What I Knew Before the Invasion (Sen. Graham - WH not interested in truth)

[jefferson_dem]

From tomorrow's WaPo ->

What I Knew Before the Invasion

By Bob Graham
Sunday, November 20, 2005; B07

The president's attacks are outrageous. Yes, more than 100 Democrats voted to authorize him to take the nation to war. Most of them, though, like their Republican colleagues, did so in the legitimate belief that the president and his administration were truthful in their statements that Saddam Hussein was a gathering menace -- that if Hussein was not disarmed, the smoking gun would become a mushroom cloud.

<SNIP>

At a meeting of the Senate intelligence committee on Sept. 5, 2002, CIA Director George Tenet was asked what the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) provided as the rationale for a preemptive war in Iraq. An NIE is the product of the entire intelligence community, and its most comprehensive assessment. I was stunned when Tenet said that no NIE had been requested by the White House and none had been prepared. Invoking our rarely used senatorial authority, I directed the completion of an NIE.

<SNIP>

There were troubling aspects to this 90-page document. While slanted toward the conclusion that Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction stored or produced at 550 sites, it contained vigorous dissents on key parts of the information, especially by the departments of State and Energy. Particular skepticism was raised about aluminum tubes that were offered as evidence Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program. As to Hussein's will to use whatever weapons he might have, the estimate indicated he would not do so unless he was first attacked.

<SNIP>

The American people needed to know these reservations, and I requested that an unclassified, public version of the NIE be prepared. On Oct. 4, Tenet presented a 25-page document titled "Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs." It represented an unqualified case that Hussein possessed them, avoided a discussion of whether he had the will to use them and omitted the dissenting opinions contained in the classified version. Its conclusions, such as "If Baghdad acquired sufficient weapons-grade fissile material from abroad, it could make a nuclear weapon within a year," underscored the White House's claim that exactly such material was being provided from Africa to Iraq.

From my advantaged position, I had earlier concluded that a war with Iraq would be a distraction from the successful and expeditious completion of our aims in Afghanistan. Now I had come to question whether the White House was telling the truth -- or even had an interest in knowing the truth.

<SNIP>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/18/AR2005111802397_pf.html

[jsamuel]

1. .

hmmm

[Skink]

2. I'm going to go out and buy the WaP tommorrow never having done that

[Tinksrival]

3. Last line.....

"On Oct. 11, I voted no on the resolution to give the president authority to go to war against Iraq. I was able to apply caveat emptor. Most of my colleagues could not."

[FreedomAngel82]

7. Wow

Good article.

[cloud75]

54. wondering how many senators voted against the war? n/t

[mzmolly]

56. Just over half of the Democratic Senate voted against.

And many in Congress. More then half of Democrats voted against the war.

I believe the number in the Senate was 22 and in Congress 126 Democrats who voted against.

[RockaFowler]

4. I Love Bob Graham

It is a damn shame that the Putz Martinez has his position in the Senate now. What a disgrace. Bob Graham is a statesman. He was the best Senator Florida ever had

[RB TexLa]

30. He was my choice in the Dem primaries n/t

[Lochloosa]

44. It was a sad day in Florida when he announced his retirement...

[Pacifist Patriot]

65. I'll admit it. I cried.

[blue state liberal]

71. Senator Graham wrote a wonderful book

which I read last year (although I can't recall the title) in which he recounted all the damage which was being done by the Bush administration before and during the run up to the war as well as the 9-11 tragedy.

[GBD4]

72. Title

"Intelligence Matters"

[demo dutch]

75. I wish Graham would have campaigned for B.Castor, he barely did anything!!

[savemefromdumbya]

5. It was obvious from the start

I don't know why so many congress members couldn't see it in the first place?

[FreedomAngel82]

8. I remember watching

Barbara Boxer on the "Daily Show" when Reid closed the Senate. She talked about how she didn't see enough evidence to go into Iraq and it was the best vote she ever did in her life.

[savemefromdumbya]

9. Boxer is wonderful!

[wisteria]

22. "She didn't see" enough evidence, this is more of a personal

observation and she gambled that she was right.She could have just as easily been wrong. As it urned out she was correct, but as Bob Graham said he had an advantage over the other senators because he was on the intelligence committee.

[rfranklin]

66. They were scared of the repercussions...

They didn't want to get their nuts caught in the Bush junta wringer. They could read the polls and see that the public wanted vengeance. And the public wasn't too particular about who was killed, tortured, bombed or incinerated. They were filled with bloodlust.

[pinto]

6. This goes right to the point. It's a great, short and damning statement on

the Administrations deliberate spin (and containment) of intel presented to Congress and the American people.

It's important to remember that the Bush Administration had previously revoked the security clearances for all but a hand full of House and Senate Chairmen/Committee members. Senator Graham was legally constrained from sharing his knowledge with his own colleagues who would later have to put their vote on the line...

[Pryderi]

11. Security clearances were revoked? Is there a source for you claim? TIA

[Laurab]

16. Do a search on DU

there were several threads about the security clearances in the past week or so. It was also on the front page I believe.

[Lasher]

37. Just 8 members of Congress receive certain "critical" information

Shortly after the 9/11 attacks, President Bush apparently decided that most Congresspersons no longer had a need to know the course of – and important developments in – our "critical" military, intelligence and law enforcement operations. So he issued an order to the Director of Central Intelligence, the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, and other cabinet members to restrict their divulgence of certain "critical" classified information to just eight members of Congress; The Speaker and Minority Leader of the House, the Majority and Minority Leaders of the Senate, and the Chairmen and Ranking Members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees.

http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=8002

[Buns_of_Fire]

45. Here's the original DU thread...

Bush Pulls Security Clearances From 92 Senators

I believe there were some later ones that said that, after some hue and cry, the clearances were restored, but I can't find them right now. Hope this helps some.

[Catrina]

31. I remember that egregious insult

to Democrats when this vile administration claimed that Congressmembers were not to be trusted and declared that only a few would be given access from then on to important information. Right then, I had hoped for a riot in Congress, but they were still holding 9/11 over everyone's head at that point. Their disgusting use of a national tragedy to bully anyone who disagreed with them must be one of the most vile things in a long list of vile actions, this administration will be infamous for.

And yes, it's true then that Sen. Graham knew more than other Senators. So, understanding that he did, why did the other Democrats not take their cue from him and assume he would not have voted 'no' had he seen any reason to do otherwise?

I still do not know why they voted 'yes' that day. Sorry, but just knowing these people, my premise always was, the minute they open their mouths, they're lying ~ why on earth did people who knew their history better than we did, ever trust them?

They should have demanded to see ALL the intelligence that Sen. Graham and the other chosen few had seen, considering the seriousness of what they were voting for. And they could then have gone to the American people and said, 'when the Administration shows us what we in Congress have an absolute right to see, we will vote accordingly. To vote blind to go to war would be treason.' Most Americans would have understood that.

[For PaisAn]

47. You're so right

"They should have demanded to see ALL the intelligence that Sen. Graham and the other chosen few had seen, considering the seriousness of what they were voting for. And they could then have gone to the American people and said, 'when the Administration shows us what we in Congress have an absolute right to see, we will vote accordingly. To vote blind to go to war would be treason.' Most Americans would have understood that."

It's inexcusable that they weren't permitted to see the complete NIE and they should have demanded it!

[ClintonTyree]

64. Let me play devil's advocate (somewhat).......

because I could never, in any way, seriously advocate the actions of the bush administration.
At this time they were voting to give bush authorization to use force if necessary. They had no idea at this time that bush had ALREADY made up his mind and took him at his word that he would only use force as a last resort. At this time the White House had not yet exposed themselves as the totally untrustworthy neo-fascists we now know them to be.
bush, of course, decided to use force as a FIRST resort, never honestly considering allowing the U.N. Inspectors to finish their jobs. When it became apparent to the bush administration that the U.N. Inspectors were not going to find any WMDs the invasion of Iraq was put on the front burner.
Cheney and his oil pals had already divided the country into "opportunity zones" during the secret energy meetings and come hell or high water, they were going to have their war. Our oil was under their land.
Yes, the Senators should have smelled a rat but our country had not yet begun to recover from the horror of 9/11. There was still vengeance in the air, even among some Democrats (Murtha being one of them) and clear heads were not prevailing. At a time like this it is incumbent upon the President to BE that clear headed voice of reason. We were in no way prepared for the unfathomable deception and dishonesty of this administration.
It's easy for us to "armchair quarterback" the decisions of our own Democratic Senators, but perhaps if we were walking in their shoes at that moment our reactions would now be a bit more tempered.
End of "devil's advocate". The dumb bastards should have known the BFEE was up to no damned good. ;)

[WiseButAngrySara]

77. Excellent post Clinton Tyree! ,,,,n/t

[bonito]

10. Kick n/t

[kentuck]

12. "Caveat emptor"?

On Oct. 11, I voted no on the resolution to give the president authority to go to war against Iraq. I was able to apply caveat emptor. Most of my colleagues could not.

[The Witch]

14. "Buyer beware" I believe..

just from common knowledge. I have no latin. (pig latin maybe...)

[justabob]

21. you are correct nt

[BadgerKid]

53. Yes, but shouldn't we call it 'caveat senator'? n/t

.

[lfairban]

69. Actually, "Let (or may) the buyer beware"

caveat senator would be "Let the senator beware".

[The Witch]

13. I sure hope his wife isn't covert

rec'd. This is huge.

[autorank]

15. jefferson_dem, great post!!!

"From my advantaged position, I had earlier concluded that a war with Iraq would be a distraction from the successful and expeditious completion of our aims in Afghanistan."

They didn't care about Afghanistan once they took it over. So much for the hunt for bin Ladin. This is so truthful and telling. I'm sorry to say this but as far as I'm concerned, all the Senators and Representatives knew the case was bull shit.

Anyone who voted NO had our interests at heart. The others, well they've disqualified themselves from leadership positions. Sorry, that's just how I see it.

[Mind_your_head]

32. You're right

Our Senators and Representatives all knew. Heck, if so many of us 'regular people' without access to classified material or having a 'staff' to present important info to us KNEW, there isn't any other conclusion to reach than what you said:

Anyone who voted NO had our interests at heart. The others, well they've disqualified themselves from leadership positions.

[autorank]

36. Mind_your_head WELCOME TO DU!!!!! We always need TruthTellers!

:hi:

[electron_blue]

17. Strong article, but I still have to say why did so many Senators believe

Bush?

I DIDN'T. I watched his pleas to the country to go to war, I listened to his SOTU speech, I read the articles, and debates on Sunday. To me, it was all consistent with lying and misrepresentation. I could see it in his facial expressions and other nonverbal language. I could see it in the fact that he only quoted OLD reports (5-10 yrs old in many case) and none in the last few weeks to few years. I kept saying to my friends at the time that I didn't believe Bush. If Iraq/Hussein were really involved in 9/11 and had WMD's, they'd give us more proof. I remember vividly telling people Bush was fabricating all of this.

And I'm not a genius. Honest. I don't have any special training in investigating people. I'm a scientific researcher by training, though, and I knew that Bush could convince me that Hussein was really involved in 9/11 and had WMD's *without* giving away top secret information or without further endangering Americans. I knew that if this were the truth, then he could provide proof to the public that this was so. And he presented NOTHING.

Why did so few people get this?

Why did so few DEMOCRATIC LEADERS get this? I am so disappointed in the Democrats for not catching this, or running with this from the beginning. Not that they should fight a Republican President on everything, but one would expect them to be at least looking for him to lie. And it's like they weren't even suspicious of Bush(which boggles the mind given the polls which showed that most of America was still unconvinced) or they were bought out. I can't think of a 3rd alternative and am not sure I'll ever forgive them.

[mohinoaklawnillinois]

19. I think the vast majority of Americans were still totally freaked out

about September 11th.

Like yourself, I knew that everything that came out of Chimpy's mouth was pure BS, but thanks to the CM (corporate media) no one was giving it a second look.

Also remember back in 2002 and 2003, anyone who questioned anything was labelled as unpatriotic or a traitor. My own family villified me for questioning the reasons for invading Iraq.

I know that standing alone is a hard thing to do. I've done it and it ain't pretty.

However, in regard to the politicians of the Democratic Party, I can forgive and forget. My family, however, is another matter.

[wisteria]

24. If you had to weigh in the protection of your country and its people

in your decision, would you still be as quick to vote against the resolution? if it was a possibility that it may come down to him or all of us, I would have gone with the protecting us.

[lfairban]

70. Even quicker!

If you split your forces during a battle to cover an insignificant or imagined threat, you could lose the battle. It happened just like that in one battle of the Civil War.

I honestly don't know why we haven't heard from the Democrats the cry, "Where is Osama?" You know if there was a Democrat in the WH, the Repukes would be saying this.

[Mind_your_head]

34. Why didn't the Democratic Leaders get this?

Because you're coming from the basic premise that 'they all have our best interests at heart'....and they don't.

The truth is that $$$$ clouds their eyes. That they're in office largely b/c they were bankrolled into those positions. 'Joe Schmoe Nobody' can't get into any important office, can he? People would just think it's "cute" if someone like that would try (and where would he/she get the money anyway?) It takes MONEY to get into office.

And once the MONEY gets you into office, 'Favors' are expected in return, etc. That's how this all seems to work.

Btw, I don't by any means support this system. I just think that there needs to be huge fundamental changes to campaign finance laws and many many other related issues. But one can't hope to change things until a lot of people recognize the basic problems and then work for something better.

[bpilgrim]

42. they haveta pay homage to the CARTOON-WORLDVIEW programmed 24/7/365 by M$M

they thought being PC was better/only choice and many 'savvy' politicos agree however from the cheapseats it seemed awfully stupid then and insane now.

peace

[Mme. Defarge]

59. The "Disneyfication" of the news,

along with history, art, etc,

[lostnfound]

43. A reminder. 43% of Senate Democrats DID get it (list)

It is very disappointing that the "leaders" like Daschle didn't get it. I actually was surprised looking back to see that there were this many who voted against the IWR. 21 out of 49 democrats, or 43%. Only 1 out of 50 Republicans, or 2%.

The ones who DID get it.
Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (D-FL)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wyden (D-OR)

Plus 1 Republican, Chafee (R-RI)and 1 Independent, Jeffords (I-VT).

[Exiled in America]

67. If I knew, they have no excuse to claim "we didn't know."

I don't see any intelligence briefings. And I knew. And I don't just mean "I felt it in my gut." I mean there was enough information out there internationally raising questions to the bulk of the Adminsitration's talking points leading up to invasion that I knew because I had evidence that the case for war was heavily politicized and largely fabricated.

If I knew, then they have no excuse.

[Raksha]

74. That was always my take on it too,

and I'm NOT a scientific researcher. Just a normally intelligent dilettante, with average critical thinking skills (I hope).

>>And I'm not a genius. Honest. I don't have any special training in investigating people. I'm a scientific researcher by training, though, and I knew that Bush could convince me that Hussein was really involved in 9/11 and had WMD's *without* giving away top secret information or without further endangering Americans. I knew that if this were the truth, then he could provide proof to the public that this was so. And he presented NOTHING.<<

Bush simply failed to convince me of his case against Saddam. I felt that if his case were credible, he would have been able to provide more specific and concrete evidence. After all, it was in his interest to do so since he was trying to convince America Saddam was a "clear and present danger" in order to justify a pre-emptive war. To build a case of THAT magnitude requires more than vague generalities and insinuations of guilt by association. Yet no such specific evidence was ever forthcoming.

It doesn't make our Democratic senators and reps who voted for the IWR look very good in retrospect, if so many of us regular folks with no access to classified information could figure that much out.

[Spazito]

18. It must never be forgotten that right after 9/11, the bush admin

IMMEDIATELY began looking at Iraq. In March 2002, Bush is quoted in Time as saying, "Fuck Saddam, we are taking him out." Time, in consideration of it's readers put Fuck as F--- (found in Time story posted March 23, 2003)

[hootinholler]

48. Not quite,

They were looking at Iraq in '98 or even earlier. Yes, that's right, before they 'won' jack, including the republican nomination, they were planning for an Iraq invasion!

Tried to get Clinton to pull the trigger, they did.

-Hoot

[Hippo_Tron]

61. PNAC wrote a letter to Lott and Gingrich

Urging them to pressure Clinton into invading Iraq. Of course, let's assume that Clinton had done this. Then Gingrich and Lott would've said that Clinton was trying to distract the country from his blowjob. Gotta love the Republican party.

[Spazito]

62. I realize that, PNAC has been advocating and plotting this for

a long time. I was keeping my post time-line to that of after the bush admin was in office due to the OP. There is no question Rumsfeld, Cheney, etc, have had Iraq as a target since Desert Storm when daddy bush refused to go into Baghdad and get Saddam.

[alfredo]

20. Be sure your friends see this.

The thousand cuts are starting to have an effect.

[jmatthan]

23. Sorry, this is pure posturing by this gentleman

Why did this Senator stand up so strongly to appoint Porter Goss as the head of the CIA. That was long long after the whole sham info about the WMD, etc. was exposed.

I am sorry to say that this is just people now trying to get onto the bandwagon for not having done their homework when they were in a position to do so!!

From Wikipedia:

Goss was a co-sponsor of the controversial USA PATRIOT Act and was a co-chair of the Joint 9/11 Intelligence Inquiry.

Following the June 3, 2004 resignation of CIA director George Tenet, Goss was nominated to become the new director on August 10 by President George W. Bush. The appointment was challenged by some prominent Democrats, including Al Gore, Sen. Robert Byrd (WV). Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (WV), vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, expressed concerns that Goss was too politically partisan, given his public remarks against Democrats while serving as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. Another Democratic member of the committee, Ron Wyden (OR), expressed concerns that given Goss's history within and ties to the CIA, he would be too disinclined to push for institutional change. In an interview on March 3, 2004 Goss described himself as 'Not qualified' for a job within the CIA, although he was referring to a position as a case officer.

The U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee endorsed his nomination by a 12-4 vote on September 20, 2004, and on September 22 he was confirmed by the Senate in a 77-17 vote. Opposition to his nomination came entirely from Democrats; the Republican senators unanimously backed him, along with many prominent Democrats, including the two Democratic senators from Florida, Bob Graham and Bill Nelson, and the former Senate Minority Leader, Tom Daschle.

[TruthStream_dot_org]

27. Thank You. nt

[TruthStream_dot_org]

29. MORE proof of posturing:

From http://www-tech.mit.edu/V122/N47/Long_1_47.47w.html :

But Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fla.), chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, blasted the resolution as “too timid,” arguing that Congress should have broadened the resolution to give Bush even greater authority to attack international terrorists.

[dalaigh lllama]

60. It'd be interesting to see this Graham quote in full context

On the face of it, it looks like a complete about face from what he says in the current article. But when I calmed down enough to look at it dispassionately, it could be snipped from a speech that said something entirely different.
...After a google search, that's exactly what happened. Graham spoke on adding an amendment which would have put the focus on terrorist groups. I snipped the following from what Graham actually said on the senate floor on October 9, 2002 (bold highlighting done by me):

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r107:3:./temp/~r1078DtGr5:e108709:

I conclude by saying that I am not optimistic about the prospects for this amendment, but I am deeply concerned, and I am deeply saddened. I am concerned in part because I see us making life-and-death decisions without consideration because we do not have access to what might be critical, and I would suggest determinative, information. I believe the national security interests are being put at risk by this information not being available.
I am saddened because I fear the action we are going to take will increase the risk at home without increasing our capability to respond to that risk.

I have been described as a cautious man. I will accept that label. I do not see the world as a simple set of blacks and whites. I see the world as a complex of grays. That leads to caution. I believe that caution today is to recognize that we are not dealing with one evil, as evil as Saddam Hussein might be. We are dealing with a veritable army of evils.

We must be prepared to respond to that army of evils. I believe the step we can take today is to give to the President of the United States the opportunity to exercise his judgment as to whether he believes it would be appropriate to use U.S. force against these five international terrorist groups which represent, in my judgment, the most serious urgent threat to the interests of the United States of America, including a threat to Americans at home.

I think this excerpt gives a clearer view of Graham's position at the time.

[TruthStream_dot_org]

25. Im confused

When did Graham get this classified NIE? Before or after his vote - and what was his vote? Im embarrased that I don't know this info, as he was my Senator. lol

[TruthStream_dot_org]

26. nm...found it

Graham (D-FL), Nay

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237

[Kazak]

28. KV calls 'em guessers...

Don't bother with the truth...guessing is working out so much better for them.

[SW FL Dem]

33. Thank you Bob Graham

I wish you were still my Senator.

[lostnfound]

40. To heck with Senator -- as Governor he could have changed history

if he were still governor in 2000.

[Patsy Stone]

35. I love Bob Graham

and I miss him representing me. :patriot:

[demo dutch]

76. I wish he would have campaigned for B.Castor, he barely did anything!!

[grasswire]

38. buried on page B-07

Unfortunately

[jbnow]

39. Tenet's response to NIE request?

Tenet objected, saying that his people were too committed to other assignments to analyze Saddam Hussein's capabilities and will to use chemical, biological and possibly nuclear weapons. We insisted, and three weeks later the community produced a classified NIE

Good Lord, too busy when what they had to decide was whether or not to go to war.

The very few senators having security clearance is disturbing too...that those who had clearance could not discuss what they knew with other senators who were deciding how to vote? That they would vote without access to the information is disturbing. This was bush...why would they take his word?

[NNN0LHI]

41. Isn't Graham the fellow who wanted Bush to invade Lebanon, Syria, and...

...Iran instead of Iraq?

Don

[For PaisAn]

46. Quite damning.

More proof that they lied and distorted. Why weren't all Senators given the complete NIE report before deciding how to vote?! It's inexcusable that they weren't.

[IndyOp]

49. WTF ?!?!

"No longer will the members of Congress be entitled to accept his veracity..."

He is just NOW figuring this out. :wtf:

(Okay, okay, good boy Graham for saying it aloud, but :wtf: anyway!)

[jamesinca]

50. They did not have the same intelligence!

Right here it is in the second to last sentance of the piece.

"On Oct. 11, I voted no on the resolution to give the president authority to go to war against Iraq. I was able to apply caveat emptor. Most of my colleagues could not."

[wryter2000]

51. Between him and Wilson

This is the best summary of the lies about Iraq (minus the Niger/uranium lie) I've seen yet. Any freeper who claims Congress had the same intelligence is going to get a link to this from me.

[indepat]

52. Please refute: war was always the only option considered and they torture

because they like it.

[gristy]

55. Wow

:applause:

[mzmolly]

57. Graham was my first choice for VP. I felt his experience and foresight

on the war would have lent themselves well to any candidate.

[Tin Man]

58. If the floodgates weren't already open, they certainly are now!

Sen. Graham's op-ed is gonna blow the lid off the WHIG conspiracy.

[pinto]

63. kick.

[happydreams]

68. This is precisely why a declaration of war by the

Congress be required. This war would not have happened if Congress was held equally liable as Bush now is.

[DC Law]

73. TNR published the following in 2003

and it remains one of the most spot-on and revelatory missives on the subject I've ever seen. Highly recommended reading, if you've not seen it.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/unmovic/2003/0630selling.htm