War-front Intelligence report
For approximately half of the U.S. population, it is an article of faith that “Bush lied, people died.” The tired clichè was making the rounds again this week after the Select Committee on Intelligence published a new report titled, “Intelligence Activities Relating to Iraq.” The report was formally released by the committee’s chairman, Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-WV), who said it was further proof that President Bush and his administration had “repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when it was unsubstantiated, contradicted or even nonexistent.”
The report that Sen. Rockefeller is interpreting for the American people, however, disagrees with the senator. On the subject of Iraq’s nuclear weapons program, the report says that the president’s statements were “generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates.” On the subject of biological and chemical weapons, the president’s statements were “substantiated by intelligence information.” On weapons of mass destruction in general, statements were “generally substantiated by intelligence information.” On ballistic missiles capable of delivering WMDs, claims were “generally substantiated by intelligence information.” Even on the issue of Saddam Hussein’s ties to terrorism, the Bush administration’s claims were “substantiated by intelligence estimates.” Indeed, we can’t find the part where “Bush lied!” It seems that the only person who misrepresented a report was Mr. Rockefeller himself.
"...we would remind them that in the run-up to the Iraq War, Congress was reading the same intelligence reports as President Bush, a fact that nobody understands better than the Intelligence Committee Chairman himself. In 2002, Rockefeller said, “There has been some debate over how ‘imminent’ a threat Iraq poses. I do believe Iraq poses an imminent threat. I also believe after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated... To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can.” Having made the right choice then, Rockefeller is trying to disown it now by pinning the “blame” on the Bush administration just as victory in Iraq is a near possibility. It doesn’t make much sense to us..."
When one considers that it is official documents like the one in question—not New York Times editorials—that historians will use to chronicle and judge President Bush’s actions, it seems likely that posterity will judge George W. Bush more kindly than his contemporaries have, and that Democrats will once again find themselves on the wrong side of history.
excerpt from PatriotPost.US
no matter how much one side or the other pounds their interpretation, there will be some that will be swayed one way or the other.
I yearn for a population that sees unity not division.
what say you?
From what I heard, the intelligence that substantiated the White House's claims was coerced. The White House placed strong political pressure on the CIA to deliver information that could possibly implicate Iraq for having WMD's and refused to hear information that said anything otherwise. At least that's what I'd like to think, what good is an intelligence agency if it spots biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons with delivery systems in an area that quite literally has none of those things. I'd like to think that it's simply impossible to screw up that bad.
You never heard the Europeans intelligence agencies agreed that Saddam had WMD? And what intelligence did all of Congress see that had them convinced as well?
Let us not forget that many around the world had intelligence information saying similar, as well.
I think it is pretty simple minded to believe that only Bush or only the American administration had something to do with going into Iraq in the first place. It is important to read as many perspectives as possible.
What's going on on the side that says another side is doing something terrible? How many sides do you think there are in the world?
WE need to stand up for what is right, not what is done that isn't right on any side. Geez, Saddam maimed, murdered, tortured, threatened into silence and poisoned his own people. Think of the psychological state of minds of the civilian people left in that country who are caught in the crossfire of fanatic religious power mongers, that think everyone is an infidel that doesn't follow Islam in the way they think is right.
There is something in Iraq that is going on with good intentions...but it is always a shame when power gets so corrupted. Find some of the good news that is going on in Iraq and read it, too.
Cap'n, I am not attacking you and your perspective...I am speaking in general to anyone who is listening...I guess I should have just posted an answer instead of a reply just to your post. sorry
I took the time to read that Phase II report referenced in the article that you posted. Here are some of the conclusions that were drawn from it.
"Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-Qa'ida had a partnership, or that Iraq provided al-Qa-ida with weapons training, were not substantiated by intelligence."
"Statements made by the President and Vice President indicating that Saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attacks against the United States were contradicted by available intelligence information"
As for whether or not there were wmd's, there were quite a few dissenting opinions. The State Department and the Department of Energy both stated that they didn't believe Saddam was reconstituting a nuclear weapons program. Also, you'd be hard pressed to find a report from any intelligence agency that said that there's definitive absolute proof that Iraq has a nuclear/biological/chemical weapons program. Yet in nearly every speech that you find in the report, Bush said that Iraq had a nuclear weapons program, had biological/chemical weapons, could produce a nuclear bomb within 1 years time, was partnered with al-Qa'ida, was planning on giving terrorist groups weapons to attack the U.S. with. So he didn't lie, he just bent the truth a bit.
Good intentions don't mean that the action is good. There have been nearly 100,000 document civilian deaths due to violence in Iraq since 2003. It's estimated that there may be hundreds of thousands more that aren't documented. While the war is a passing fancy for most of us, it's real for the citizens of Iraq and the soldiers there as well. Each day they wake up in a country racked with misery, pain, and bloodshed, all because someone bent the truth.
Where's this truth bending leave us, particularly the U.S.? On the decline? In a war that literally can't be won? If we don't find out what mistakes were made and who made them and then severely punish those people, we'll end up encouraging this sort of behavior in the future. If we don't take a stand against reckless warfare we'll continue forward from one blunder to the next until the United States ends up being a footnote in some other country's history textbook, "The Nation That Had It All And Squandered It Through Apathy And Ignorance."
Lmao, this despite the fact that Saddam was a known secularist.
Yeh, I think of the psychological states of mind of not just the people in Iraq, but people everywhere that are under oppressive regimes, including the Burmese, Myanmar, Zimbabwe people, Venezualans and people out in the Pacific that suffer from local tribal regimes.
We gunna go save them too? Because we can? We going to go and police them too?
Occupation of Haiti comes to mind.
The idea of freedom has to come from within the hearts and minds of the peoples in those countries, it cannot be forced on them through invasion and persistant dogged attempts to co-erce them into our understanding of it, whilst robbing them of their cultural identity all at the same time. If people do not want freedom then you cannot force it on them at the cost of American lives, and at the cost of their own identity. You cannot do it. HItler tried and failed, Stalin tried and ultimately even the former Soviet Union could not force the Russian identity completely onto the Soviet bloc.
We will fail if we try this approach under another guise.
the thing that stands out the most for me in your statement is "robbing them of cultural identity...at the cost of their identity".
Do you really think they had any identity of their own under Saddam?
I say all that intellegence came out of Cheney's office which has been known for quite some time, and it is called 'Stovepiping'. And this could have known by all the proper authorities had they cared to know. The only question is was Bush complicit or is he such an idiot that he is kept completely out of the loop.
There is the truth and there is the untruth, and that is both sides.
Then there is the untruth and the untruth, which is generally what the media gives out, as two sides. Colin Powel lied thru his teeth to the UN on Iraq, which turned opinion in favor of an attack on Iraq. But let's be fair. Colin Powel did not lie.
check out the video I posted in politics, someone just sent it to me.
It lays out the planned agenda by the IMF and the World Bank and the heads of oil companies, that has been happening since the 60s.
according to the guy in the video, the US administration is just a pawn in the plan, and can't make a move to make things better without collapsing the economy...
it is a long video, but you need to listen to all of it...tell me what you think
it makes all we have been talking about meaningless, that just keeps everyone against each other, fighting over bits and pieces of facts with a lot of missing pieces
if this is the whole true story........?
SparklingJewel, aren't you going to reply to the Capn's last post? He is quite correct in the information he gives.
Both the British and Australian governments knew there was no proof of weapons of mass destruction, but they glossed over it in order to support the American alliance - and in so doing, lied to the British and Australian public. If they knew, I find it surprising that America did not. That is not me speculating or the media misreporting, that is fact.
You are quite right, Bush may have been fed flawed "intelligence" by people who wanted to manipulate him into going to war, rather than knowing the truth and deliberately misleading the American public. We may not know the truth of that for some years to come, I suspect.
check out the video I posted about previously...the energy non-crisis...is this the whole story?
all our speculation isn't worth spending one more minute on, check it out
http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/ … amp;id=945
"On August 26, 2002, in an address to the national convention of the Veteran of Foreign Wars, Cheney flatly declared: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us." In fact, former CIA Director George Tenet later recalled, Cheney's assertions went well beyond his agency's assessments at the time. Another CIA official, referring to the same speech, told journalist Ron Suskind, "Our reaction was, 'Where is he getting this stuff from?' "
In the closing days of September 2002, with a congressional vote fast approaching on authorizing the use of military force in Iraq, Bush told the nation in his weekly radio address: "The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given. . . . This regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year." A few days later, similar findings were also included in a much-hurried National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction — an analysis that hadn't been done in years, as the intelligence community had deemed it unnecessary and the White House hadn't requested it.
In July 2002, Rumsfeld had a one-word answer for reporters who asked whether Iraq had relationships with Al Qaeda terrorists: "Sure." In fact, an assessment issued that same month by the Defense Intelligence Agency (and confirmed weeks later by CIA Director Tenet) found an absence of "compelling evidence demonstrating direct cooperation between the government of Iraq and Al Qaeda." What's more, an earlier DIA assessment said that "the nature of the regime's relationship with Al Qaeda is unclear."
On May 29, 2003, in an interview with Polish TV, President Bush declared: "We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories." But as journalist Bob Woodward reported in State of Denial, days earlier a team of civilian experts dispatched to examine the two mobile labs found in Iraq had concluded in a field report that the labs were not for biological weapons. The team's final report, completed the following month, concluded that the labs had probably been used to manufacture hydrogen for weather balloons.
On January 28, 2003, in his annual State of the Union address, Bush asserted: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production." Two weeks earlier, an analyst with the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research sent an email to colleagues in the intelligence community laying out why he believed the uranium-purchase agreement "probably is a hoax." " (end quote).
"On February 5, 2003, in an address to the United Nations Security Council, Powell said: "What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence. I will cite some examples, and these are from human sources." As it turned out, however, two of the main human sources to which Powell referred had provided false information. One was an Iraqi con artist, code-named "Curveball," whom American intelligence officials were dubious about and in fact had never even spoken to. The other was an Al Qaeda detainee, Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi, who had reportedly been sent to Eqypt by the CIA and tortured and who later recanted the information he had provided. Libi told the CIA in January 2004 that he had "decided he would fabricate any information interrogators wanted in order to gain better treatment and avoid being handed over to [a foreign government]."
The false statements dramatically increased in August 2002, with congressional consideration of a war resolution, then escalated through the mid-term elections and spiked even higher from January 2003 to the eve of the invasion."
Shucks, that has to be one evil website for sure, now doesn't it?
It simply isn't objective, tsk tsk. (sarcasm intended)
The truth will set you free.
The truth will set me free?
Normally when I tell the truth to people they get mad at me and slap me..not my fault they look fat in those jeans.
and so look at these reported statemements, where and why did they come forth. why would anyone purposefully mislead others? what are the reasons behind these reports?
listen to this video and the plot thickens...according to what I remember from hearing in the video (which I have only heard once)...the oil big wigs, IMF and World Bank, "enlisted" Henry Kissinger to go around to the oil rich countries and "get" them to sign that if they will drill and sell their oil to US and play by their (the banks and big oil heads) rules, whatever they wanted, they would be rich beyond dreams and would be the holders of US debt or something like that (this is the part about finances I don't remember much or correctly because I don't know enough about such things to get it straight).
one of the few who wouldn't sign was Saddam...the time frame I am not sure of...I thought the video said Kissinger went around during the first Bush presidency...but not sure. Bush the first said he would not stop Saddam if he went into Kuwait if he signed, but of course Saddam didn't do, so we had the first gulf war.
every administration and congress since signed off on this because it would ruin the world economy, especially the US. So the US was cornered for responsibility for that if they didn't comply.
keep trying the site or get his book, "The Oil Non-Crisis" or something like that
This isn't my realm of study, too much intrigue, lies and human evil disfunction...I am more into spirituality and religion and psychology evil disfunction .
somebody named Fromm was the big oil guy that helped him write the book and was fired for a while because of it, but was "allowed back in again" later.
So was this more mis-direction from the powers that be camp...to thicken their plot...is this video guy just another pawn...why wouldn't he have been killed instead, unless he was just a pawn for future moves.
this is what I meant about being the answer to the oil crisis, as well as, big oil heads keeping the fact that the largest oil reserve in the world is off Gull Island, not ANWAR, or is that the same place? That this reserve is enough for the next 200 years at current usage levels...but only if controlled.
Great job Zarm. Agrees exactly with the concensus as I have
President Bush did it with the sole reason to satisfy his ego.He just wanted tofinish the incomplete agenda of his father Sr. Bush.
American politicians committed similar blonders many times, be it in Iraq or in Vietnam.Still they are trying to horrify Iran.
Is there any vested interest in the oil fields of Iraq of former Vice-President or some of the secreteries? This questions are yet to be answered.
I personally feel that these folly steps are the reasons of present financial crisis.
I have mentioned in brief in my hubs " why Americans are in financial problem" in 3 parts.
by Credence2 8 years ago
In light of the preparations for the commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the assassination of John F. Kennedy, past conversations with conservatives have come to mind.They told me that Democrats went away from them after Kennedy. Was it LBJ's Great Society, Medicare or Civil Rights...
by Susan Reid 9 years ago
[img]http://www.newsworks.org/images/stories/flexicontent/l_bush-mission-accomplished_600x400.jpg[/img]I've posted this in its entirety for your celebratory pleasure.Aren't you so glad the Iraq War went so seamlessly? ha ha ha ha ha.See bolded paragraph. Can you even imagine if Obama had invaded...
by Sooner28 8 years ago
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/0 … 99310.htmlOn the front page of the Huffington Post, the caption reads: George W. Obama. I find this to be refreshing, and I am glad the left is beginning to see Obama is just as bad as Bush on civil liberties. Now that the illusion based...
by SparklingJewel 13 years ago
Did you catch the article? One more piece to the puzzle revealed.Go to AP homepage and type a Query "Iraq yellowcake" to access article...it is not on any homepage for news except Fox (not even APs homepage !?)hummmmmmmmm
by ahorseback 7 years ago
Because America has never truly been attacked by an outsider in an all out war , the far left would have us believe that it can never happen . What is it about a bunch of defeated terrorist suspects in orange jump suits that bothers them so much ? If It's a...
by S T Guy 10 years ago
Why is it okay for the US to harbor weapons of mass destruction, but not okay for any other country?We all know that the US is in possession of weapons of mass destruction. Therefore, why is this okay for the US, but not tolerated (or condoned) for any other country in the world? Shouldn't other...
Copyright © 2022 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|