Democrats See Cloud Over U.S. Intelligence on Iraq

[Nambe]

WASHINGTON (Reuters)

The Bush administration's disputed claim about Iraq's pursuit of nuclear weapons in a presidential speech "was not an inadvertent mistake," a senior Democratic senator on the defense and intelligence committees said on Saturday.

In the Democratic weekly radio address, Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan said the claim Iraq was seeking uranium in Africa raised questions about whether officials made a "very troubling decision to create a false impression about the gravity and imminence" of the threat posed by Iraq. ---

"Americans are united in our gratitude that Saddam Hussein's brutal regime is gone," Levin said. "But unless we can establish -- or if necessary, re-establish -- the objectivity and reliability of America's intelligence, and its proper use, our national security and our leadership in the world will be diminished."

[JNelson6563]

1. Sorry I missed it

Levin's my Senator and I am proud to claim it. He's palying a big role in this effort to shine a light on these cockroaches and he's not letting the scurry to the sfety of their favorite dark corners.

Julie

[janx]

2. From his positions on defense and intelligence committees,

he's a VERY credible source--not to mention that he's a smart guy. He can't be dismissed.

[Terazzo]

3. BIG mistaking--our focusing on the WMD issue

We need to be completely honest here. How many of us truly believe Saddam wasn't working on WMD programs after the last inspectors left back in 1998?? Bill Clinton, Tom Daschle and Richard Gephardt all outlined Saddam's pursuit of WMDs back in 1998. Why would we believe that, with no inspectors on hand, Saddam would suddenly turn into a Boy Scout?
Let me tell you something. Stuff is going to start turning up, more and more scientists are going to come forward, particularly as it becomes believed that Saddam is no longer a threat of retribution.
Tom Brokaw, certainly no RW whore has reported that he believes WMD's do exist based on an interview he has done with an official who is builing an air-tight case of documentation and evidence.
So when this evidence is revealed, what are we going to do then?
Democrats who have lashed out the loudest will be forced into another uncomfortable retreat, and we will have made the boy-king look like a damn genius in the process. This is precisely where we are headed.
Whoever in our top leadership that decided we should focus on WMDs ought to be strangled. Like any good lawyer will tell you, we should never ask questions we don't already know the answer to. We are as good as saying Saddam has hot been working on WMDs. The odds are enormous that he has. Just look at the past.
God, with so many other Bush fuck-ups why couldn't we have chosen any number of other paths to focus on? Not something that will almost certainly be a losing issue.

[Beetwasher]

4. Bullshit. Answer one question:

Why are they now saying "WMD PROGRAMS"? That's what Tom Brokaw was talking about. They're trying to move the goal posts. That being said, this whole issue about the report is about the LYING. They released this report thinking it would exonerate them and it only dig their hole deeper. The idiot didn't even read it. It contains warnings that the info was DUBIOUS about his reconstituted weapsons programs. Get it?

[Terazzo]

6. Why do you believe Saddam has

turned into a Boy Scout since 1998 and stopped producing WMDs?

[Beetwasher]

10. Answer my question first

Ok, I know you won't because you can't. SH didn't turn into a boyscout, but his weapons programs were destroyed in the '90's by very vigilant and competent UN inspectors. He's been under a microscope since then and incapable of starting them and he wasn't a threat to this country or any other. Get it? He probably thought about doing it, but there was no practical way he actually COULD do it without anyone knowing. That's why these idiots in the admin. are changing it to a WEAPONS PROGRAM. Understand? They're doing that as a bait and switch (do you know what that is?), becasue they KNOW there are no real, threatening WMD's.

[Terazzo]

15. Hold on....

..Clinton, Daschle, Gephardt, and Albright ALL acknowledged in 1998 that Iraq has and is developing more WMDs yet the inspectors were gone by then....So where was the scrutiny? Seems to me Saddam was under less scrutiny after that point.

[VolcanoJen]

39. But you're missing the point and trying to reframe the argument.

The argument the Democrats are focusing on really isn't about whether WMD's will be found one day, or whether Saddam was an angel or a devil. It's about the circumstances which led this country into a pre-emptive war and changed the direction of U.S. Foreign Policy for the first time in our recent history.

I'm sure the neocons wish it were as simple as all that, and I'm sure they'll work their hardest to reframe this argument (it's their M.O., after all, and we're becoming quite schooled in recognizing it). The core issue remains: Why did the President, in his SOTU Address, quote intelligence from obviously forged documents that had been discredited by many of our own intelligence agencies? The second argument is, Did the President do this knowingly, and if not, who pushed for the false statement to be placed within the only constitutionally-prescribed Presidential Address?

That's the way I see it, anyway. If WMDs are eventually found, I just don't see how that would discredit any of the President's critics. It doesn't change the way we went to war.

[sangha]

51. Yep, It's "framing the debate"

terrazzo is trying to change the dispute from one of whether or not Bush* lied about WMD's into a dispute over whetheror not Saddam is a "boy scout" which no one here claims.

[short bus president]

52. I smell a...

[tomp]

61. i don't believe clinton, daschle, gephardt, and albright...

...on much of anything. u.s imperialist foreign policy is fundamentally BIPARTISAN, always has been, always will be. if you think the dems didn't want this war too i have a bridge to sell you. the dems may not have wanted to do it THIS WAY but they are solidly behind the plan to control mideast oil at any cost.

[TankLV]

11. He was no "boy scout". Because every one else on this planet except

bushco and people like you who believe in fairy tales, said so and prooved it.

The inspectors said so.

The CIA said so.

We continually bombed the beJesus out of him to prevent him from doing so - everyone agrees to that fact.

There were supposed to be "tons and tons" of it and it all completely just vanished?

Or was sneaked into another country? With our super-dooper spy satilites in the sky that can read a pimple on an ant's butt?

Nice try. Go back to your dillusional dreams.

[intheozone]

12. Gee, I don't know,

ya' think maybe because the weapons inspectors dismantled and destroyed his facilities and many of the weapons components before leaving the country in 1998 and with 10 years of UN sanctions, Saddam lacked the ability to reconstruct and reconstitute the weapons program. What do you think the weapons inspectors were doing there all those years and what do you think the purpose of the sanctions were? If Saddam was again attempting to go nuclear, why were those all so important nuclear components still buried under the rosebush??

[West Coast Democrat]

7. Republicans Will Continue to Attempt to Divert Attention

away from the lack of WMDs. This just demonstrates how guilty of lying they are.

[Enraged_Ape]

36. And Terrazo keeps talking about PROGRAMS, which is HORSESHIT

Bush and Blair said WEAPONS, poised to strike us in 45 minutes!

There were no weapons then.

There are no weapons now.

They were, and are, lying.

[West Coast Democrat]

5. Apparently it was Rumsfeld who convinced Clinton

that Saddam had WMDs. Unfortunately, these neoCONs were misleading all of us.

If Bush really thought these weapons would begin to turn up, he wouldn't be focusing on the liberation aspect right now.

Anyway, the WMDs are just a piece of the picture. The administration's complete lack of an occupation and rebuilding plan for Iraq will very likely cause us to lose our hopes to bring Democracy there.

[gottaB]

62. Convinced Clinton?

I found this story on the PNAC letter to President Clinton, but it doesn't suggest that Clinton was convinced by their arguments.

Do you have anything showing that Rumsfeld was poisoning US intelligence in the Clinton Administration?

[Bandit]

8. Bullshit ~ bullshit ~ bullshit ~ bullshit

When the President gives the "State of the Union" to the people of America, we must have faith that he is being truthful. This is about the "ONLY" requirement of the President and it must be an accurate assessment. This is as serious as can possibly be. It is no laughing matter no matter how the GOP Spin machine spins it. It is essential that accountability is established. If we send our young people out into harms way the reason has to be solid and verifiable. We have to have verification. Bush* said we were in serious peril from Saddams WMD so we need to produce those WMD or question why we cannot produce them. We don't need to just shut up about it because the bad guys on talk radio will make fun of us. They don't give a shit about America so someone has to.

[West Coast Democrat]

9. Let's not even bother arguing with a guy....

who believes that TOm Brokaw is NOT a right-wing whore! I mean, he blows his cover right there!!

[reprobate]

13. inspectors left back in 1998?? WHAT?

Before coming here and spreading confusion, how about getting your facts straight. The folks here at DU will chew you up when you don't. Nothing is valued here more than facts.

The facts are that the inspectors were there up to a couple of days before the attacks on bagdad started. Yes, the inspectors left in '98, after it was shown that they were no longer trusworthy because they were being interfered with by american intel types. Even in '98 our govenment was trying to play games with the so elusive WMDs. They were soon replaced by UN teams and there was no further (AFAIK) problems with american interferance.

"We are as good as saying Saddam has hot been working on WMDs. The odds are enormous that he has."

Please cite the formula from which you calculated the "enormous" odds. Also, it was not us saying that saddom has not been working on WMDs. It was the inspectors. We know where he got the chemicals to make them, right? Have you forgotten where that was? Right here in the good old US of A. Remember the picture of von Dumsfeld shaking hands with saddam during the iran-iraq war? The smiles were about delivering to saddam the precursor chemicals to make chemical weapons to use on iran. Forgot that too, huh?

Come on now. Fess up. You've been listening to Rush Limpdick again, haven't you? I keep telling you you'll go blind if you keep abusing yourself like that.

[Terazzo]

16. I'm sorry friend....

but which fact do I not have straight? Am I mistaken that the top Democrats including the president cited WMDs in Iraq in 1998? In your initial sentence you question my statement about the inspectors leaving in 98. Then you affirm that statement.

Let me reiterate my question for the entire gallery:
"If we acknowledged the existence of WMD in Iraq in 1998, what would lead us to conclude Saddam turned Boy Scout after that??

If you can't answer that question, then you should consider my proposition that our focus on the WMD's existence issue now is a bit like playing Russian roulette with six bullets. Thanks.

[The Magistrate]

20. The Problem Is This, Sir

The invasion was sold by statements that such weapons existed in ready and useable form; that they constituted an imminent and pressing danger, that had to be dealt with now. These claims were essential to the broad popular fervor in favor of the action among the people of the United States. They were lies: there were, and are, no such weapons in readily useable form; there was no pressing danger. In support of these lies, reliable intelligence was ignored; wishful thinking and outright fraud was appealed to for support instead. This was done knowingly by the political leadership. People do not like being lied to. they particularly do not like being frightened for no real reason. That is humiliating. This is why the thing has some resonance. People are not fools. they know the things would have been found by now, if they existed. They do not.

[sangha]

53. You are no friend

Friends don't mislead friends.

Am I mistaken that the top Democrats including the president cited WMDs in Iraq in 1998?

Yes, you are mistaken. They mentioned WMD programs. Once again you're framing the debate, trying to change it from WMD's to WMD programs.

[RapidCreek]

56. Well for one thing....

Tom Brokaw is about as right wing as one can get. He and I are from the same state...I have heard him speak on three seperate occasions...the first was about 20 years ago...when he was beating the drum for Rompin "Tail Gunner" Ronny Raygun.

RC

[Enraged_Ape]

14. "Tom Brokaw, certainly no RW whore..."

You're really certain about that?

[Melinda]

17. "Our top leadership"? Aren't you a Brit?

In this thread you say

"Democrats who have lashed out the loudest will be forced into another uncomfortable retreat, and we will have made the boy-king look like a damn genius in the process. This is precisely where we are headed."

"Whoever in our top leadership that decided we should focus on WMDs ought to be strangled."

"God, with so many other Bush fuck-ups why couldn't we have chosen any number of other paths to focus on?"

And in a post in the lounge you said:

"We are enormously proud of Blair back in the UK. He is a man of utter principle: unwavering progressive ideas and a firm vision of national security. Whether on not you agree with Blair's stand on the war, you surely realise he is a man of principle who has risked an enormous amount politically, particularly within his own party.
I abounded with pride upon seeing his speech on the television. Adhering to your beliefs in the face of stout criticism is what true leadership is all about. God bless Tony Blair!"

So, are you a dem, a Brit, a Brit living in the USA, a naturalized American, have dual citizenship - what? Thanks in advance.

[Terazzo]

19. Scroll up, sweetheart.

Your question has been answered!

[Enraged_Ape]

21. What Melinda was getting at, sweetie...

was if you are a self-confessed British student in the U.S., why are you saying that "our leadership" is focusing on WMDs? To whom are you referring?

Thanks, hon.

[Melinda]

24. Thanks Ape!

You said what I meant to say better than I ever could, LOL!! You're an for it.

[Enraged_Ape]

26. You were the one that outed him

And scared him away with a masterful post, I must add.

[Melinda]

18. Oops, sorry, but I have just one more question!!

In this thread you state:

"Bush is anything but stupid
You don't win as often as he has by 'being stupid' He might be wrong, dishonest, indifferent, but he has made a great living by being miscast as 'stupid'."

But in this thread you state:

"Shrub--Not a brain in his head , but a certain swagger that gave him enough Elvis to make it close"

So again, help a gal out would ya? Which is it - is your pResident "anything but stupid", or is he "brainless"?

Thanks again.

[Occulus]

22. and here

the matter appears to have rested. Thanks, Melinda! You've exposed one!

[Terazzo]

25. Yes.

The only Brit attending classes in the US. I've been found out. But enough about me, personally. Let us revisit my original question. Unfortunately, answering it honestly might require some nasty self-evaluation about motives:
"After President Clinton and Congressional leaders all concurred the unmistakable buildup of WMDs in Iraq, what forces, do you believe acted on Saddam to cause him to suddenly morphise into a Boy Scout, given that all forms of inspections discontinued after 1998?"

Try your best not to lose focus on the question this time. Thanks!

[The Magistrate]

27. Maintain Your Own Focus, Sir

Try No. 20, above.

[Terazzo]

29. So....

I am sorry, but in 1998, the president, secretary of state, house and senate minority leaders called for the use of force vs Iraq because of their development of WMDs. I disagree with your assertion that those people were lying, particularly since their statement have been echoed almost verbatim by this administration for the past year.
Perhaps you could inform us how you are privy to information unavailable to either the Clinton or Bush administration.

[The Magistrate]

31. Development, Sir, And Fruition

Are two different things. It was indeed, at that earlier date, possible to be in some doubt about the status of attempts at development. It certainly is no longer possible.

The lies told by the current administration to gain support for this venture were deliberate, and known to be lies as they were uttered. Indeed, if there were any real fear that Hussein could boast deliverable poisons, there would never have been a build-up of troops on the Iraqi border: the matter would have been handled from the air. Such a concentration of troops would have been far too vulnerable to the weapons it was pretended Hussein controlled.

Here, Sir, are a pair of questions for you.

Can you think of any reason the fellow would not have used such weapons in extremis if he possessed them?

Can you think of any benefits to pretending to possess armaments you in fact do not possess?

[JNelson6563]

43. I have informed you as to

events surrounding the 1998 business, below in post #40. I'd be interested to learn your opinion of that post's content.

Julie

[The Magistrate]

45. You May Not Get One, Ma'am

Mr. Terrazo has shifted his attention to denouncing the evil English colonialization of Iraq in the 1920s, as contrasted with the self-less liberation of the place by the United States in our present day, here in General Discussion:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[JNelson6563]

47. I concur

Unfortunately I believe you are right. I had been looking forward to witnessing the mental gymnastics too.

Julie

[diplomats]

54. Isn't that the same bogus intelligence

the neocons foisted on Clinton? BTW, I'm sure no WMDs will be found by now because the Bush administration is now talking about WMD programs, not WMDs themselves. There's a major difference.

[diplomats]

55. Terazzo, consider this:

Hillary Clinton supports an investigation into the Niger controversy. Her husband must not be worried about it backfiring or she would've told her Democratic Senate colleagues to back off. Frankly, I wanted the Dems to be careful on this issue in the beginning lest WMDs show up and make them look foolish, but I'm not worried sbout that anymore.

[Melinda]

28. Ever get the feeling that repugs & their masters fear DUers?

Or is it just me?

But in all seriousness, I really was just trying to figure that one and where he came out. I do my best to give relatively new posters the benefit of the doubt - I want to hear how others feel and what they think about the current crisis that asshole in OUR White House has wrought on the world. I want to listen to their ideas and viewpoints about the entire spectrum of politics and policies, Congress, the media, corporate ownership, the rape of our planet, etc... I want to learn from them and hopefully share something positive in return.

Guess I didn't get the brass ring this ride.

[Terazzo]

32. Spare me.

"Repugs and their masters"

Sure, I can tell you were innocently and honestly seeking out information solely in the interests of making a new chatter feel welcome.
I want you to know I appreciate your personal interest in helping me.
I guess this is the price I pay for asking a straightforward question to which I have yet to receive an answer

Oh well.

[Enraged_Ape]

34. I believe your one question has been answered many times, honey

Although maybe not to your satisfaction. And here I should remind you that you never answered mine.

In fact, I'd say you are way out in front now when it comes to unanswered questions and smart-ass, evasive responses.

[Melinda]

35. Chapter III: Our young hero becomes sanctimoniously indignant.

Although my "Repugs and their masters" line was most assuredly not directed at you, both of my queries most definitely were.

However, you have repeatedly failed to respond to either of the two questions I posed to you, so forgive me if I don't understand why you now seemingly suffer --

"I guess this is the price I pay for asking a straightforward question to which I have yet to receive an answer."

[Enraged_Ape]

37. Oh, it was answered all right

He wants somebody here to say that if in 1998 we acknowledged that Hussein had a weapons program, why shouldn't we think we had one now?
I'll give him that one: Hussein may have had a weapons program. But a drawing of a warhead-loaded Atlas missile on a cocktail napkin constitutes a weapons program.

Bush and Blair talked about WEAPONS themselves, just 45 minutes away from killing us all. The UN inspectors did look for them; they found none. There WERE none, and our intelligence sources KNEW it.

Bush lied.

Blair lied.

They are lying still.

[conservdem]

46. Did Clinton and the others back in 1998 say Sadam had WMD's or

programs for WMD's?

[akitamata]

59. Truthful answers are wasted...

on dishonest debaters. Terrazo could use a course of study in the nature of sophistry...Truth is for the brave, lies are for the rest.

[FubarFly]

23. Hehe

"we"

[Terwilliger]

30. ME

How many of us truly believe Saddam wasn't working on WMD programs after the last inspectors left back in 1998??

Scott Ritter said there were few if any WMD's or interest in pursuing them.

A top Iraqi defector in 1998, while giving the coalition forces valuable information that was later verified, said that Saddam was not pursuing weapons production.

That makes the most sense. Why would Saddam wish to force himself from power by doing something so stupid? Why antagonize the forces that would remove him from power?

ITS A TRICK! BLAIR AND BUSH ARE PAYING SADDAM HUSSEIN. POPPY BUSH CONTROLS SADDAM AND HAS CREATED TWO WARS FOR PROFIT. GEORGE BUSH WAS BEHIND 9/11...I'M CONVINCED OF THAT. IT SERVED NO ONE ELSE SO WELL AS IT DID HE AND HIS PLANS FOR DOMINATION OF OPINION AND A WAR IN IRAQ.

WAR CRIMES TRIBUNAL NOW!!!!!!!

[Terazzo]

33. I was actually giving your post honest attention.....

until the last full paragraph.

Never mind

[Ripley]

38. Lame black/white answers/questions.

No Saddam is not a Boy Scout.

One word: Containment. That is what was going on before the war. Do you really expect anyone to believe Saddam's 2-bit army could manage to load these chemicals or nukes (if they had them) onto a non-existent ballistic missile that could reach America with spy planes/satellites overhead and inspectors in the field?

[JNelson6563]

40. Let's talk big picture here

To focus on these little detail pieces results in distraction. Here is a quote from Paul Wolfowitz from 1998:

In his statement of September 16, 1998, Wolfowitz ridiculed Clinton’s policies toward Iraq and said, “Administration officials continue to claim, as Assistant Secretary Martin Indyk did in testimony to the Senate last week, that the only alternative to maintaining the unity of the UN Security Council is to send U.S. forces to Baghdad. This is wrong.”

Wolfowitz then articulated how, with patience and diplomacy, a critical mass could be reached by supporting dissidents in their eventual overthrow of the Ba’athist regime. “he key lies not in marching U.S. soldiers to Baghdad, but in helping the Iraqi people to liberate themselves from Saddam,” he said.

He detailed the patient commitment that such a policy would require however, such an action would deliver much stronger international support than American militarism. He said, “Our friends in the Gulf, who fear Saddam but who also fear ineffective American action against him, would see that this is a very different American policy, one that can rid them of the danger that Saddam poses. And Saddam's supporters in the Security Council–in particular France and Russia–would suddenly see a different prospect before them. Instead of lucrative oil production contracts with the Saddam Hussein regime, they would now have to calculate the economic and commercial opportunities that would come from ingratiating themselves with the future government of Iraq.”

So, Wolfowitz is making the very argument raised by the anti-war movement....

http://www.republicons.org/view_article.asp?RP_ARTICLE_...

That's right, Wolfie and the rest of PNAC gang didn't want us to go to war with Iraq as long as they weren't the ones calling the shots from the WH.

Recent article:

According to the Baker report, Saddam Hussein became a swing oil producer by turning Iraq’s oil taps “on and off” whenever he felt that it was in his interest to do so. During these periods Saudi Arabia stepped up to the plate and provided replacement oil supplies to the market to keep California type “disruptions” and scarcity from occurring in America. Hussein, the report says, used his own “export program to manipulate oil markets.” The report’s implications are clear: the national energy security of the U.S. was now in the hands of an open adversary and the Saudis might not make up the difference in the future. The Baker report recommends: “The United States should conduct an immediate policy review of Iraq, including military, energy, economic and political/diplomatic assessments…. Sanctions that are not effective should be phased out and replaced with highly focused and enforced sanctions that target the regime’s ability to maintain and acquire weapons of mass destruction.” Military intervention is listed as a viable prospect.

According to Neil Mackay in the Sunday Herald article, James Baker delivered the report to Dick Cheney in person in mid April 2001.

The subsequent events of September 11, 2001 helped take the world’s eyes away from the notion that an invasion of Iraq is for oil, but according to Mackay’s sources, the Bush cabinet agreed to military intervention in Iraq six months earlier, in April of 2001.

This is a really a great piece, I highly recommend it.....it goes on to talk about the obvious similarities between Baker's report and the PNAC's. It is mentioned that Wolfie is one of the signers of that document. More...


When it was all unraveled, almost every major policy action in the Baker report was incorporated into the national report. The tedious process of comparing the two reports with each other occasionally revealed a subtlety. For example, the Baker report says, “The U.S. must have a strategic energy policy based on energy security.” The national report subtly changes this to: “The NEPD Group recommends that the President make energy security a priority of our trade and foreign policy.” This foreign policy change led to the discovery that an important topic is missing from the national report.

Although every other oil producing country was discussed in the national energy text, two countries were glaringly omitted from even a mention: Iraq and Iran. There’s an explanation for the omissions: First, in reading the Baker report one is struck by the strategic military information provided, which would be odd and inappropriate in a report on energy. Secondly, the Baker report is divided into two sections: the first part focuses on strategic steps the new administration should take immediately. The second part focuses on long-range energy policy. “Taking care of Iraq” is listed as an immediate step in the Baker report. The national report, however, focuses solely on long-range policy.

It's a long read but riveting. I give it a 10.

http://www.yuricareport.com/PoliticalAnalysis/FraudinWh...

War with Iraq is just a piece of the whole sordid picture.

Julie

[The Magistrate]

41. An Excellent Catch, Ma'am

"Blast from the past" is a game that two can play at.

[Star]

42. This whole Tom Brokaw thing

is getting lots of attention by the freepers. If I remember correctly, the "7 miles of documents" they claim to have found mentioned a program. I guess Saddam was going to attack us with confetti? Paper and programs are not the security threat that other places are, say like N. Korea.

Why was it OK to kill nearly 10,000 Iraqi's again? Because Saddam was a bad, bad man and posed a threat to the US. Pre-emptive war is only justified if there is an immediate danger of attack from another nation. Was there one from Saddam? Not in 5 years or 10 years, but last March. That's all that matters.

[Q]

44. The truth is that the Busheis wanted and needed this war...

...and because they're sociopaths they had no problem with lying about the need for the RUSH to war.

- What makes all this worse is that they obstructed the inspection and negotiation process that was obviously doing the job of containing Iraq and their 'bad' weapons.

[snippy]

48. Entirely correct.

[nolabels]

57. Every turn of the screw that was turned was implemented by them.

When mom says don't mind dad he is just drunk (after he bankrupted the household, lost his job, totaled the car, and impregnated the neighbors daughter). This kind of enablement is what leads to worse and worse outcomes.

Somebody is having people with knowledge of the circumstances murdered in England, forged documents with bogus information pasted up as reasons to go to war to kill thousands of people and spend billions of dollars. The beneficiaries of the actions (Corporate Inc. America) go on to say "it’s just a sixteen words" in their lockstep propaganda machine. While the population peers into an empty glass tube looking for their redemption.

Like moms said don’t mind Dad he is just drunk.

[are_we_united_yet]

49. Because America doesn't seem to care about all of Bush's

other f#ckups!

[Fovea]

58. You miss an important point

The phrase Weapons Programs was not the risk we went to war over.
We justified our invasion on fissionable materials, being made into weapons at that point, and Chem Bio weapons with a claimed 45 minute delivery. Anything less than that falls under the U.N.s charter, which allows for proactive military response in regard to imminent threat, and having a bomb by 2009 hardly qualifies.
Just becasue they lowered the bar after not being able to find WMD's does not mean we should not hold them to the only standards that are internationally justified.

[tomp]

60. i stopped reading when i got to the part where you say...

"...tom brokaw, certainly no rw whore...".

terrazo, certainly not parroting wh talking points... did you lose your way, friend?

[are_we_united_yet]

50. Levin's statement troubles me a bit....

He seems to blaming the CIA and not Bushco who are the real nitwits behind this doomed, ill thought out, illegal, immoral and unjustified , tragic campaign.

(I should probably stop holding back)

Anybody disagree?

[snippy]

63. I disagree a little. He may be starting to focus on the decision to lie.

From the article:

In the Democratic weekly radio address, Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan said the claim Iraq was seeking uranium in Africa raised questions about whether officials made a "very troubling decision to create a false impression about the gravity and imminence" of the threat posed by Iraq.
. . .
He said including the claim in the major speech "was not an inadvertent mistake. It was negotiated between CIA and National Security officials, and it was highly misleading."
. . .
Levin said there was evidence the uranium statement "was just one of many questionable statements and exaggerations" by the Bush administration and the intelligence community leading up to the war.

He does also talk about clearing up questions about the soundness of US intelligence. But, if the answers to those questions show that the intelligence was inconclusive, that also would show that Bush lied about what the intelligence showed.

At some point in time, someone in the administration made the decision that everyone in the administration would lie about the evidence and intelligence reports on Iraq's WMD. That decision probably created a criminal conspiracy. Who made that decision? When was it made? And why was it made? Those are the questions we need the American people to be asking. Levin might be beginning the process. At least I hope so.

[are_we_united_yet]

64. OK.

I'm convinced. Actually I wanted to be convinced so thanks for the post!

[young_at_heart]

65. I noticed this too

Why isn't he attacking Bush's tactics? They should pounce on the Cheney secrets about Iraq months before the invasion and connect the dots. Can't the Dem leaders have some big "meetings" about all this and form a cohesive, united attack plan?