Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

ABC News Poll: 57 senators indicated they would have voted against war in Iraq

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
sabra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 11:23 AM
Original message
ABC News Poll: 57 senators indicated they would have voted against war in Iraq

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/17906.html

Senators change their minds on Iraq

WASHINGTON, Jan. 5 A poll of U.S. senators who served in 2002 has found the body would not have approved the Iraq war if members had the same information then that they do now.

At least 57 senators indicated they would have voted against giving the president the authority to go to war with Iraq, far more than the 23 members that opposed the authorization in 2002, ABC News reported Friday.

The war was approved with a 77-member majority, but a maximum 43 members said they would vote the same way given the information they have now.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hippiechick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 11:25 AM
Response to Original message
1. Oh blah. STFU, GOP losers!
Trying to switch horses in mid-stream hey? Too late!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadAsHellNewYorker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 11:25 AM
Response to Original message
2. STFU! too little too late. and how did we know all this back then
and they didn't?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nite Owl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 11:26 AM
Response to Original message
3. Biden is considering a motion
to reconsider the vote:

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

I wonder how they would vote in reality if give another chance and what the legalities of the vote would be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lapfog_1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 11:31 AM
Response to Reply #3
9. I think he will need 67 votes to override the veto...
and the House will need to override as well.

Might as well give it a try.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AndyA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 11:26 AM
Response to Original message
4. Sounds like a good basis for repealing the authority to go to war.
Better late than never.

We need to bring our troops home, out of harm's way. No more deaths for a lie!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
librechik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 11:27 AM
Response to Original message
5. they erred on the side of national security, after being blatantly lied to
IMPEACH CHENEY FIRST
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #5
22. They erred on the side of covering their asses
They knew full well that this illegal war had NOTHING to do with national security.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
acmavm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 11:27 AM
Response to Original message
6. I don't believe this one bit. But they need to vote to rescind
Chimpy's authority and they need to do it NOW.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PA Democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 11:27 AM
Response to Original message
7. The fact that 43 would still vote to support this war is extremely disturbing,
and is a perfect illustration of how out of touch with the country many members of the Senate are. I am assuming that the 43 stay the course fools are mostly Republicans. It would be interesting to see a breakdown of how individual members voted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProfessorGAC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #7
15. That's Exactly What I Thought
I thought this number was 57 of the 77 who voted for it changed their mind. Reading on, it's clear that 57 total, or 34 people changed their mind. That means there are still 43 idiots who think it was a good idea.

Another thing is that what they know now, is that the Bushites and the Pentagon screwed this up. Would they have authorized them knowing these incompetents were going to screw the pooch? That's even more disturbing.
The Professor
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProfessorGAC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #7
16. Dupe
Edited on Fri Jan-05-07 11:51 AM by ProfessorGAC
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jacobin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 11:30 AM
Response to Original message
8. They DID have the information. They purposefully IGNORED it
because they wanted to jump on the woop ti do WAR bandwagon.

Fuckers
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #8
10. Can you privide links...
To these authoritative sources of information?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ray of light Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 11:40 AM
Response to Reply #10
12. of course he can't because everyone knows that
Bush withdrew ALL information and reclassified it as HIGHLY sensitive information. Then he only released it to the Republican LEADERSHIP. Then they redacted information that was deemed, "HIGHLY CLASSIFIED" and so on and so forth.

That information is common knowledge.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jacobin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 11:51 AM
Response to Reply #10
17. LMAO
Or, more narrowly, the archives at DU during the nine month run up to the invasion where people here cited numerous op eds from Poppy's former guys warning the nation that it would be an absolute catastrophe...Will Pitt's book cowritten with a former weapons inspector saying there were no wmds in Iraq....news from european sources.....Senator Byrd's speeches in the Senate...121 democratic congresscritters who voted against the clusterfuck...
20millin people marching against the war.

85% of briton who were against the war.

Poppy Bush's book

anything else?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 12:16 PM
Response to Reply #17
24. You mean Will Pitts book...
Described here by Will himself...?

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

A couple tidbits


The 'Yes' vote on the IWR essential to the establishment of effective weapons inspections. Only the threat of force made the previous inspections effective. I asked Scott Ritter personally if his seven years in Iraq as an inspector would have been effective without the threat of force. He said the inspections would have been useless without the threat.



The threat of force got rid of the weapons from 1991-1998. The threat of force was needed to get rid of whatever he might have developed since. As Ritter said in my book, no one was absolutely sure they hadn't retained any of their weapons capabilities.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 12:17 PM
Response to Reply #17
25. You are avoiding the question...
Edited on Fri Jan-05-07 12:21 PM by SaveElmer
Can you provide authoritative links available in October 2002, that showed the intelligence supplied to Congress was false?

Public opinion is not evidence...hell I was aginst this at the time too...

I would like someone to show me any evidence to back up their assertions that folks like John Kerry, Max Cleland, and Tom Harkin were willingtly throwing away the lives of American soldiers for political gain...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jacobin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 12:46 PM
Response to Reply #25
33. Look, if you want to be obtuse
and insist on a document signed by Bush and shown to the senators wherein he swears he was lying about iraq, i can't show that to you.

my point is that senators should have some independent judgment and their job is NOT to simply accept at face value SLOP served to them by presidents who have an obvious hard on for war.

and, many senators and congresscritters DID show independent judgment and did the right thing. and there were many many many voices out there warning this was utter crap.

I suppose you don't count Joseph Wilson

i give up. IWR voters defender's are like the energizer bunny. they never give up defending the indefensible.

carry on...without me
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #33
35. So you don't...
Edited on Fri Jan-05-07 01:03 PM by SaveElmer
What is clear is that opponents of the IWR were basing their opposition not on the notion that Saddam did not have WMD's, but that the method by which those WMD's would be eliminated was the wrong one in their judgement...and they were right

Russ Feingold in his speeh annoucing his opposition to the IWR said the following...

With regard to Iraq, I agree, Iraq presents a genuine threat, especially in the form of weapons of mass destruction, chemical, biological, and potentially nuclear weapons. I agree that Saddam Hussein is exceptionally dangerous and brutal, if not uniquely so, as the President argues. And I support the concept of regime change. -Russ Feingold


Was Feingold ignoring intelligence that contradicted this. It is pretty clear he accepted the Administrations warning about the alleged danger posed by Saddam...which of course turned out to be false.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orsino Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 02:27 PM
Response to Reply #25
46. You can't prove a negative. The "intelligence" provided...
...was an ad campaign. No more substance than that. Our senators never had information that justified a war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #46
47. Read their statements...
Any success at ridding Iraq of WMD's between 1991 and 1998 would not have happened without a credible threat of force...Scott Ritter says this himself...

Even the most rabid opponents of the IWR acknowledged this point.

Each of these Democrats was voting to provide leverage to used to get inspectors back into Iraq...

And indeed it may have been working until the Bushies cut it short with their determionation to invade.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orsino Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 02:50 PM
Response to Reply #47
49. No justification for war.
The * Administration pretended to fear nonexistent (or unproven) weapons, Congress rubber-stamped it, and we let them get away with it. I even helped pay for it, to my eternal shame.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #49
50. Well feel free to ignore the facts...
And continue your sloganeering...

My suggestion would be to direct your ire at the man living at 1600 Pennsylvanis Ave...he is to blame!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orsino Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-06-07 09:26 AM
Response to Reply #49
52. No facts have come to light which justify the war.
Hasn't happened. The * administration has tried everything they can think of, or make up, and it hasn't happened.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-06-07 08:05 PM
Response to Reply #52
54. I'm not trying to justify the war...
And if you read my arguments carefully you would know that
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orsino Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-06-07 09:00 PM
Response to Reply #54
55. Your challenge for us to disprove the so-called intel pushing the war...
...while no doubt well-intentioned, places the burden of proof where it doesn't belong. I believe that you're not trying to justify the war. My point is that no one ever supported the drive to war with facts, and that it is not up to us to prove the neocons' fantasies baseless.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-06-07 09:11 PM
Response to Reply #55
56. That is not right either....
The intel was made up...

My challenge is to show that this was widely known in October 2002 when the IWR was voted on...

I am told time after time that it was widely known by everyone, but there seems to be precious little evidence for that...

My concern is that I am told repeatedly that there was not justification for using the threat of military force to get inspectors back in Iraq, because there was ample evidence that George Bush was lying about the existence of WMD's before the IWR vote took place. The evidence indicates the opposite. A quick look at the statements of those opposed to the IWR points to this as well...

Russ Feingold for example was very explicit in his belief Saddam did possess WMD's.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orsino Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-06-07 09:21 PM
Response to Reply #56
57. Depends on what you mean by "widely."
The neocon tale of Saddam's army of flying monkeys that would deliver nuclear warheads across the Atlantic was never substantiated, but because it was repeated so often an went nearly unchallenged in the media, a lot of people were convinced that something was there that needed bombing. It was just never clear what, or where, and natural American laziness did the rest.

The charges were never specific enough to debunk--and this was obvious to millions--but they were ominous enough that millions more Americans were willing to let * have his war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-06-07 09:58 PM
Response to Reply #57
59. They were specific enough...
For Bob Graham, Paul Wellstone, Ted Kennedy and Russ Feingold...

What possible motivation would they have for soft-peddling a lack of evidence...they were voting against the IWR anyway...

Of course your characterization is wrong...even Scott Ritter, who argued Saddam had lost 95% oof his WMD capability acknowledged Saddam may still have had significant stockpiles of VX gas.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orsino Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-07-07 10:14 AM
Response to Reply #59
60. What possible motivation?
Are you serious? Fear. Fear not of *'s phantoms, but of the mob. Opposing the war was unpopular, dangerous for officals seeking reelection, and downright treasonous according to the loudest voices in the media. Congress was afraid of us, not of Saddam, and it was so easy for them to rubber-stamp the invasion, conquest and occupation. They didn't have to declare war. The few voices of sanity and courage were even able to vote against it, knowing that the invasion would happen no matter how they voted; yes, even they were afraid.

Even if we believed that Saddam had WMDs, he had never used them against us even as his country was overrun in the First Gulf War, and against no one in the following decade of occupation. And no one had specifics.

You can't debunk nothing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-07-07 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #60
61. Ok...
Russ Feingold is a coward...ok!

Paul Wellstone agraid to stand up to the power of President Bush...uh huh!

I don't agree with Feingold a good portion of the time...but that is one thing that would never occur to me to call him.

Nice little theory you have there...facts are otherwise...

Of course they had specifics...read the October NIE...they were loaded down with specifics...

They were lies of course, but as no one has been able to refute, that was not known at the time of the IWR.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orsino Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-07-07 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #61
62. Nothing there to refute.
No facts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #10
21. Daily humor break from elmer.
Thanks, you make me laugh out loud at least once a day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #21
27. Um...
No links in that post...do you have any?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 12:31 PM
Response to Reply #10
28. From Hubris:

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Book_Bush_told_aides_...

<snip>

Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War, a new book arriving in stores today by veteran Newsweek investigative reporter Michael Isikoff and Nation Washington editor David Corn reveals a flurry of new details on the inner workings on the Administration in the lead-up to the Iraq war -- many of which cast unflattering light on the aggressive nature of the Bush-Cheney team that discounted facts from the intelligence community in favor of a policy that involved attacking Iraq, RAW STORY has learned. Among the book's myriad disclosures will include:

...

Congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle seriously doubted the case for war-and questioned the top-secret briefings they received directly from Cheney. One senior Republican, House Majority Leader Dick Armey, warned the President in a September 2002 meeting that Bush would be stuck in a "quagmire" if he invaded Iraq. But Armey and others were afraid for political reasons to challenge the White House on the prewar intelligence.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 12:40 PM
Response to Reply #28
31. Hmm...
I am told time after time that these lies were public knowledge at the time...yet no one seems to be able to come up with those links...this blurb here is nothing more than hearsay...where is the back up, the citations etc...surely if it was so well known they should be available..

It's interesting that IWR opponents didn't see the issue this way...nearly everyone of them acknowledged Saddam's alleged threat...

A sampling...

There is no question that Saddam Hussein is ignoring the will of the United Nations and that he has not honored the agreements he made following the Gulf War. Saddam Hussein is a dangerous force in the world. -Kent Conrad

Saddam Husseins regime has chemical and biological weapons and is trying to get nuclear capability. -Bob Graham

Saddam Husseins desire to obtain weapons of mass destruction is of grave concern. -Jim Jeffords

I commend President Bush for taking his case against Iraq to the American peopleand I agree with the President that Saddam is a despicable tyrant who must be disarmed. -Ted Kennedy

Iraq has grim and ghoulish weapons to carry out its evil plans. As part of the Gulf War cease-fire agreement, Saddam Hussein committed to destroying its chemical and biological and nuclear weapons programsinstead, Saddam Hussein is trying to add nuclear weapons to an arsenal that already includes chemical and biological weapons and ballistic missiles. -Barbara Mikulski

Saddam must give arms inspectors unfettered access. And, if he does not comply with this new U.N. resolution there will be consequences, including the use of appropriate military force. -Paul Wellstone

With regard to Iraq, I agree, Iraq presents a genuine threat, especially in the form of weapons of mass destruction, chemical, biological, and potentially nuclear weapons. I agree that Saddam Hussein is exceptionally dangerous and brutal, if not uniquely so, as the President argues. And I support the concept of regime change. -Russ Feingold


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #31
32. Jacobin posted that the intel was ignored for political reasons
Hubris has former leader Dick Armey saying this is true...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 12:56 PM
Response to Reply #32
36. Brother...
I thought this was COMMON knowledge at the time...everyone tells me it was...

Where are the links...

Do I belive it is possible Dick Armey may have had information not widely shared with the rest of the Senate...sure I suppose that is entirely possible..but this Hubris article is hearsay...where is the citation. Who told Dick Armey, who did Dick Armey tell what he knew...?

Cripes for something that was common knowledge there doesn't seem to be alot of information.

Do you think Max Cleland had this information and purposely ignored it?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #36
37. more from Hubris:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14740070/site/newsweek

Silencing a Skeptic

An excerpt from 'Hubris,' the new Isikoff and Corn book about how the Bush administration sold the Iraq war to its supporters

<snip>

At one point, other members of Congress were able to witness Bush's intense feelings about Saddam up close. At a breakfast with a few congressional leaders in late September, Bush expressed exasperation when the issue of a diplomatic settlement arose. Saddam had shown his contempt for the United States, he told the legislators. There was no use in talking to him. Do you want to know what the foreign policy of Iraq is to the United States is? Bush asked angrily. The president then answered his own question by raising his middle finger and thrusting it inches in front Senator Daschle's face, according to a witness. F--k the United States!" Bush continued. "Thats what it isand thats why were going to get him!"

****

"Trust me on this, Dick," Vice President Dick Cheney told House Majority Leader Dick Armey. When I get done with this briefing, youre going to be with me.

It was an afternoon late in September, and Armey had been invited over to the vice presidents small hideaway office in the U.S. Capitol. This was the briefing Bush had promised Armey three weeks earlier. Ever since then, Armey had bowed to the presidents wishes and not said anything in public about his doubts about the Bush's stand. But the White House understood Armeys importance. He was the number two Republican in the House. If he broke ranks, that would be a problem. So Cheney was dispatched to do the job himself.

Armey thought Cheneys opening remark was odd: "He didn't say you're going to be with us. He didn't say you're going to be with the president. He said you're going to be with me."
Over the next half hour, Cheney, surrounded by aides, pointed to pictures of the aluminum tubes, showed overhead images of nuclear sites supposedly under construction, displayed drawings of mobile biological labs and photographs of UAVs that could hit Israel and spread mass death. He talked about the "associations" and "relationships" between Saddam and al Qaeda. He noted that the Iraqis could slip miniaturized biological weapons (that fit in suitcases) to terrorists, who could bring them into the United States and kill thousands.

As Armey listened to Cheney and stared at the photos, it occurred to him that he couldn't really see anything in the pictures. They were aerial shots of buildings and other sites. Who knew what was in those buildings? Armey realized he had to rely on what Cheney was telling him. "It wasn't very convincing," Armey later recalled. If I had gotten the same briefing from President Clinton or Al Gore, I probably would have said, 'Ah, bulls--t.' But you don't do that with your own people." He assumed Cheney was leveling him; it never occurred to Armey that the vice president was not telling him the whole story.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 01:18 PM
Response to Reply #37
38. Ok...so the White House lied to Dick Armey too...nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #38
40. "But you don't do that with your own people."
Armey knew the intel wasn't there, but chose to be a team player.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #40
41. Ok...
So say that is true...what does that have to do with Democrats voting for the IWR...

I didn't say Bush wasn't lying...of course he was...what I am saying is that at the time (IWR vote), that fact was not well known...

Look at the statements of Democrats...both pro and anti IWR...they all comment on the threat Saddam posed...

Do you think Dick Armey gave Max Cleland and the other Democrats the heads up that Bush was lying about WMD's and that he, Dick Armey, was just going along to be a team player?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #38
42. Uh yes they lied to everyone.
They did not take some people aside and say "hey this is all cherry picked bullshit we have cooked up to look like it is substantial".

You are just going to reject all the links, all the massive documentation of fraud accumulated against this administration as insufficient and hearsay but here is some more:

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/11/11/what-the-senate-int... /

Essentially, the Bush administration took the intelligence that was presented to them in the classified NIE and twisted it to present a stronger case for war in the public version of the NIE. Here are some examples:

Classified NIE: Although we have little specific information on Iraqs CW stockpile, Saddam Hussein probably has stocked at least 100 metric tons of such poisons.
Unclassified NIE: The phrase although we have little specific information was deleted. Instead, the public report said, Saddam probably has stocked a few hundred metric tons of CW agents.


Classified NIE: Iraq has some lethal and incapacitating BW agents and is capable of quickly producing a variety of such agents, including anthrax, for delivery by bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers and covert operatives.
Unclassified NIE: The words potentially against the U.S. homeland are inserted at the end of the statement.


Classified NIE: Stated Iraq was developing unmanned aerial vehicles probably intended to deliver biological warfare agents.
Unclassified NIE: A footnote in the classified version from the Air Force stating its disagreement with this claim was eliminated. The Senate Committee report stated the public NIE missed the fact that agency with primary responsibility for technological analysis on UAV programs did not agree with the assessment.


Classified NIE: Included a reference to State Departments Bureau of Intelligence and Research dissenting view on whether Iraq would have a nuclear weapon this decade.
Unclassified NIE: Did not contain any mention of INRs dissent.


Or here:

Here is Bushs description of the Iraqi nuclear threat:

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.

If youre a parent watching at home with your kids, and you just happen to lack expertise on Iraq and nuclear-weapons technology, like 99.99 percent of your fellow citizens (including me), thats a very frightening picture.

Not only did Bush put the fear of Saddam into viewers, he did so by citing sources that fence-sitters and skeptics would likely consider credible: the British government and the IAEA. For citizens who didnt know the IAEA from Adam or what to think of it, Bush wisely included this comment earlier in the address: Were strongly supporting the in its mission to track and control nuclear materials around the world.

What Bush didnt include was the IAEAs assessment issued the day before the SOTU of the current Iraqi nuclear threat. So far, the agency had found No evidence of ongoing prohibited nuclear or nuclear-related activities nor signs of new nuclear facilities or direct support to any nuclear activity. . . . The IAEA expects to be able, within the next few months, barring exceptional circumstances and provided there is sustained proactive cooperation by Iraq, to provide credible assurance that Iraq has no nuclear weapons programme.

Such a program cant be hidden in a basement or buried in a garden. It requires a vast, high-tech infrastructure. The yellowcake uranium Iraq was allegedly seeking in Africa would have to be enriched to become weapons-grade. A nuclear consultant quoted on July 20, 2003 in the British newspaper The Independent estimated the enrichment plant would be the size of 30 football pitches i.e., 30 soccer fields. Such a plant could not go undetected in a country spied on from satellites and swarming with inspectors, as was the case in January 2003.

What the preparers of the SOTU did was cherry-pick an old IAEA evaluation of no revelance to 2003, about a nuclear program that was destroyed and dismantled long ago, and paired it with (dubious) assertions about recent activity to conjure up a frightening image that bore no relation to reality.

http://www.counterpunch.org/hans07242004.html



or here:

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/special...

Doubts, dissent stripped from public version of Iraq assessment
By Jonathan S. Landay
Knight Ridder Newspapers
WASHINGTON - The public version of the U.S. intelligence community's key prewar assessment of Iraq's illicit arms programs was stripped of dissenting opinions, warnings of insufficient information and doubts about deposed dictator Saddam Hussein's intentions, a review of the document and its once-classified version shows.

As a result, the public was given a far more definitive assessment of Iraq's plans and capabilities than President Bush and other U.S. decision-makers received from their intelligence agencies.

The stark differences between the public version and the then top-secret version of the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate raise new questions about the accuracy of the public case made for a war that's claimed the lives of more than 500 U.S. service members and thousands of Iraqis.



or here:
http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/memos.html

"C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."



I could go on, but why bother? You have your faith and it is immune to reason.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 01:55 PM
Response to Reply #42
43. Warren...
I have not once denied Bush was lying through his teeth...

He was lying to the country, he was lying to the Congress, he was lying to the world..

He knew full well that his assertions of nuclear activity by the Iraqis was bullshit. He induced Colin Powell to lie in front of the U.N...

When Dick Cheney and Condi talked about a "mushroom" cloud being confirmation of an Iraqi nuclear program they were lying to the country...

When Bush gave his SOTU in 2003 and talked about yellowcake, he knew he was lying...

When I see a bumpersitcker that says "Bush Lied people died" I give the driver a thumbs up!


What I am saying, is that in October of 2002, when the Congress was voting on the IWR, the fact that this intelligence was cooked up was not yet generally known. Democrats at that time had no reason to distrust Colin Powell or George Tenet. Read Max Cleland's floor speech in praise of Powell. It was his confidence in the Powell doctrine that gave him comfort that his vote was correct.

Read the testimony by General Clark in front of the House Armed Services committee 3 weeks before the IWR vote. He expressed no reservations in saying that Saddam did indeed have WMD's and military action may need to occur. He even recognized his own fallibility in opposing the IWR, saying it was very possibly the correct thing to do. Clark acted as one of John Kerry's primary foreign policy advosors during t he 2004 campaign, when Kerry was still defending his vote. Hell even Scott Ritter acknowledged that Iraq may have retained some WMD capability (though of course not at threatening levels).

Read the floor statements of virtually every IWR opponent...nearly everyone speaks with confidence about the danger allegedly posed by Saddam Hussein:


There is no question that Saddam Hussein is ignoring the will of the United Nations and that he has not honored the agreements he made following the Gulf War. Saddam Hussein is a dangerous force in the world. -Kent Conrad

Saddam Husseins regime has chemical and biological weapons and is trying to get nuclear capability. -Bob Graham

Saddam Husseins desire to obtain weapons of mass destruction is of grave concern. -Jim Jeffords

I commend President Bush for taking his case against Iraq to the American peopleand I agree with the President that Saddam is a despicable tyrant who must be disarmed. -Ted Kennedy

Iraq has grim and ghoulish weapons to carry out its evil plans. As part of the Gulf War cease-fire agreement, Saddam Hussein committed to destroying its chemical and biological and nuclear weapons programsinstead, Saddam Hussein is trying to add nuclear weapons to an arsenal that already includes chemical and biological weapons and ballistic missiles. -Barbara Mikulski

Saddam must give arms inspectors unfettered access. And, if he does not comply with this new U.N. resolution there will be consequences, including the use of appropriate military force. -Paul Wellstone

With regard to Iraq, I agree, Iraq presents a genuine threat, especially in the form of weapons of mass destruction, chemical, biological, and potentially nuclear weapons. I agree that Saddam Hussein is exceptionally dangerous and brutal, if not uniquely so, as the President argues. And I support the concept of regime change. -Russ Feingold


There is no evidence that these Democratic Senators willfully ignored authoritative information that they were being lied to by the CIA and State Department. There is no evidence that they did not take their votes seriously. They made a judgement call on the evidence. Turned out it was the wrong call in hindsight. The primary flaw was a reliance on the honesty of George Bush. That is Bush's fault...as is our involvement in this war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #43
44. Joe Wilson knew and said so.
Richard Clarke knew and said so. Colin Powell knew and kept his mouth shut because he is a war criminal. Millions of ordinary people all over the planet called bullshit. Many Democratic members of the house and senate knew it was bullshit and voted their conscience. I knew as did almost everyone here on DU. What you cannot get past is that your hero Senator Clinton voted the wrong way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 02:16 PM
Response to Reply #44
45. Ok...
Edited on Fri Jan-05-07 02:18 PM by SaveElmer
"Richard Clarke knew and said so."

Richard Clarke was employed by the Bush administration until his resignation in January 2003. There is no evidence his disagreement with his superiors was in any way conveyed to Congress. His book was not published until 2004.

"Colin Powell knew and kept his mouth shut because he is a war criminal"

If he kept his mouth shut I guess you will agree he didn't tell anyone what lies were being told did he?!

"Many Democratic members of the house and senate knew it was bullshit and voted their conscience"

So they all lied when they said they believed Bush in his assertions about Iraqi WMD's?


"I knew as did almost everyone here on DU."

Alot of mind-readers here.

"What you cannot get past is that your hero Senator Clinton voted the wrong way."

Of course she did...as did the other 27 Democrats...what I am disputing is that the motivation was crassly political!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
symbolman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-06-07 09:38 AM
Response to Reply #45
53. Dick Durbin and many in Congress knew
Edited on Sat Jan-06-07 09:40 AM by symbolman
they demanded more than the NIE and were supplied by Tenent instead with a White Paper that had been written BY THE WHITE HOUSE.

Durbin also said that there were things he couldn't reveal, as it was a national security issue. So in some cases they were screwed.

I spent a year investigating and doing research on the plame incident, and it's obvious to anyone that spends a little time on the web that Congress was LIED to.

As one poster said, only the Republican leadership was allowed any real info, and even that was cherry picked, don't forget that Rumsfeld had his OWN operation going, as well as Bolton pulling shit in the State Dept, demanding raw intell then kicking Powell's boys out of his meetings, saying he wanted to "keep it in the family".

And let us not forget the USE of the NYTIMES to catapault the propaganda.

There's plenty of info out there, go poke around please.

I don't mean to argue with your points and intentions as I find them perfectly valid.

But the web is not a fountain of truth either. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 03:15 PM
Response to Reply #8
51. Considering that a majority of Dems on Intelligence Committee
Voted against the IWR. I think it is safe to say they knew something.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skidmore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 11:39 AM
Response to Original message
11. Then I trust they have no problem with forcing * to withdraw our
troops from Iraq.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 11:44 AM
Response to Original message
13. I don't believe them
How could millions of ordinary civilians know the truth about WMD, about Iraqi noninvolvement in 9-11, about Iraqi noninvolvement with al Qaeda, about the bush cabal's venal oil-based and religiously insane motives, about the bush cabal's propensity for screwing up anything they touch, and about the bush cabal's incessant lies? Meanwhile, these Senators, with access to information, resources and hugely generous salaries given in return for their "leadership" were misled by the most transparent lies told by the most transparent liar?

Bullshit. I don't believe them for a minute. They are either the most gullible, incompetent, butt-stupid fools on earth or they are liars. I think every damned one of them is contemptible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iconoclastic cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 11:46 AM
Response to Original message
14. Get 10 more and ITMFA. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Individualist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 11:51 AM
Response to Original message
18. BS
Factual information was available to anyone who cared enough to read it or hear about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
npincus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 11:51 AM
Response to Original message
19. those 43 need their asses voted OUT, they need to go HOME
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 12:03 PM
Response to Original message
20. LIARS
They knew then and they voted for the war anyway. Some because they liked the idea, some because they were scared to vote against it. LIARS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 12:13 PM
Response to Original message
23. Who did this poll, anybody know?
I looked for an ABC News poll but didn't find it. I would love to see the polling data. Although it sounds like it could have been done by the Senate itself. It's a bit confusing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 12:34 PM
Response to Reply #23
29. found the actual ABC report
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #29
34. Thank you very much, sabra nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #29
39. From that link
Edited on Fri Jan-05-07 01:27 PM by WesDem
Iraq Vote: What the Senators Said
28 of 77 Told ABC News They Would Vote Differently


Jan. 5, 2007 Of the 77 Senators who voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq in October 2002:

28 indicated they would vote differently knowing then what they know now:

1. Sen. Max Baucus, R-Mont.
2. Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind.
3. Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del.
4. Former Sen. John Breaux, D-La.
5. Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash.
6. former Sen. Jean Carnahan, D-Mo.
7. Sen. Tom Carper, D-Del.
8. Former Sen. Max Cleland, R-Ga.
9. Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y.
10. Former Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D.
11. Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn.
12. Former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C.
13. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.
14. Former Sen. Peter Fitzgerald, R-Ill.
15. Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa
16. Former Sen. Fritz Hollings, D-S.C.
17. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas
18. Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.
19. Sen. Herb Kohl, R-Wis.
20. Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La.
21. Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla.
22. Former Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell, R-Colo.
23. Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va.
24. Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.
25. Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore.
26. Former Sen. Bob Smith, R-N.H.
27. Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine
28. Former Sen. Bob Torricelli, R-N.J.

5 said the intelligence in retrospect was so wrong the matter would never even have been voted on:
1. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.
2. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine
3. Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa
4. Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D.
5. Former Sen. Mike DeWine, R-Ohio

1 said the intelligence in retrospect was so wrong Congress never would have passed it:

1. Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa.

15 stood by their vote:

1. Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo.
2. Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan.
3. Sen. Joe Lieberman, ID-Conn.
4. Former Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn.
5. Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah
6. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.
7. Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb.
8. Sen. Dick Lugar, R-Ind.
9. Sen. Craig Thomas, R-Wyo.
10. Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla.
11. Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan.
12. former Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa.
13. former Sen. George Allen, R-Va.
14. Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho
15. Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho

Edit: page 2

(Page 2 of 2)

9 refused to answer the hypothetical question:

1. Sen. Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark.
2. Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio
3. Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb.
4. Sen. John Warner, R-Va.
5. Sen. Dick Shelby, R-Ala.
6. former Sen. Tim Hutchinson, R-Ark.
7. Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M.
8. Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Ala.
9. Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala.

16 refused to respond despite repeated requests:

1. Sen Wayne Allard, R-Colo.
2. Sen. Bob Bennett, R-Utah
3. Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky.
4. Former Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Mont.
5. Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Miss.
6. Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev.
7. Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo.
8. Former Sen. Phil Gramm, R-Texas
9. Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H.
10. Sen. John Kyl, R-Ariz.
11. Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss.
12. Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.
13. Former Sen. Zell Miller, D-Ga.
14. Former Sen. Frank Murkowski, R-Ala.
15. Former Sen. Don Nickles, R-Okla.
16. Former Sen. Fred Thompson, R-Tenn.

3 could not answer:

1. Sen. Strom Thurmond, R-S.C., Died
2. Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C., Sick
3. Sen. Tim Johnson, D-S.D., Sick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hashibabba Donating Member (894 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 12:18 PM
Response to Original message
26. I'm no rocket scientist and I knew this was going to be a disaster.
Therefore, I would think that the well-informed members of the Senate would have known even more clearly!! What a crock. Is there no end to their hypocrisy?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tierra_y_Libertad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 12:36 PM
Response to Original message
30. Sure they are. Now that it's politically "safe" to be against the slaughter.
The "I was more stupider then" defense rings a bit hollow when most of the world knew what was going on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Imagevision Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-05-07 02:37 PM
Response to Original message
48. George tenet; "it's a slamdunk Mr. President -- Bush; "Mission Accomplished"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dicknbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-06-07 09:27 PM
Response to Original message
58. Oh Whoop Di Doooo.....What they do go to Oz and get Brains?
Makes me want to PUKE! THe cowards. Not only are they cowards but they don't have the courage of their convictions when things don't go their way
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Dec 11th 2017, 06:29 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC