Investigation On Iraq Prewar Intelligence

[Guest Katie MacGuidwin]

After spending the week revising history to distance themselves from their pre-war assessments of Iraq, many Democrats now find themselves attempting to distance themselves from Representative John Murtha (D-PA). Murtha’s call for an immediate withdrawal in Iraq prompted the pessimist in Chief John Kerry to tell Wolf Blitzer on CNN’s The Situation Room (11/17) “I respectfully disagree with John Murtha.” As reported in the Washington Post (11/18), Harry Reid also ran from Murtha’s assertion saying, “I don’t support immediate withdrawal.” It begs the question, what is it that Democrats want? By decrying staying the course, and disagreeing with pulling out, Democrats are once again showing their usual lack of leadership by posturing for political gain

[Guest BlingBling]

Hey Katie!!!!

 

Make sure to SHOVE SOME PUMPKIN PIE IN YOUR FACE

 

Ten days after 9/11, Bush recieved a highly-classified presidential daily brief, asserting that our intelligence community had found no evidence of collaborative relationship between Hussein and Al Qaeda.

 

This brief was withheld from congress...

 

The information was provided to Bush on September 21, 2001 during the "President's Daily Brief," a 30- to 45-minute early-morning national security briefing. Information for PDBs has routinely been derived from electronic intercepts, human agents, and reports from foreign intelligence services, as well as more mundane

 

The September 21, 2001, briefing was prepared at the request of the president, who was eager in the days following the terrorist attacks to learn all that he could about any possible connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

 

The report, published Tuesday in The National Journal, cites government records, as well as present and former officials with knowledge of the issue. The information in the story, written by National Journal contributor Murray Waas, points to an abiding administration concern for secrecy that extended to keeping information from the Senate committee charged with investigating the matter.

 

In one of the Journal report's more compelling disclosures, Saddam is said to have viewed al-Qaida as a threat, rather than a potential ally.

 

Indeed, the existence of the September 21 PDB was not disclosed to the Intelligence Committee until the summer of 2004, according to congressional sources. Both Republicans and Democrats requested then that it be turned over. The administration has refused to provide it, even on a classified basis, and won't say anything more about it other than to acknowledge that it exists.

 

You Republican can lie all you want. Just remember that anything you say can and will be used against you. I am going to eat a big fat turkey.

 

I am going to savor the thought of listening to Bush repeatedly telling Americans that Congress was given the same information he had on Iraq,

[Guest hey bling bling]

Where is your proof he recieved all that highly classified information. Were you there to see it?

 

Plus we invaded Afganistan after 9/11 you **thank**** moron not Iraq. Look at the dates and get them right.

 

Democrats are puss** and scared because their bluff was called. Man up doggess**

[Guest The Turkey is in the Oven]

One of the nicest things we did for al Qaeda was overthrow the Iraqi

government and open the country's borders.

 

I'm surprised they haven't sent Shrub flowers and a "thank you" card.

[Guest Guest]

Plus we invaded Afganistan after 9/11 you moron not Iraq. Look at the dates and get them right.

Hey Loser.

I was writing about how Bush was planning to invade Iraq. And you might want to do some research yourself before make a fool out of yourself.

 

The Senate Intelligence Committee has asked the White House for the CIA assessment, the PDB of September 21, 2001, and dozens of other PDBs as part of the committee's ongoing investigation into whether the Bush administration misrepresented intelligence information in the run-up to war with Iraq. The Bush administration has refused to turn over these documents.

 

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cf...=15&ItemID=9191

[Guest Friends of John Kerry]

John Kerry once again voices what Americans are thinking during this Thanksgiving weekend. Take the time to to read his views about how our President is hiding behind the flag to cover the truth. The flag represents the blood sacrifice Americans have given overy our country's lifetime to freely debate what course to take on all important issues. Here is Senator Kerry's statement.

 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

“The President continues his campaign of misrepresenting the facts and throwing up smokescreens. His statement that Democrats saw and heard the same intelligence he did is just flat out untrue - unless of course the President and his Administration didn’t do their job and study the additional intelligence given only to them and not the Congress. As the Washington Post put it on Saturday, ‘Bush and his aides had access to much more voluminous intelligence information than lawmakers, who were dependent on the administration to provide the material.’

 

“But that whole discussion is nothing more than an effort to distract attention from the issue that matters most and can be answered simply: did the Administration go beyond what even the flawed intelligence would support in making the case for war? Did they use obviously inaccurate intelligence despite being told clearly and repeatedly not to? Did they use the claims of known fabricators? The answer in each case is yes. And the only people who are trying to rewrite that history are the President and his Republican allies.

 

“There is no greater breach of the public trust than knowingly misleading the country into war. In a democracy, we simply cannot tolerate the abuse of this trust by the government. To the extent this occurred in the lead up to the war in Iraq, those responsible must be held accountable. That is why Democrats have been pushing the Senate Intelligence Committee to complete a thorough and balanced investigation into the issue.

 

“When the President tried to pretend on Friday that the Intelligence Committee had already determined that he had not manipulated intelligence and misled the American public, he knew full well that they have not yet reported on that very question -- that is why Democrats were forced to shut down the Senate and go into closed session to make the Republicans take this issue seriously. When the President said that his opponents were throwing out false charges, he knew all too well that that these charges are anything but false.

 

“But the President and Republicans seem far more interested in confusing the issue and attacking their opponents than getting honest answers. Let’s be clear: there is no question that Americans were misled into war in Iraq. Simply put, they were told that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction when he did not. The issue is whether they were misled intentionally. Just as there is a distinction between being wrong and being dishonest, there is a fundamental difference between relying on incorrect intelligence and making statements that you know are not supported by the intelligence.

 

“The bottom line is that the President and his Administration did mislead America into war. In fact, the war in Iraq was and remains one of the great acts of misleading and deception in American history. The facts are incontrovertible. The act of misleading was pretending to Americans that they hadn’t made a decision to go to war, and would seriously pursue inspections when the evidence strongly suggests that they had already decided to take out Saddam Hussein, were anxious to do it for ideological reasons, and hoped that inspections, which Vice President Cheney had opposed and tried to prevent, would not get in their way.

 

“The President misled America about his intentions and the manner in which he would make his decision. We now know his speech in Cincinnati right before the authorization vote was carefully orchestrated window dressing where again he misled America by promising that “If we have to act, we will take every precaution that is possible. We will plan carefully.” He did none of these things.

 

“The act of misleading was just going through the motions of inspections while it appears he really couldn’t wait to just kick Saddam Hussein out of power.

 

“The act of misleading was pretending to Americans the real concern was weapons of mass destruction when the evidence suggests that his real intent was to finish the job his father wisely refused and remove Saddam Hussein to “remake the Middle East”.

 

“The act of misleading was saying in his Cincinnati speech that “Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable” when the evidence suggests that all along the goal was always to replace Saddam Hussein through an invasion. For most of us in Congress, the goal was to destroy weapons of mass destruction. For President Bush, weapons of mass destruction were just the first public relations means to the end of removing Saddam Hussein. For most of the rest of us, removing Saddam Hussein was incidental to the end of removing any weapons of mass destruction.

 

“In fact, the President was misleading America right up until two days before launching his war of choice when he told Americans we had exhausted all other avenues. The truth is that on the Sunday preceding the Tuesday launch of the war, there were offers Security Council members to pursue an alternative to war, but the Administration, in its race to go to war, rebuffed them, saying “the time for diplomacy is over.”

 

“By shortcutting the inspections process and sidestepping his own promises about planning, coalition building, and patience, the President used WMD as an excuse to rush to war. That was an act of misleading contrary to everything the President told Americans about the walkup to war.

 

“The very worst that Members of Congress can be accused of is trusting the intelligence we were selectively given by this Administration, and taking the President at his word. But unlike this Administration, there is absolutely no suggestion that we intentionally went beyond what we were told were the facts. That is the greatest offense by the Administration. Just look at their most compelling justification for war: Saddam’s nuclear program and his connections with Al Qaeda.

 

“The facts speak for themselves. The White House has admitted that the President told Congress and the American public in the State of the Union Address that Saddam was attempting to acquire fuel for nuclear weapons despite the fact that the CIA specifically told the Administration three times, in writing and verbally, not to use this intelligence. Obviously, Democrats didn’t get that memo. In fact, similar statements were removed from a prior speech by the President, and Colin Powell refused to use it in his presentation to the UN. This is not relying on faulty intelligence, as Democrats did; it is knowingly, and admittedly, misleading the American public on a key justification for going to war.

 

“This is what the Administration was trying so desperately to hide when it attacked Ambassador Wilson and compromised national security by outing his wife. It is shameful that to this day Republicans continue to attack Ambassador Wilson rather than condemning the fact that those sixteen words were ever spoken, and that so many lies were told to cover it up. How are the same Republicans who tried to impeach a President over whether he misled a nation about an affair going to pretend it does not matter if the Administration intentionally misled the country into war?

 

“The State of the Union was hardly an isolated event. In fact, it was part of a concerted campaign to twist the intelligence to justify a war they had already decided to fight. Again playing on people’s fears after 9/11, the Administration made statements about the relationship between Al Qaeda and Iraq that went beyond that what the intelligence supported. As recently reported by the New York Times, in a Cincinnati address the President said “we’ve learned that Iraq has trained Al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases” despite the fact that the Defense Intelligence Agency had previously concluded that that source was a fabricator.

 

“The President went on to say that ‘Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons’ despite the fact that the Air Force disagreed with that conclusion. As the Wall Street Journal reported, ‘the Air Force dissent…was kept secret even as the President publicly made the opposite case…before a congressional vote on the war resolution.’ That’s two more memos that Congress never got.

 

“In fact, when faced with the intelligence community’s consensus conclusion that there was no formal relationship between Saddam and Al Qaeda, the Administration set up their own intelligence shop at DoD to get them some answers better suited to their agenda. Again, there is a fundamental difference between believing incorrect intelligence and making up your own intelligence.

 

“Where would Republicans and the President draw the line? No where. How else would 70% of the American public be lead to conclude that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11? This was no accident. In fact, I had to correct the President in the first debate when he said it was Saddam Hussein who attacked us. Why else did Vice President Cheney cite intelligence about a meeting between one of the 9/11 hijackers and Iraqis that the intelligence community and the 9/11 Commission concluded never took place? Why else make false statements about Saddam’s ability to launch a chemical or biological weapons attack in under an hour without clearing that with the CIA - which mistrusted the source and refused to include it in the NIE? Why else would they say we would be greeted by liberators when their own intelligence reports said we could be facing a prolonged and determined insurgency? Why else tell Americans that Iraqi oil would pay for the invasion when they had to know that the dilapidated oil infrastructure would never allow that?

 

“And what about the President’s promises to Congress that he would work with allies, that he would exhaust all options, that he would not rush to war? If the President wants to use quotes of mine from 2002, he might look at the ones that were not the result of relying faulty intelligence and trusting the President’s word. As I said in my floor statement before the authorization vote: “If we go it alone without reason, we risk inflaming an entire region, breeding a new generation of terrorists, a new cadre of anti-American zealots, and we will be less secure, not more secure, at the end of the day…Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him by force, if we ever exhaust those other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible.”

 

“In my speech at Georgetown on the eve of the war, I said: ‘the United States should never go to war because it wants to, the United States should go to war because we have to. And we don't have to until we have exhausted the remedies available, built legitimacy and earned the consent of the American people…We need to make certain that we have not unnecessarily twisted so many arms, created so many reluctant partners, abused the trust of Congress, or strained so many relations, that the longer term and more immediate vital war on terror is made more difficult…I say to the President, show respect for the process of international diplomacy because it is not only right, it can make America stronger - and show the world some appropriate patience in building a genuine coalition. Mr. President, do not rush to war.’ Today our troops continue to bear the burden of that promise broken by this Administration.

 

“We need to move forward with fixing the mess the Administration has created in Iraq, and I have laid out in detail my views about how to accomplish our goals and get our troops home in a reasonable amount of time. But that does not excuse our responsibility to hold the Administration accountable if they knowingly misled the country when American lives were at stake. We can, and we must, do both. And Republicans need to stop pretending it doesn’t matter if the Administration stretched the truth beyond recognition and start working to find the real answers the country deserves - and the real leadership our troops in Iraq deserve from a Commander in Chief, not just a Campaigner in Chief.”

[Guest Justin Raimondo]

The Huffington Post is headlining the latest congressional Democrat to find his cajones when it comes to the Iraq war, and they direct us to this Seattle Times story, which relates the "agonizing" of Rep. Norm Dicks (D-Washington) over the issue, and informs us of the following rationale for Dicks "loudly and proudly" supporting the invasion:

 

"Dicks thought Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and wouldn't hesitate to use them against the United States."

 

What a load of crap: there is no other way to put it. Does Rep. Dicks really expect us to believe he was convinced the Iraqis were about to nuke Seattle? Get off it, Norm -- you aren't fooling anybody.

 

Not even the President -- deluded as he is -- really believed that **corn cob**-&-bull story about Saddam bombing American cities from the air using unmanned drones. As the Washington Post reported

 

"In an Oct. 7, 2002, speech, Bush mentioned a potential threat to the U.S. mainland being explored by Iraq through unmanned aircraft 'that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons.' The basis for that analysis was a single report that an Iraqi general in late 2000 or early 2001 indicated interest in buying autopilots and gyroscopes for Hussein's UAV program. The manufacturer automatically included topographic mapping software of the United States in the package.

 

"... Senior members of Congress were told in September 2002 that this was the "smoking gun" in a special briefing by Vice President Cheney and then-CIA Director George J. Tenet. By January 2003, however, it became publicly known that the director of Air Force intelligence dissented from the view that UAVs were to be used for biological or chemical delivery, saying instead they were for reconnaissance. In addition, according to the president's commission, the CIA "increasingly believed that the attempted purchase of the mapping software . . . may have been inadvertent."

 

Rep. Dicks is, quite simply, lying. He voted for the war for the same reason as most of his Democratic colleagues: because it was popular. Because he was caught up in the post-9/11 hysteria generated by the War Party. Because he has reflexively supported U.S. military intervention overseas, along with the Democratic party Establishment, without giving it so much as a second thought. And now he -- and plenty of others like him -- wants to do what's popular, now, and jump on the antiwar bandwagon.

 

Not so fast, bub.

 

These people -- yes, I'm talking about the Democrats in Congress -- need to be held accountable just as much (if not more so) than the Republicans. They, after all, empowered the War Party: they gave a bipartisan gloss to a decision that led to the worst strategic disaster in American history. They didn't just sit on their hands and let the pro-war wave wash over them -- they stood and applauded, "loudly and proudly," as the war fever reached fever pitch.

 

To hell with them. To hell with Norm Dicks. Let them pay the political consequences of their complete lack of leadership -- and, yes, their cowardice -- as the winds of war swept away all opposition except for the stalwart resistance of a few.

 

While the left-Democrats over at the Huffington Post are too busy attending glitzy parties and bashing Walmart for selling affordable products to working-class people who want to increase their own standard of living -- and, unlike Arianna, can't afford to shop on Rodeo Drive -- to notice that the blame for this war extends to both parties, Antiwar.com will not shy away from the truth: Norm Dicks, and every single member of Congress who voted for this war, should do the honorable thing: apologize (especially to the families of the fallen), or fall on their swords and resign.

[Guest Bush Supporter]

"In an Oct. 7, 2002, speech, Bush mentioned a potential threat to the U.S. mainland being explored by Iraq through unmanned aircraft 'that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons.' The basis for that analysis was a single report that an Iraqi general in late 2000 or early 2001 indicated interest in buying autopilots and gyroscopes for Hussein's UAV program. The manufacturer automatically included topographic mapping software of the United States in the package.

 

"... Senior members of Congress were told in September 2002 that this was the "smoking gun" in a special briefing by Vice President Cheney and then-CIA Director George J. Tenet. By January 2003, however, it became publicly known that the director of Air Force intelligence dissented from the view that UAVs were to be used for biological or chemical delivery, saying instead they were for reconnaissance. In addition, according to the president's commission, the CIA "increasingly believed that the attempted purchase of the mapping software . . . may have been inadvertent."

American Intellegence Analysts believed that Iraq had been working on converting manned planes into UAVs since before the Gulf War. Czech aviation specialists were split on how effective that would be. According to Jiri Rajlich at the Czech Military History Institute, "There is no problem converting the Delfin to a radio-controlled aircraft. It is a question of money." Others think that while it might be technically feasible, guiding the aircraft through appropriate altitudes for the terrain might prove sticky. And the president of the Czech Association of Aviation Manufacturers, Milan Holl, warns that because many of the L-29s are well into their fourth decade, "only a quarter of the aircraft which were sold to Iraq are in service."

 

Iraq wanted to know how well the L-29 would work as a UAV. When the United Nations was still allowed to inspect Iraq's weapons facilities, inspectors heard rumors of a UAV that had been modified to deliver CBW. On Dec. 17, 1998, during the end of Operation Desert Fox, a British missile blew open a hangar to expose at least 12 UAVs. These aircraft had spray nozzles and wing-mounted tanks that feasibly could be used to distribute chemical or biological agents. Not all were destroyed. Two years later, surveillance photos caught what looked to be L-29s undergoing flight tests.

[Guest LAW]

There was only one Democrat who opposed the invasion of Iraq, Russ Feingold. Senator Feingold also opposed the Machiavellian Patriot Act. Senator Feingold saw through the falsehoods of the administration, and voted his conscience.

 

Mr. President, last October, I voted against the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq and believe it was right that, in recent months, the country debated the wisdom of using military action against Iraq at this time. But the commencement of military action unites us as we focus on our ongoing support for our troops. I am confident in their abilities and I hope for their safe and quick return to their families. Even more so now that this action has begun, my thoughts, and the thoughts of all Americans, are with our service men and women, and with their families.

 

The dedicated men and women of our military spend time away from their homes and families in different parts of the country and the world, and, too often, are placed into harm's way in order to protect the American people and our way of life. We owe them a huge debt of gratitude for their selfless service. - March 20, 2003

[Guest Ispy]

Shortly after 9/11, the Pentagon established a secret intelligence unit to build the case against Iraq. The unit's members -- many of whom were recruited from neoconservative think tanks, primarily the American Enterprise Institute and the Project for the New American Century -- funneled faulty information up the chain of command, often all the way to the White House. By early 2002, the unit had been incorporated into the Defense Department's Office of Special Plans.

[Guest Bob Drogin]

Five senior officials from Germany's Federal Intelligence Service, or BND, said they warned U.S. intelligence authorities that the source, an Iraqi defector code-named "Curveball," never claimed to produce germ weapons and never saw anyone else do so.

[Guest LAW]

This is what I dug up.

 

Curveball was the designation for a claimed "Iraqi chemical engineer" who the United States claimed had served as an informant. "Curveball" would be the attributed source of pivotal information concerning weapons of mass destruction leading up to the 2003 Invasion of Iraq.

 

The CIA claimed that it did not have "direct access" to Curveball, and that the mysterious informant instead communicated to Germany's intelligence service, which relayed the information to the United States Defense Intelligence Agency. He was described by German intelligence as an individual not living in Iraq and as an "out of control" and crazy alcoholic.

 

David Kay, who headed the CIA's postinvasion search for illicit weapons, said Curveball's accounts were maddeningly murky. "He was not in charge of trucks or production," Kay said. "He had nothing to do with actual production of biological agent. He never saw them actually produce agent.

 

German agents told Die Zeit newspaper that they had warned the Bush administration long before last year that there were "problems" with Curveball's account. "We gave a clear credibility assessment. On our side at least, there were no tricks before Colin Powell's presentation," one source told the newspaper.

 

Curveball also could not be interviewed. BND officials threatened last summer to strip him of his salary, housing and protection if he agreed to meet the Times. Curveball now lives under an assumed name in southern Germany.

 

In Congress, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is resuming its long-stalled investigation of the administration's use of prewar intelligence. Committee members said last week that the Curveball case would be a key part of their review. House Democrats are calling for a similar inquiry.

[Guest Bush Supporter]

I don't blame the white house for not releasing their information to the intelligence committee. That information is priviledged in that the legislative branch of government can't require executive memos be turned over to them any more than the executive branch can require the legislative to turn over their memos to them. I would be exceptionally reluctant to turn anything sensitive to the intelligence committee as long as Leahy is on.

[Guest Joseph T. Suste]

This is President Bush's war, not America's war. There is no dishonor for the United States in stopping Bush's war. There is, however, enormous dishonor for America if we don't stop killing, given that we now can conclude the Iraq war is based on lie after lie after lie.

[Guest Senator Barack Obama]

The Administration launched the Iraq war without giving either Congress or the American people the full story. This is not a partisan claim - you don't have to take my word for it. All you need to do is to match up the Administration's statements during the run-up to the war with the now declassified intelligence estimates that they had in their possession at the time. Match them up and you will conclude that at the very least, the Administration shaded, exaggerated and selectively used the intelligence available in order to make the case for invasion.

 

The President told the American people about Iraqi attempts to acquire yellow cake during the State of the Union. The Vice-President made statements on national television expressing certainty about Iraq's nuclear weapons programs. Secretary Rice used the words "mushroom cloud" over and over again.

 

We know now that even at the time these unequivocal statements were made, intelligence assessments existed that contradicted these claims. Analysis from the CIA and State Department was summarily dismissed when it did not help the Administration make the case for war.

 

the end, Iraq is not about one person's legacy, a political campaign, or rigid adherence to an ideology.

 

What is happening in Iraq is about the security of the United States. It is about our men and women in uniform. It is about the future of the Middle East. It is about the world in which our children will live.

 

Responsible voices from all parts of the political spectrum are coming forth to say this in increasing numbers.

 

Colin Powell had the courage to call his presentation to the United Nations on Iraq a "blot" on his distinguished record. And recently John Edwards said he made a mistake in voting to go to war in Iraq, and accepted responsibility for this decision.

 

It is no coincidence that both Mr. Edwards and Mr. Powell no longer serve the government in Washington. Those of us in Washington are falling behind the debate that is taking place across America on Iraq. We are failing to provide leadership on this issue.

 

Iraq was a major issue in last year's election.

 

But that election is now over.

 

We need to stop the campaign.

 

The President could take the politics out of Iraq once and for all if he would simply go on television and say to the American people "Yes, we made mistakes. Yes, there are things I would have done differently. But now that we're here, I am willing to work with both Republicans and Democrats to find the most responsible way out."

 

Nearly four decades ago, John F. Kennedy took responsibility for the Bay of Pigs Invasion. He admitted that mistakes had been made. He didn't spend a good deal of time publicly blaming the previous Administration, or the other party, or his critics. And through these decisive actions, he earned the respect of the American people and the world - respect that allowed his diplomacy to be trusted a few years later during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

 

Americans everywhere are crying out for this kind of leadership today. They want to find pragmatic solutions to the difficult and complicated situation in Iraq. They want to move forward on of the greatest foreign policy challenges that this nation has faced in a generation. And they want to get it right for every American son and daughter who's been willing to put their lives on the line to defend the country they love. It's time for us in Washington to offer the rest of the country this leadership. Thank you

[Guest Just trying to understand]

From all the messages I am gathering that there are layers of lies coming from Czech, Germany, Italy, and Iraq.

 

The alumininum tubes lie.

 

The deadly toxins are a lie.

 

The unmanned planes to drop these weapons are a lie.

 

All the hysteria is a lie. I feel like an idiot.

[Guest Ispy]

The culprit in this mystery is Cheney.

 

Cheney is the face of the Iraq war for the American people, and in consequence, his approval ratings are lower even than President Bush's. His longtime colleague in the earlier Bush administration, Brent Scowcroft, says he no longer knows his old friend Dick Cheney. Powell's former aide Wilkerson says Cheney led a "cabal" that has run roughshod over the policy-making apparatus.

[Guest Governor Howard Dean, M.D.]

I saw the video of Republican Jean Schmidt calling decorated combat veteran and Democratic Congressman Jack Murtha a coward. I couldn't believe what I heard.

 

Immediately after her attack, you can hear something else on that tape. That is the House Democrats shouting her down and calling her to account for the attack. They ultimately forced her to retract her words.

 

We're following your suggestion to put billboards up in the hometown of any Republican leader trying to distract from their failed leadership by attacking a veteran's service.

 

The first target is Jean Schmidt -- and there are less the 24 hours left to make a contribution to put a billboard up right outside her district office in Portsmouth, Ohio. Will you contribute to kick start this effort?

 

http://www.democrats.org/billboard

 

Jean Schmidt is only the latest Republican leader to cross this line of civility and respect for our veterans -- it's time to say enough is enough.

 

Republican leaders use these tactics to distract people from the simple fact that they have lost credibility on national security and foreign policy.

 

They abandoned the hunt for Osama bin Laden. They manipulated intelligence to sell the war in Iraq, and failed to plan adequately for the war before it started. They destroyed the moral authority America built up over five decades of Democratic and Republican presidents, and they alienated the universal support for our cause after September 11th.

 

Americans deserve to hear an exit strategy in Iraq and a plan to restore our moral leadership in the world. And questioning the patriotism of those who demand these things is absolutely out of bounds.

 

Thank you for standing up.

 

Governor Howard Dean, M.D.

[Guest BlueandGold]

The real scandal is the President and Congress gullibly deceived by the CIA.

[Guest Dave's Not Here]

al Qaeda commander who initially told interrogators that Iraq had provided chemical and biological weapons training to the terrorist organization later told CIA officers his statement was not true, according to intelligence officials. - Washington Post. August 1, 2004

 

Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi was a Libyan paramilitary trainer for Al-Qaeda. After being captured and interrogated by American forces, the information he gave under interrogation was cited by the Bush Administration in the months preceding the 2003 invasion of Iraq as evidence of a connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. That information was frequently repeated by members of the Bush Administration even though then-classified reports from both the Central Intelligence Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency strongly questioned its credibility, suggesting that al-Libi was "intentionally misleading" interrogators.

 

He was then turned over to U.S. officials and held at a detention center at the Kandahar airport. In the second week of January 2002, he was flown to the USS Bataan in the northern Arabian Sea, the ship which is being used to hold eight other important prisoners, including John Walker Lindh. His capture was first reported by NBC News in the evening of January 4, 2002.

 

Al-Libi has been identified as the source of misinformation regarding the connection between Iraq and al Qaeda that the Bush Administration used to justify the invasion of Iraq. Specifically, he told interrogators that Iraq provided training to al-Qaeda in the area of weapons of mass destruction. In Cincinnati in October 2002, Bush informed the public:

 

"Iraq has trained Al Qaeda members in bomb making and poisons and gases."

This claim was repeated several times in the run-up to the war, including in Colin Powell's speech to the U.N Security Council on 5 February 2003, which concluded with a long recitation of the information provided al-Libi. Powell's speech came less than a month after a then-classified CIA report concluding that the information provided by al-Libi was unreliable and about a year after a DIA report concluded the same thing.

[Luke_Wilbur]

Attached is a declassified letter from DIA about Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi

Ibnal_Shaykhal_LibiDIA.pdf

[Guest Sen. Carl Levin]

Vice President Cheney said that it is ‘dishonest and reprehensible’ to suggest that the Bush Administration ‘misled the American people on pre-war intelligence.’ It is disappointing the Administration continues to attack its critics instead of answering legitimate questions.

 

“Because of the many serious issues surrounding the Administration’s use of pre-war intelligence, the Vice President should hold a press conference and address the legitimate concerns of the American people. The Vice President needs to answer questions, not just attack the questioners.

 

“In that press conference, the Vice President should explain why he said: ‘It’s been pretty well confirmed that [lead 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta] did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the [9/11] attack’ even though the CIA’s pre-war assessment was that ‘Reporting is contradictory on hijacker Mohammed Atta’s alleged trip to Prague and meeting with an Iraqi intelligence officer, and we have not verified his travels.’ The CIA also concluded that ‘the most reliable reporting to date casts doubt’ on the possibility of such a meeting.

 

“The Vice President should also answer why he said: ‘Specifically aluminum tubes….We do know, with absolute certainty, that he is using his procurement system to acquire the equipment he needs in order to enrich uranium to build a nuclear weapon’ when the Department of Energy’s intelligence experts concluded before the war that the tubes were probably not intended for that purpose and the State Department’s intelligence bureau concluded that ‘the tubes are not intended for use in Iraq’s nuclear weapon program.’

 

“The Vice President said today that ‘any suggestion that prewar information was distorted, hyped or fabricated by the leader of the nation is utterly false.’ In fact, the President needs to explain why he said ‘You can’t distinguish between al-Qaeda and Saddam’ and why he said, after Saddam was removed, ‘We’ve removed an ally of al-Qaeda’ when the Defense Intelligence Agency had said prior to the war that ‘Saddam’s regime is intensely secular and is wary of Islamic revolutionary movements.’

 

“It is easy to make assertions that prewar intelligence was not distorted, hyped, or fabricated before a friendly audience. It is much more difficult – and much more important – to answer the legitimate questions of those who believe that there is a great deal of evidence to the contrary.”

[Guest Dave is waiting]

The 79-19 roll call Tuesday by which the Senate passed a GOP-introduced provision urging that 2006 "should be a period of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty," with Iraqi forces taking the lead in providing security to create the conditions for the phased redeployment of U.S. forces. No timetable was given in this provision.

 

On this vote, a "yes" vote was a vote to pass the provision.

 

Voting "yes" were 37 Democrats and 41 Republicans and one independent.

 

Voting "no" were 6 Democrats and 13 Republicans.

 

X denotes those not voting.

 

Democrats Yes

 

Akaka, Hawaii; Baucus, Mont.; Bayh, Ind.; Biden, Del.; Bingaman, N.M.; Boxer, Calif.; Cantwell, Wash.; Carper, Del.; Clinton, N.Y.; Dayton, Minn.; Dodd, Conn.; Dorgan, N.D.; Durbin, Ill.; Feingold, Wis.; Feinstein, Calif.; Inouye, Hawaii; Johnson, S.D.; Kohl, Wis.; Landrieu, La.; Lautenberg, N.J.; Levin, Mich.; Lieberman, Conn.; Lincoln, Ark.; Mikulski, Md.; Murray, Wash.; Nelson, Fla.; Nelson, Neb.; Obama, Ill.; Pryor, Ark.; Reed, R.I.; Reid, Nev.; Rockefeller, W.Va.; Salazar, Colo.; Sarbanes, Md.; Schumer, N.Y.; Stabenow, Mich.; Wyden, Ore.

 

Democrats No

 

Byrd, W.Va.; Conrad, N.D.; Harkin, Iowa; Kennedy, Mass.; Kerry, Mass.; Leahy, Vt.

 

Democrats Not Voting

 

Corzine, N.J.

 

Republicans Yes

 

Allard, Colo.; Allen, Va.; Bennett, Utah; Bond, Mo.; Brownback, Kan.; Burns, Mont.; Chafee, R.I.; Cochran, Miss.; Coleman, Minn.; Collins, Maine; Cornyn, Texas; Craig, Idaho; Crapo, Idaho; DeWine, Ohio; Dole, N.C.; Domenici, N.M.; Ensign, Nev.; Enzi, Wyo.; Frist, Tenn.; Grassley, Iowa; Gregg, N.H.; Hagel, Neb.; Hatch, Utah; Hutchison, Texas; Lott, Miss.; Lugar, Ind.; Martinez, Fla.; McConnell, Ky.; Murkowski, Alaska; Roberts, Kan.; Santorum, Pa.; Shelby, Ala.; Smith, Ore.; Snowe, Maine; Specter, Pa.; Stevens, Alaska; Sununu, N.H.; Talent, Mo.; Thomas, Wyo.; Voinovich, Ohio; Warner, Va.

 

Republicans No

 

Bunning, Ky.; Burr, N.C.; Chambliss, Ga.; Coburn, Okla.; DeMint, S.C.; Graham, S.C.; Inhofe, Okla.; Isakson, Ga.; Kyl, Ariz.; McCain, Ariz.; Sessions, Ala.; Thune, S.D.; Vitter, La.

 

Republicans Not Voting

 

Alexander, Tenn.

 

Others Yes

 

Jeffords, Vt.

[Guest Interesting]

I find this topic intersting because supposdly you are all using declassified documents to prove your theories. Well the invasion happened a little over 2- 3 years ago. Most documents dont have declass dates less than 10 years. It seems most of you are quoting newspapers to prove a point. Newspapers are just biased opinions.

 

The only people who desevere to kow an exit strategy are those directly involved other wise known as our troops. What gives the American people the right to highly sensitive classified information before anything is carried out. There probaly is a plan, but do you expect the president to come on tv and make an announcement for all to hear. Yes even terrorist watch tv this is classified and as a US service member and citizen I believe that most people dont deserve to know until after the fact.

 

Now if you believe for one moment that Hussein didnt have WMB your a freak*** idiot. He had plenty of time to get them out of there before the evasion. People say the president fooled the nation into this war. What did all the people of the united states decide to go to war. NO congress did and we as citizens elect them. So to me you are all stating that as voters you did your job very badly too. With information like this sometimes you have to act now and get details later. LETS play What if. What if Hussein really was capable of this? What if we got hit by some sort of attack designated from Iraq. Than you would all be complaining about how the president wasnt ready and all this other crap. He is in a no win situation here on both sides. So why dont you at least show some patriotism and back our country and leaders no matter the cost.

 

Sure there are alot of people dying here but guess what most of them are bad people. Suicide bombers and idiots, so really I dont care. I only feel for innocent people who die over there that are just bye standers. But this happens in war and I can accept this.

 

I also like how the Republicans called the Democrats bluff. If they wanted to get out than they would have voted too. Who cares this is political on both sides and you all know it. Most people on here complaining about the war just hate Bush and will use anything even if they care or not to bash him. Now I am not a huge republican or democrat, I just try to back whatever decisions are made from the top. No matter who is in office.

 

Some mentioned how Kennedy admitted he screwed up. I dont see it that way. So many people were in love with him from the start they just did not care what happened as much. The problem here is so many people hate Bush so thats why you see more reaction to this. He was in a close election that was 50/50. So right off the bat over half of the nation hates the man just for winning. So I cant blame a guy who leads our country. You do a better job and go stand opposed is the way I see it. Can any of you here do a better job running a counry like this? I know I cant so congrats on taking on a very tough job Mr Bush.

 

Also someone said we gave up on Osama, obviously not since we still have troops in Afghanistan. He has obviously left the country and is probaly in a place like Syria, but we cant go get him like you all want cause he is in a country that we havent invaded. As soon as we do you will have all of your panties in a bunch about that.

 

I guess overall what I am saying is that this is a tough job that is hard to win everyones appeal. Why cant someone cut this man some slack, he obviously has one of the more tough jobs in the free world in my eyes. I hope we as a country keep pushing ahead and maybe one day it will lead to us pulling out of Iraq. But we all know it will not happen now or anytime soon.

[Luke_Wilbur]

I find this topic intersting because supposdly you are all using declassified documents to prove your theories. Well the invasion happened a little over 2- 3 years ago. Most documents dont have declass dates less than 10 years. It seems most of you are quoting newspapers to prove a point. Newspapers are just biased opinions.

Interesting,

I can understand your thought process, but this document came from a United States Senator's Office.

 

http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/supportin...tter.102605.pdf

 

This information about Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi was released on November 6, 2005.

 

Here is more information about the admistration's Iraq policy.

 

http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/supportin....CBW.110605.pdf

 

http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/supportin...aeda.110605.pdf

 

You right on one count. The media is slamming the Bush Administration hard. Some of it is not fair. But, if the President just disclosed his October 31, 2001 Presidential Daily Brief on Iraq Intelligence to Congress this would be a dead issue.