RP-in-Nebraska
08-29-2006, 02:00 PM
Here is the post that I promised Tom. All I am requesting is that for those of you who believe that Bush has intentionally deceived the American people into a war with Iraq for personal gain, please read this post and try to see how a person can come to the logical conclusion that Iraq posed a threat to our Nation. I know it will take some time to read all of it and all of the links but not nearly as much time as it took for me to compile it. I tried to remain respectful and present the information as sincerely as possible.
PREFACE
In his state of the union address, Bush claimed that Iraq was seeking weapons of mass destruction. He has also claimed that Iraq had ties to al Qaeda. These two points are the two strongest cases for war. These two points are what liberals try to prove wrong over and over again. This post will address these two claims.
THE DOWNING STREET MEMO
The Downing Street memo is largely a non-issue. It is a forged memo claiming the same things that liberals had been claiming for months prior to it’s publication. This time it was issued in the form of forgery yet the liberals see this as a smoking gun?
One thing to note, the Downing Street memo mentions talks with Colin Powell. If the memo is 100% truth, which I doubt it is, then there is every reason to believe that Powell knew as much as anybody about Iraq’s WMD’s and al Qaeda ties.
There is one sentence that anti-Bush activists consistently cite as clear proof. That sentence states “But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.” Several analysts of this memo have indicated the opinionated nature of this single sentence. When one reads the entire memo in context, it can be noted with reasonable certainty that this sentence is the opinion of the author of the memo – not what was actually discussed in the meeting. Also, note that the meeting was held on July 23, 2002. This was about 5 months after Wilson was sent to Niger at his wife’s (Valerie Plame) request and reporting what was found (more on Wilson later in this post). The Senate Intelligence Committee Report on Pre-War intelligence concerning Iraq stated this on page 73: “The report on the former ambassador's trip to Niger, disseminated in March 2002, did not change any analysts' assessments of the Iraq-Niger uranium deal. For most analysts, the information in the report lent more credibility to the original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal, but State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) analysts believed that the report supported their assessment that Niger was unlikely to be wiling or able to sell uranium to Iraq.”
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422 ... 1/sec2.pdf (http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/13jul20041400/www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/pdf/s108-301/sec2.pdf)
It is also very important to note that British officials have NEVER recanted on their notion that Iraq was pursuing uranium. U.S. officials recanted after it was discovered that the Italian documents upon which the CIA based it’s claim were proven to be forged. The reason Great Britain never recanted is because the reports were true even though the Nigerian documents were forged. Uranium was discovered in Iraq in large quantities after the war was started. I will get into this more deeply later on in this post.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq ... nium_x.htm (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-07-07-iraq-uranium_x.htm)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle ... 872201.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3872201.stm)
One last thing on the Downing Street memo. If this memo were 100% accurate, does anybody doubt that Bush, Blair, Powell, Cheney, and other high ranking officials met to discuss such things?
THE DUELFER REPORT
Lets examine what the Duelfer Report says. It indicates basically that no WMD’s were found but also indicates “strong evidence of the intent” to produce or seek WMD’s. It also states that some U.N.-banned non-WMD’s were found which were hidden during the 2002-2003 U.N. inspections. These banned weapons were themselves in direct violation of 14 separate U.N. resolutions and were grounds for military action as stated in those resolutions. David Kay, head of the Iraq Survey Group who issued the Duelfer Report, stated the following in an oral presentation to the Senate Armed Services Committee:
"Based on the intelligence that existed, I think it was reasonable to reach the conclusion that Iraq posed an imminent threat. Now that you know reality on the ground as opposed to what you estimated before, you may reach a different conclusion-—although I must say I actually think what we learned during the inspection made Iraq a more dangerous place, potentially, than, in fact, we thought it was even before the war."
The report also states that there is “evidence of WMD-related program activities". Small test amounts of enriched uranium were found from a single illegal gas centrifuge. The report indicated that production of large quantities of mustard gas was approximately 3 to 6 months away from the time of the start of the war (March, 2003). It also states that EVERY senior Iraqi official under Saddam’s regime stated that Saddam was still pursuing WMD’s. It further states that Iraq used money from the Oil-for Food program to pay off France, China, Russia, and the U.N. Security council to look the other way so that these WMD programs could advance. It does state that Saddam abandoned his intentions to produce biological weapons in 1996 when the economy started to suffer but never abandoned his intentions to produce chemical weapons.
The Report states “Saddam never abandoned his intentions to resume a [Chemical Warfare] effort when sanctions where lifted and conditions were judged favorable: Saddam and many Iraqis regarded CW as a proven weapon against an enemy's superior numerical strength, a weapon that had saved the nation at least once already - during the Iran-Iraq war - and contributed to deterring the Coalition in 1991 from advancing to Baghdad.”
DEMOCRATS - EXTREMELY DUMB OR EXTREMELY GULLIBLE?
Nearly all the prominent members of the House and Senate were very vocal about their support for military action against Iraq – both republicans and democrats. Consider the quotes listed below. The fact that some were pre-Bush presidency indicates that congress saw the threat of Iraq before Bush even had the chance to “lie” to them. What changed from the late 1990’s to March, 2003 in terms of our belief that Iraq had WMD’s? The answer is absolutely nothing! Yet, Bush is bashed for his “lying” about WMD’s because he continues down the same path that the Democrats started under Clinton. Unbelievable! The difference now is that Bush had the fortitude to actually commit to the military action that everyone was demanding. What we have discovered has become a possible embarrassment so now everybody is looking to blame someone – namely Bush.
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction." Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton. (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
It remains overwhelmingly clear that high ranking officials on both sides of the aisle earnestly believed that Iraq had WMD’s. Would these people actually put so much stock in to what a Republican president would tell them that they would make such bold statements without seeing the evidence themselves? It would be ridiculous to think that! No, the high ranking Democrats were armed with the same information as President Bush and as President Clinton before him, otherwise, how could they deduce such absolute certainties. And, as evidenced by the dates of the above quotes, it was THEY who started selling this war to the American People long before W even started campaigning for office, but Bush-bashers seem to overlook that little fact.
WAS THERE OR WASN’T THERE URANIUM IN IRAQ?
Now that we’ve established that everybody was on board with the WMD’s claim prior to the start of the war, let’s examine the evidence to see if there actually were WMD’s in Iraq. Much of the criticism of the President stems from his reliance upon the CIA report that indicated that Iraqi officials met with Niger to broker a Uranium deal – this was claimed by both the British and the U.S. intelligence agencies and the British never recanted on this assertion even though they were facing intense political pressure to do so. This report of Saddam sending officials to Niger is either true or false, correct? If this report is true, then it legitimizes everything that Bush has asserted about Saddam and his quest for uranium, agreed? If this report is false, it doesn’t necessarily rule out that Saddam had a hunger for uranium. What if Iraq obtained uranium through other avenues? This is a possibility, correct? Well, guess what? Uranium WAS found in Iraq in Tuwaitha. What is so ironic is the fact that this was rarely mentioned in the press other than to portray the U.S. as breaking international law for removing it without approval from the IAEA. The discovery of yellow-cake uranium was barely news but the U.S. not informing the IAEA was more important news. (Remember that the CIA's assertion that Iraq was seeking yellow cake uranium from Niger is the subject of much debate - I don't there is any debate - Saddam had it all along).
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq ... nium_x.htm (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-07-07-iraq-uranium_x.htm)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle ... 872201.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3872201.stm)
How about the discovery of nerve gas.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle ... 861197.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3861197.stm)
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,123680,00.html
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Re ... p?ID=13835 (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13835)
The Senate Intelligence Committee Report on Pre-War intelligence concerning Iraq also has the following paragraph on page 45:
The former ambassador also told Committee staff that he was the source of a Washington Post article…which said, "among the Envoy's conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because 'the dates were wrong and the names were wrong.'" Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the "dates were wrong and the names were wrong" when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports. The former ambassador said he may have “misspoken” when he said the documents were forged.
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422 ... 1/sec2.pdf (http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/13jul20041400/www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/pdf/s108-301/sec2.pdf)
Conclusion 13 (page 73)
The report on the former ambassador's trip to Niger, disseminated in March 2002, did not change any analysts' assessments of the Iraq-Niger uranium deal. For most analysts, the information in the report lent more credibility to the original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal, but State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) analysts believed that the report supported their assessment that Niger was unlikely to be wiling or able to sell uranium to Iraq.
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422 ... 1/sec2.pdf (http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/13jul20041400/www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/pdf/s108-301/sec2.pdf)
SADDAM AND OSAMA
Another important assertion that Bush made prior to the war with Iraq is that Iraq and Saddam’s regime had connections to al Qaeda and other terrorists. Please note that Bush never said that Saddam or Iraq caused 9-11 but only that they were linked to terrorist groups that have caused death to U.S. citizens. Read the following graphic that the New York times printed as part of a retraction to a story where it stated that the 9-11 Commission found that Iraq did not aid in the 9-11 attacks……Bush never said that they did – he has always maintained that Iraq was NOT involved in 9-11 but that they DO have ties to al Qaeda.
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2004/ ... APHIC.html (http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2004/06/20/weekinreview/20040620_QUOTES2_GRAPHIC.html)
This article from the BBC quotes Bush directly in 2003 saying "We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 11 September attacks."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3118262.stm
This article from The Guardian indicates that CIA agents in 1999 have documented meetings of Iraq with al Qaeda.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international ... 00,00.html (http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,314700,00.html)
How about the 1998 Justice Department indictment under President Clinton for Osama Bin Laden, which stated: ". . . al-Qa'eda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al-Qa'eda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al-Qa'eda would work co-operatively with the Government of Iraq."
What about the report from former CIA director George Tenet, a Clinton appointee that states "We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and Al Qa'eda going back a decade. Credible information indicates that Iraq and Al Qa'eda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal non-aggression. We have credible reporting that Al Qa'eda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities. Iraq has provided training to Al Qa'eda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs."
British journalist Melanie Phillips pulls it all together here
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main ... wstop.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/06/20/do2001.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/06/20/ixnewstop.html)
Please note that the NY Times, BBC, and The Guardian are not neo-con think tanks.
Finally, "Were there contacts between Al Qaeda and Iraq? Yes . . . no question. The vice president is saying, I think, that there were connections . . . we don't disagree with that" Democrat Lee Hamilton, vice chairman of the 9-11 Commission.
Russia’s Putin even warned the U.S that Iraq was preparing terrorist attacks in the U.S. Couldn’t a person logically conclude that Iraq was a threat based on this information?
"After Sept. 11, 2001, and before the start of the military operation in Iraq, the Russian special services, the intelligence service, received information that officials from Saddam's regime were preparing terrorist attacks in the United States and outside it against the U.S. military and other interests,"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... Jun18.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53096-2004Jun18.html)
Former President Clinton has supported Bush throughout the entire ordeal. He certainly knows the intelligence information which Bush had because he was in the same position a few short years earlier. He and his administration vehemently believed that Iraq posed a threat and that Iraq had specific ties with al Qaeda and Bin Laden. Commenting on WMD’s and Bush’s actions, Clinton said the following “You couldn't responsibly ignore the possibility that a tyrant had these stocks."
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/19/clinto ... index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/19/clinton.iraq/index.html)
The Senate Intelligence Committee Report on Pre-War intelligence concerning Iraq certainly backs any, every, and all claims Bush or his administrations has ever promoted with regards to Iraq having ties to terrorism. The link below is to Chapter 12 Iraq’s Links to Terrorism.
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422 ... /sec12.pdf (http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/13jul20041400/www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/pdf/s108-301/sec12.pdf)
Hillary Clinton has said that the intelligence in regards to Iraq has been consistent for over a decade and that’s why she supported Bush.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/regiona ... 5434c.html (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/regional/story/370813p-315434c.html)
Below are some video links of prominent Democrats bolstering the claims that Iraq had WMD’s and links with terrorist organizations.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i87cZ3Og6ts&eurl=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_CepS8u9wQ&eurl=
COLIN POWELL
People often look to Colin Powell’s disappointment and displeasure with his own remarks to the U.N. as “proof” that Bush lied and deceived. Never has Powell blamed Bush for anything. Quite the contrary. As recent as September 8, 2005, Powell said this "I'm always a reluctant warrior. And I don't resent the term, I admire the term, but when the president decided that it was not tolerable for this regime to remain in violation of all these U.N. resolutions, I'm right there with him with the use of force.” Powell’s malcontent and shame from that speech he gave to the U.N. is not with Bush or his administration, it is with the failure of our intelligence agents "George Tenet did not sit there for five days with me misleading me. He believed what he was giving to me was accurate. … The intelligence system did not work well. There were some people in the intelligence community who knew at that time that some of these sources were not good, and shouldn't be relied upon, and they didn't speak up. That devastated me."….” But I'm glad that Saddam Hussein is gone. I'm glad that that regime is gone."
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Politics/sto ... 979&page=1 (http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Politics/story?id=1105979&page=1)
Also, as stated previously, the Downing Street memo mentions talks with Colin Powell. If the memo is 100% truth, which I doubt it is, then there is every reason to believe that Powell knew as much as anybody about WMD’s and al Qaeda ties
IN CONCLUSION
The above information accurately portrays the intelligence available prior to the start of the Iraq war. The notion that Bush “lied” to start a war is simply not supported by the evidence. I only ask that you read the above information with an open mind and perhaps try to recreate the events in your mind of Post 9-11 and pre-Iraq war to determine if you can see how a rational and logical person can come to the conclusion that Iraq either possessed or was pursuing WMD’s, that Iraq did have ties to al Qaeda, and that Iraq could logically be seen as an imminent threat.
Thank You for reading this.
PREFACE
In his state of the union address, Bush claimed that Iraq was seeking weapons of mass destruction. He has also claimed that Iraq had ties to al Qaeda. These two points are the two strongest cases for war. These two points are what liberals try to prove wrong over and over again. This post will address these two claims.
THE DOWNING STREET MEMO
The Downing Street memo is largely a non-issue. It is a forged memo claiming the same things that liberals had been claiming for months prior to it’s publication. This time it was issued in the form of forgery yet the liberals see this as a smoking gun?
One thing to note, the Downing Street memo mentions talks with Colin Powell. If the memo is 100% truth, which I doubt it is, then there is every reason to believe that Powell knew as much as anybody about Iraq’s WMD’s and al Qaeda ties.
There is one sentence that anti-Bush activists consistently cite as clear proof. That sentence states “But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.” Several analysts of this memo have indicated the opinionated nature of this single sentence. When one reads the entire memo in context, it can be noted with reasonable certainty that this sentence is the opinion of the author of the memo – not what was actually discussed in the meeting. Also, note that the meeting was held on July 23, 2002. This was about 5 months after Wilson was sent to Niger at his wife’s (Valerie Plame) request and reporting what was found (more on Wilson later in this post). The Senate Intelligence Committee Report on Pre-War intelligence concerning Iraq stated this on page 73: “The report on the former ambassador's trip to Niger, disseminated in March 2002, did not change any analysts' assessments of the Iraq-Niger uranium deal. For most analysts, the information in the report lent more credibility to the original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal, but State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) analysts believed that the report supported their assessment that Niger was unlikely to be wiling or able to sell uranium to Iraq.”
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422 ... 1/sec2.pdf (http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/13jul20041400/www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/pdf/s108-301/sec2.pdf)
It is also very important to note that British officials have NEVER recanted on their notion that Iraq was pursuing uranium. U.S. officials recanted after it was discovered that the Italian documents upon which the CIA based it’s claim were proven to be forged. The reason Great Britain never recanted is because the reports were true even though the Nigerian documents were forged. Uranium was discovered in Iraq in large quantities after the war was started. I will get into this more deeply later on in this post.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq ... nium_x.htm (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-07-07-iraq-uranium_x.htm)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle ... 872201.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3872201.stm)
One last thing on the Downing Street memo. If this memo were 100% accurate, does anybody doubt that Bush, Blair, Powell, Cheney, and other high ranking officials met to discuss such things?
THE DUELFER REPORT
Lets examine what the Duelfer Report says. It indicates basically that no WMD’s were found but also indicates “strong evidence of the intent” to produce or seek WMD’s. It also states that some U.N.-banned non-WMD’s were found which were hidden during the 2002-2003 U.N. inspections. These banned weapons were themselves in direct violation of 14 separate U.N. resolutions and were grounds for military action as stated in those resolutions. David Kay, head of the Iraq Survey Group who issued the Duelfer Report, stated the following in an oral presentation to the Senate Armed Services Committee:
"Based on the intelligence that existed, I think it was reasonable to reach the conclusion that Iraq posed an imminent threat. Now that you know reality on the ground as opposed to what you estimated before, you may reach a different conclusion-—although I must say I actually think what we learned during the inspection made Iraq a more dangerous place, potentially, than, in fact, we thought it was even before the war."
The report also states that there is “evidence of WMD-related program activities". Small test amounts of enriched uranium were found from a single illegal gas centrifuge. The report indicated that production of large quantities of mustard gas was approximately 3 to 6 months away from the time of the start of the war (March, 2003). It also states that EVERY senior Iraqi official under Saddam’s regime stated that Saddam was still pursuing WMD’s. It further states that Iraq used money from the Oil-for Food program to pay off France, China, Russia, and the U.N. Security council to look the other way so that these WMD programs could advance. It does state that Saddam abandoned his intentions to produce biological weapons in 1996 when the economy started to suffer but never abandoned his intentions to produce chemical weapons.
The Report states “Saddam never abandoned his intentions to resume a [Chemical Warfare] effort when sanctions where lifted and conditions were judged favorable: Saddam and many Iraqis regarded CW as a proven weapon against an enemy's superior numerical strength, a weapon that had saved the nation at least once already - during the Iran-Iraq war - and contributed to deterring the Coalition in 1991 from advancing to Baghdad.”
DEMOCRATS - EXTREMELY DUMB OR EXTREMELY GULLIBLE?
Nearly all the prominent members of the House and Senate were very vocal about their support for military action against Iraq – both republicans and democrats. Consider the quotes listed below. The fact that some were pre-Bush presidency indicates that congress saw the threat of Iraq before Bush even had the chance to “lie” to them. What changed from the late 1990’s to March, 2003 in terms of our belief that Iraq had WMD’s? The answer is absolutely nothing! Yet, Bush is bashed for his “lying” about WMD’s because he continues down the same path that the Democrats started under Clinton. Unbelievable! The difference now is that Bush had the fortitude to actually commit to the military action that everyone was demanding. What we have discovered has become a possible embarrassment so now everybody is looking to blame someone – namely Bush.
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction." Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton. (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
It remains overwhelmingly clear that high ranking officials on both sides of the aisle earnestly believed that Iraq had WMD’s. Would these people actually put so much stock in to what a Republican president would tell them that they would make such bold statements without seeing the evidence themselves? It would be ridiculous to think that! No, the high ranking Democrats were armed with the same information as President Bush and as President Clinton before him, otherwise, how could they deduce such absolute certainties. And, as evidenced by the dates of the above quotes, it was THEY who started selling this war to the American People long before W even started campaigning for office, but Bush-bashers seem to overlook that little fact.
WAS THERE OR WASN’T THERE URANIUM IN IRAQ?
Now that we’ve established that everybody was on board with the WMD’s claim prior to the start of the war, let’s examine the evidence to see if there actually were WMD’s in Iraq. Much of the criticism of the President stems from his reliance upon the CIA report that indicated that Iraqi officials met with Niger to broker a Uranium deal – this was claimed by both the British and the U.S. intelligence agencies and the British never recanted on this assertion even though they were facing intense political pressure to do so. This report of Saddam sending officials to Niger is either true or false, correct? If this report is true, then it legitimizes everything that Bush has asserted about Saddam and his quest for uranium, agreed? If this report is false, it doesn’t necessarily rule out that Saddam had a hunger for uranium. What if Iraq obtained uranium through other avenues? This is a possibility, correct? Well, guess what? Uranium WAS found in Iraq in Tuwaitha. What is so ironic is the fact that this was rarely mentioned in the press other than to portray the U.S. as breaking international law for removing it without approval from the IAEA. The discovery of yellow-cake uranium was barely news but the U.S. not informing the IAEA was more important news. (Remember that the CIA's assertion that Iraq was seeking yellow cake uranium from Niger is the subject of much debate - I don't there is any debate - Saddam had it all along).
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq ... nium_x.htm (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-07-07-iraq-uranium_x.htm)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle ... 872201.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3872201.stm)
How about the discovery of nerve gas.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle ... 861197.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3861197.stm)
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,123680,00.html
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Re ... p?ID=13835 (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13835)
The Senate Intelligence Committee Report on Pre-War intelligence concerning Iraq also has the following paragraph on page 45:
The former ambassador also told Committee staff that he was the source of a Washington Post article…which said, "among the Envoy's conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because 'the dates were wrong and the names were wrong.'" Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the "dates were wrong and the names were wrong" when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports. The former ambassador said he may have “misspoken” when he said the documents were forged.
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422 ... 1/sec2.pdf (http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/13jul20041400/www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/pdf/s108-301/sec2.pdf)
Conclusion 13 (page 73)
The report on the former ambassador's trip to Niger, disseminated in March 2002, did not change any analysts' assessments of the Iraq-Niger uranium deal. For most analysts, the information in the report lent more credibility to the original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal, but State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) analysts believed that the report supported their assessment that Niger was unlikely to be wiling or able to sell uranium to Iraq.
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422 ... 1/sec2.pdf (http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/13jul20041400/www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/pdf/s108-301/sec2.pdf)
SADDAM AND OSAMA
Another important assertion that Bush made prior to the war with Iraq is that Iraq and Saddam’s regime had connections to al Qaeda and other terrorists. Please note that Bush never said that Saddam or Iraq caused 9-11 but only that they were linked to terrorist groups that have caused death to U.S. citizens. Read the following graphic that the New York times printed as part of a retraction to a story where it stated that the 9-11 Commission found that Iraq did not aid in the 9-11 attacks……Bush never said that they did – he has always maintained that Iraq was NOT involved in 9-11 but that they DO have ties to al Qaeda.
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2004/ ... APHIC.html (http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2004/06/20/weekinreview/20040620_QUOTES2_GRAPHIC.html)
This article from the BBC quotes Bush directly in 2003 saying "We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 11 September attacks."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3118262.stm
This article from The Guardian indicates that CIA agents in 1999 have documented meetings of Iraq with al Qaeda.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international ... 00,00.html (http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,314700,00.html)
How about the 1998 Justice Department indictment under President Clinton for Osama Bin Laden, which stated: ". . . al-Qa'eda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al-Qa'eda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al-Qa'eda would work co-operatively with the Government of Iraq."
What about the report from former CIA director George Tenet, a Clinton appointee that states "We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and Al Qa'eda going back a decade. Credible information indicates that Iraq and Al Qa'eda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal non-aggression. We have credible reporting that Al Qa'eda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities. Iraq has provided training to Al Qa'eda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs."
British journalist Melanie Phillips pulls it all together here
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main ... wstop.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/06/20/do2001.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/06/20/ixnewstop.html)
Please note that the NY Times, BBC, and The Guardian are not neo-con think tanks.
Finally, "Were there contacts between Al Qaeda and Iraq? Yes . . . no question. The vice president is saying, I think, that there were connections . . . we don't disagree with that" Democrat Lee Hamilton, vice chairman of the 9-11 Commission.
Russia’s Putin even warned the U.S that Iraq was preparing terrorist attacks in the U.S. Couldn’t a person logically conclude that Iraq was a threat based on this information?
"After Sept. 11, 2001, and before the start of the military operation in Iraq, the Russian special services, the intelligence service, received information that officials from Saddam's regime were preparing terrorist attacks in the United States and outside it against the U.S. military and other interests,"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... Jun18.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53096-2004Jun18.html)
Former President Clinton has supported Bush throughout the entire ordeal. He certainly knows the intelligence information which Bush had because he was in the same position a few short years earlier. He and his administration vehemently believed that Iraq posed a threat and that Iraq had specific ties with al Qaeda and Bin Laden. Commenting on WMD’s and Bush’s actions, Clinton said the following “You couldn't responsibly ignore the possibility that a tyrant had these stocks."
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/19/clinto ... index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/19/clinton.iraq/index.html)
The Senate Intelligence Committee Report on Pre-War intelligence concerning Iraq certainly backs any, every, and all claims Bush or his administrations has ever promoted with regards to Iraq having ties to terrorism. The link below is to Chapter 12 Iraq’s Links to Terrorism.
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422 ... /sec12.pdf (http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/13jul20041400/www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/pdf/s108-301/sec12.pdf)
Hillary Clinton has said that the intelligence in regards to Iraq has been consistent for over a decade and that’s why she supported Bush.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/regiona ... 5434c.html (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/regional/story/370813p-315434c.html)
Below are some video links of prominent Democrats bolstering the claims that Iraq had WMD’s and links with terrorist organizations.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i87cZ3Og6ts&eurl=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_CepS8u9wQ&eurl=
COLIN POWELL
People often look to Colin Powell’s disappointment and displeasure with his own remarks to the U.N. as “proof” that Bush lied and deceived. Never has Powell blamed Bush for anything. Quite the contrary. As recent as September 8, 2005, Powell said this "I'm always a reluctant warrior. And I don't resent the term, I admire the term, but when the president decided that it was not tolerable for this regime to remain in violation of all these U.N. resolutions, I'm right there with him with the use of force.” Powell’s malcontent and shame from that speech he gave to the U.N. is not with Bush or his administration, it is with the failure of our intelligence agents "George Tenet did not sit there for five days with me misleading me. He believed what he was giving to me was accurate. … The intelligence system did not work well. There were some people in the intelligence community who knew at that time that some of these sources were not good, and shouldn't be relied upon, and they didn't speak up. That devastated me."….” But I'm glad that Saddam Hussein is gone. I'm glad that that regime is gone."
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Politics/sto ... 979&page=1 (http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Politics/story?id=1105979&page=1)
Also, as stated previously, the Downing Street memo mentions talks with Colin Powell. If the memo is 100% truth, which I doubt it is, then there is every reason to believe that Powell knew as much as anybody about WMD’s and al Qaeda ties
IN CONCLUSION
The above information accurately portrays the intelligence available prior to the start of the Iraq war. The notion that Bush “lied” to start a war is simply not supported by the evidence. I only ask that you read the above information with an open mind and perhaps try to recreate the events in your mind of Post 9-11 and pre-Iraq war to determine if you can see how a rational and logical person can come to the conclusion that Iraq either possessed or was pursuing WMD’s, that Iraq did have ties to al Qaeda, and that Iraq could logically be seen as an imminent threat.
Thank You for reading this.