleezza Rice's deputy.

In turn, they leaked some of the claims to the press, and used others as a stick with which to beat the CIA and the state department analysts, demanding they investigate the OSP leads.

The big question looming over Congress as Mr Tenet walked into his closed-door session yesterday was whether this shadow intelligence operation would survive national scrutiny and who would pay the price for allowing it to help steer the country into war.

A former senior CIA official insisted yesterday that Mr Feith, at least, was "finished" - but that may be wishful thinking by a rival organisation.

As he prepares for re-election, Mr Bush may opt to tough it out, rather than acknowledge the severity of the problem by firing loyalists. But in that case, it will inevitably be harder to re-establish confidence in the intelligence on which the White House is basing its decisions, and the world's sole superpower risks stumbling onwards half-blind, unable to distinguish real threats from phantoms.


Cheney visiting Langley, let alone leaning on the agents there to give the "proper" intel, was not done previously. Sounds hokey to me and lends credence to the charges of lying to go to war.

This is getting tiresome...

Let's just pretend for a moment that the President did lie. And he was impeached and went to jail.

What would you guys do...I mean besides say "HAH! We were right!" pat yourselves on the back and look for something else to piss and moan about?

I wouldn't do anything, but It would show the world that we can hold ourselves accountable for our own mistakes. Otherwise, we just look like the bully waving the biggest stick and you can't sell the thought of freedom when doing that.

You might have not been for the witch hunt on Clinton, but the conservatives here were aching to see him hang for lieing about a measly b-job (yes it was wrong). Now they are willing to turn a blind eye on the possibility of a concocted war (I think it was so).

Anybody remember the Rockefeller Memo?

Looks like the Democrats are running it play by play.

Here is the full text of the memo from the office of Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WVa.) on setting a strategy for pursuing an independent investigation of pre-war White House intelligence dealings on Iraq.

Rockefeller memo (http://www.hillnews.com/news/110603/memo.aspx)

We have carefully reviewed our options under the rules and believe we have identified the best approach. Our plan is as follows:

1) Pull the majority along as far as we can on issues that may lead to major new disclosures regarding improper or questionable conduct by administration officials. We are having some success in that regard.

For example, in addition to the President's State of the Union speech, the chairman [Sen. Pat Roberts] has agreed to look at the activities of the office of the Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, as well as Secretary Bolton's office at the State Department.

The fact that the chairman supports our investigations into these offices and cosigns our requests for information is helpful and potentially crucial. We don't know what we will find but our prospects for getting the access we seek is far greater when we have the backing of the majority. [We can verbally mention some of the intriguing leads we are pursuing.]

2) Assiduously prepare Democratic 'additional views' to attach to any interim or final reports the committee may release. Committee rules provide this opportunity and we intend to take full advantage of it.

In that regard we may have already compiled all the public statements on Iraq made by senior administration officials. We will identify the most exaggerated claims. We will contrast them with the intelligence estimates that have since been declassified. Our additional views will also, among other things, castigate the majority for seeking to limit the scope of the inquiry.

The Democrats will then be in a strong position to reopen the question of establishing an Independent Commission [i.e., the Corzine Amendment.]

3) Prepare to launch an independent investigation when it becomes clear we have exhausted the opportunity to usefully collaborate with the majority. We can pull the trigger on an independent investigation of the administration's use of intelligence at any time. But we can only do so once.

The best time to do so will probably be next year, either:

A) After we have already released our additional views on an interim report, thereby providing as many as three opportunities to make our case to the public. Additional views on the interim report (1). The announcement of our independent investigation (2). And (3) additional views on the final investigation. Or:

B) Once we identify solid leads the majority does not want to pursue, we would attract more coverage and have greater credibility in that context than one in which we simply launch an independent investigation based on principled but vague notions regarding the use of intelligence.

In the meantime, even without a specifically authorized independent investigation, we continue to act independently when we encounter footdragging on the part of the majority. For example, the FBI Niger investigation was done solely at the request of the vice chairman. We have independently submitted written requests to the DOD and we are preparing further independent requests for information.

SUMMARY: Intelligence issues are clearly secondary to the public's concern regarding the insurgency in Iraq. Yet we have an im