22 Jan

Biased Report On Administration Statements Re: Pre-War Iraq

                                       

Naw, these “studies” weren’t biased.

A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks.

The study concluded that the statements “were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses.”

~~~

The study counted 935 false statements in the two-year period. It found that in speeches, briefings, interviews and other venues, Bush and administration officials stated unequivocally on at least 532 occasions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to produce or obtain them or had links to al-Qaida or both.

“It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to al-Qaida,” according to Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith of the Fund for Independence in Journalism staff members, writing an overview of the study. “In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003.”

Insane!

Everyone believed Saddam had WMD’s. The Democrats, the Republicans, the French, the Italians, the UN….everyone.

But these “unbiased” organizations now want to pass this off as some kind of conspiracy. That Bush KNEW there was no WMD. Think about it, if he knew we wouldn’t find any WMD, why in the hell would he use it as one (amongst many) of the reasons to go in?

Common sense people.

Oh, and on the links to AQ, there are plenty. Check out the 48 posts I have written on them here. No need to rehash them, just go read them and find out for yourself all the connections Saddam had with AQ.

Hindsight being 20/20, now that we know the WMD’s had been removed and/or destroyed during the yearlong build up to the war, I’m sure Bush and the Democrats wished they had not believed the intelligence given to them. But that is all they had to go on at the time.

But hey, according to these “non-partisan” groups all statements by the President prior to January of 2001 on Saddam were made with good intentions. After? Evil conspiracy.

Sigh….

UPDATE

Center for Public Integrity funding = George Soros and Bill Moyers.

Fund for Independence in Journalism… same founder as Center for Public Integrity.

Non-Partisan my ass!

UPDATE II

Putting up our resident Intel expert, Scott Malensek, comment on this report:

What a piece of crap. It freely declares a conclusion in its title-that the case for war in Iraq was Bush Administration deception; a deliberate lie. Yet, when reading the report (particularly its Key Statements section) we see that the report itself never forms or supports the allegation of deception in lieu of “bad intelligence” which almost a dozen other investigations have already determined, AND which the faux independent journalists themselves even cite!

I’m not sure what part of this psuedo journalism is my favorite example of deceit and hypocrisy. Is it the title which is unsupported by the article itself, and which the article even admits is not supported by any real investigation?

Perhaps the “report’s” best moment comes in a caveat:

“Other administration higher-ups, joined by Pentagon officials and Republican leaders in Congress, also routinely sounded false war alarms in the Washington echo chamber.” I particularly like this one because it just touches on the reality and importance of what’s being discussed. It just barely starts to suggest that 2004 Democratic Presidential nominee and Sen Intel Com member, Sen John Kerry “routinely sounded false war alarms in the Washington echo chamber.” Additionally, 2008 Presidential candidate Sen John Edwards sat on the same intelligence committee and saw as much or more intelligence reporting than the Bush Administration while he “routinely sounded false war alarms in the Washington echo chamber.” And who could possibly ignore the outstanding, personal, and uniquely qualified intelligence assessment given to 2008 Democratic Presidential candidate, Sen Hillary Clinton by her husband, former President Bill Clinton, while she also “routinely sounded false war alarms in the Washington echo chamber.” If we’re to take this report seriously then the entire premise that the Bush Administration actively, deliberately, knowingly deceived and misled the world regarding pre-war intelligence on Iraq, then these three potential Presidents are fools, ignorant, naive, and incompetent for they were duped by a man and an administration that is so often described as incompetent itself. When an intelligent person is fooled by a fool, there are no intelligent people involved.

No. No, my favorite part of the “report” is this:

“Bush and the top officials of his administration have so far largely avoided the harsh, sustained glare of formal scrutiny about their personal responsibility for the litany of repeated, false statements in the run-up to the war in Iraq. There has been no congressional investigation, for example, into what exactly was going on inside the Bush White House in that period. Congressional oversight has focused almost entirely on the quality of the U.S. government’s pre-war intelligence — not the judgment, public statements, or public accountability of its highest officials. “…”Short of such review, this project provides a heretofore unavailable framework for examining how the U.S. war in Iraq came to pass. Clearly, it calls into question the repeated assertions of Bush administration officials that they were the unwitting victims of bad intelligence.”

I like this part the best for three reasons.

1) it completely ignores that the Sen Intel Com has investigated this for years now. In fact, back in Nov06, on the eve of the midterm elections, Senator Harry Reid pulled a political stunt by invoking a rarely used procedure rule to order the doors of the Senate closed so that he and other Democrats could DEMAND that the report be released. They claimed the White House was blocking the so-called Phase II report to cover up their pre-war statements about Iraq intelligence. Low and behold a few days later, Democrats take control of the Senate, and almost a year and a half later…the Democrats still haven’t released their report; a report which is exactly what this allegedly independent investigation says has never been investigated

2) the allegedly independent investigation we have here is claiming that no investigation has been done into Administration statements before the war re Iraq intel, but on the very same PAGE that they make this false statement, they cite numerous other investigations which did in fact compare pre-war statements with post-war intelligence assessments

3) the “report” assumes guilt and assumes deception on the part of the Bush Administration while assuming innocents and naivety on the part of members of Congress (of particular importance as many of these people seek to be President themselves). This opposing assumption is based on party or political orientation and not on fact or the presumption of innocence, and that dichotomy extinguishes and vestigial premise of unbiased investigation.

Lastly, the “report” includes a chart showing a trend of Bush Administration false statements, and seems to show that these statements peaked in August 2002 as some sort of political move. What the report ignores-in keeping with its tendency to ignore any and all mitigating factors that do not support its preformed conclusion presented in its title-is the simple fact that the case for war didn’t really start until August/September 2002, and at that time there had been almost no intelligence gathered on Iraq for four years thus any statements made would be more (or at least equally) reflective of the absence of intelligence gathering than of intelligence gathered. The chart is also a near on perfect copy of charts presented in other investigations into pre-war statements; investigations that somehow the writers list, then ignore, then magically created a chart that’s almost identical.

Summary:

More political crap showing a full on bias from journalists pushing a political agenda rather than doing substantive research and reporting. They should be ashamed of themselves, but instead will no doubt take pride in their opposing political assumptions that the Bush Administration brilliantly orchestrated a case for war while Democrats running for President were duped by those they so often call fools (making themselves even more inept and ignorant).

UPDATE III

This might confound the lefties, but did you know there were in fact WMD’s found in Iraq?

Finally, there are some definitive answers to the mystery of the missing WMD. Civilian volunteers, mostly retired intelligence officers belonging to the non-partisan IntelligenceSummit.org, have been poring over the secret archives captured from Saddam Hussein. The inescapable conclusion is this: Saddam really did have WMD after all, but not in the way the Bush administration believed. A 9,000 word research paper with citations to each captured document has been posted online at LoftusReport.com, along with translations of the captured Iraqi documents, courtesy of Mr. Ryan Mauro and his friends.

This Iraqi document research has been supplemented with satellite photographs and dozens of interviews, among them David Gaubatz who risked radiation exposure to locate Saddam’s underwater WMD warehouses , and John Shaw, whose brilliant detective work solved the puzzle of where the WMD went. Both have contributed substantially to solving one of the most difficult mysteries of our decade.

The absolutists on either side of the WMD debate will be more than a bit chagrinned at these disclosures. The documents show a much more complex history than previously suspected. The “Bush lied, people died” chorus has insisted that Saddam had no WMD whatsoever after 1991 – and thus that WMD was no good reason for the war. The Neocon diehards insist that, as in Raiders of the Lost Ark, the treasure-trove is still out there somewhere, buried under the sand dunes of Iraq. Each side is more than a little bit wrong about Saddam’s WMD, and each side is only a little bit right about what happened to it.

The gist of the new evidence is this: roughly one quarter of Saddam’s WMD was destroyed under UN pressure during the early to mid 1990’s. Saddam sold approximately another quarter of his weapons stockpile to his Arab neighbors during the mid to late 1990’s. The Russians insisted on removing another quarter in the last few months before the war. The last remaining WMD, the contents of Saddam’s nuclear weapons labs, were still inside Iraq on the day when the coalition forces arrived in 2003. His nuclear weapons equipment was hidden in enormous underwater warehouses beneath the Euphrates River. Saddam’s entire nuclear inventory was later stolen from these warehouses right out from under the Americans’ noses. The theft of the unguarded Iraqi nuclear stockpile is perhaps, the worst scandal of the war, suggesting a level of extreme incompetence and gross dereliction of duty that makes the Hurricane Katrina debacle look like a model of efficiency.

Woops!

Reactions Across The Blogoshphere:

Michelle Malkin:

You would think by now that the MSM would try to spare itself some embarrassment and at least do a cursory Google search before casting the researchers as neutral, reliable, disinterested parties. But noooo. They dutifully published these transparent moonbat briefs for impeachment without disclosing the “nonprofit journalism organizations’” ties to BDS sugar daddy George Soros.

Captain’s Quarters:

Let’s boil this down. An organization funded by known political activists puts up a website with shopworn quotes taken mostly out of context and misrepresented — and this somehow qualifies as news?

Hey, AP. I’ll be posting a couple of essays today. I’ll be sure to look for your breathless report on the wires later this afternoon.

A Blog For All:

I’m not shocked that George Soros backed groups still push the nonsense that Bush lied, or that the AP ran the study press release as though it was hard news.

It’s the only thing that keeps them warm at night.

Newsbusters:

Two things here. First, few people now think Saddam had WMDs, of course. But nearly everyone thought he had them before we went into Iraq — including the leadership of every nation on the planet as well as Saddam’s own generals. So, it was not a “lie” if it was commonly thought to be true by nearly every head of state in the world. That Saddam had WMDs may have been a mistaken notion, but it was not a lie before it was known for sure!

Secondly, it is interesting that this “study” claims that Bush “lied” about links with al-Qaeda. Yet even they have to massage that claim of a lie into “meaningful ties to al-Qaida.” This means that even they are admitting that there are ties with al-Qaeda but that they aren’t “meaningful.”

Does that mean the “lie” is not that the ties exist but how “meaningful” they are? Instead of a lie we are squabbling over semantics. In essence, Bush DIDN’T lie about ties to al-Qaida, the is just a debate on how “meaningful” those ties are.

Say Anything:

Conclusions of reports issued after the invasion of Iraq can prove that the Bush administration was wrong about aspects of its case for war, but they can’t prove that the Bush administration lied. But this is the problem we’ve had with the anti-war left since the invasion was over. They claim that Bush “lied us into war,” but the truth was that some of the intelligence Bush used to make his decision for war was flawed. It was inaccurate.

Gateway Pundit:

A George Soros-funded journalism organization slammed the Bush Administration today for “lies” on Iraq!
(But, for some reason the group curiously omitted the Clinton Administration’s lies?)

A left wing group that has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from George Soros slammed the Bush regime today for lies on Iraq.

The fact that these groups are funded by George Soros was omitted from today’s report- a fine example of media corruption.

Redstate:

Even though Douglas and Cushman put forth the press release talking points claiming that President Bush and other administration officials made hundreds of “false statements” leading us to war in Iraq, they both fails to do any fact checking. Oh they note that journalists and news organizations have issued mea culpas, saying their pre-war coverage was “too deferential and uncritical.” But they fail to mention that no less than three exhaustive studies have concluded that there is no justification for the false allegation that the administration lied about the WMDs.

Hot Air:

In any case, by stopping the research at 2001, the story is set-up to misreport the facts. The Clinton administration spent years warning the public of the threat of Saddam and his WMD. They even bombed a pharma factory in Sudan on the suspicion that it was making WMD for both al Qaeda and Iraq. So the story either unintentionally or by design left out years of context.

Whatever the motivation, it’s clear that the reporter, Douglas K. Daniel, paid no attention to the man behind the curtain. The Center for Public Integrity is one of many George Soros fronts. Soros pays the bills and his minions, whether they happen to work at the CPI or the Center for American Progress or Media Matters or wherever, dance to his tune. And Soros has made it his life’s work to bring down the Bush administration. He says it’s the “central focus of my life.” Do you think people paid to to “research” by a man with that stated mission are likely to deliver unbiased findings?

Others:

Protein Wisdom
Jules Crittenden

About Curt

Curt served in the Marine Corps for four years and has been a law enforcement officer in Los Angeles for the last 24 years.
This entry was posted in Iraq/Al-Qaeda Connection. Bookmark the permalink. Tuesday, January 22nd, 2008 at 9:59 pm
| 96 views

25 Responses to Biased Report On Administration Statements Re: Pre-War Iraq

  1. Scott says: 1

    What a piece of crap. It freely declares a conclusion in its title-that the case for war in Iraq was Bush Administration deception; a deliberate lie. Yet, when reading the report (particularly its Key Statements section) we see that the report itself never forms or supports the allegation of deception in lieu of “bad intelligence” which almost a dozen other investigations have already determined, AND which the faux independent journalists themselves even cite!

    I’m not sure what part of this psuedo journalism is my favorite example of deceit and hypocrisy. Is it the title which is unsupported by the article itself, and which the article even admits is not supported by any real investigation?

    Perhaps the “report’s” best moment comes in a caveat:
    “Other administration higher-ups, joined by Pentagon officials and Republican leaders in Congress, also routinely sounded false war alarms in the Washington echo chamber.” I particularly like this one because it just touches on the reality and importance of what’s being discussed. It just barely starts to suggest that 2004 Democratic Presidential nominee and Sen Intel Com member, Sen John Kerry “routinely sounded false war alarms in the Washington echo chamber.” Additionally, 2008 Presidential candidate Sen John Edwards sat on the same intelligence committee and saw as much or more intelligence reporting than the Bush Administration while he “routinely sounded false war alarms in the Washington echo chamber.” And who could possibly ignore the outstanding, personal, and uniquely qualified intelligence assessment given to 2008 Democratic Presidential candidate, Sen Hillary Clinton by her husband, former President Bill Clinton, while she also “routinely sounded false war alarms in the Washington echo chamber.” If we’re to take this report seriously then the entire premise that the Bush Administration actively, deliberately, knowingly deceived and misled the world regarding pre-war intelligence on Iraq, then these three potential Presidents are fools, ignorant, naive, and incompetent for they were duped by a man and an administration that is so often described as incompetent itself. When an intelligent person is fooled by a fool, there are no intelligent people involved.

    No. No, my favorite part of the “report” is this:
    “Bush and the top officials of his administration have so far largely avoided the harsh, sustained glare of formal scrutiny about their personal responsibility for the litany of repeated, false statements in the run-up to the war in Iraq. There has been no congressional investigation, for example, into what exactly was going on inside the Bush White House in that period. Congressional oversight has focused almost entirely on the quality of the U.S. government’s pre-war intelligence — not the judgment, public statements, or public accountability of its highest officials. “…”Short of such review, this project provides a heretofore unavailable framework for examining how the U.S. war in Iraq came to pass. Clearly, it calls into question the repeated assertions of Bush administration officials that they were the unwitting victims of bad intelligence.”

    I like this part the best for three reasons.
    1) it completely ignores that the Sen Intel Com has investigated this for years now. In fact, back in Nov06, on the eve of the midterm elections, Senator Harry Reid pulled a political stunt by invoking a rarely used procedure rule to order the doors of the Senate closed so that he and other Democrats could DEMAND that the report be released. They claimed the White House was blocking the so-called Phase II report to cover up their pre-war statements about Iraq intelligence. Low and behold a few days later, Democrats take control of the Senate, and almost a year and a half later…the Democrats still haven’t released their report; a report which is exactly what this allegedly independent investigation says has never been investigated

    2) the allegedly independent investigation we have here is claiming that no investigation has been done into Administration statements before the war re Iraq intel, but on the very same PAGE that they make this false statement, they cite numerous other investigations which did in fact compare pre-war statements with post-war intelligence assessments

    3) the “report” assumes guilt and assumes deception on the part of the Bush Administration while assuming innocents and naivety on the part of members of Congress (of particular importance as many of these people seek to be President themselves). This opposing assumption is based on party or political orientation and not on fact or the presumption of innocence, and that dichotomy extinguishes and vestigial premise of unbiased investigation.

    Lastly, the “report” includes a chart showing a trend of Bush Administration false statements, and seems to show that these statements peaked in August 2002 as some sort of political move. What the report ignores-in keeping with its tendency to ignore any and all mitigating factors that do not support its preformed conclusion presented in its title-is the simple fact that the case for war didn’t really start until August/September 2002, and at that time there had been almost no intelligence gathered on Iraq for four years thus any statements made would be more (or at least equally) reflective of the absence of intelligence gathering than of intelligence gathered. The chart is also a near on perfect copy of charts presented in other investigations into pre-war statements; investigations that somehow the writers list, then ignore, then magically created a chart that’s almost identical.

    Summary:
    More political crap showing a full on bias from journalists pushing a political agenda rather than doing substantive research and reporting. They should be ashamed of themselves, but instead will no doubt take pride in their opposing political assumptions that the Bush Administration brilliantly orchestrated a case for war while Democrats running for President were duped by those they so often call fools (making themselves even more inept and ignorant).

    ReplyReply
  2. Scrapiron says: 2

    The media circus continues even after they find out that over 80% of the American people don’t trust them to tell even the smallest of truths. Their drive to lose the war and get up killed has resulted in the death of the former MSM and it is now known world wide as the lame Stream media (LSM). Does anyone need more proof that the higher education system is a total failure? Not me, I am part of the majority that will never believe anything the LSM puts out and i’ll fight with my state rep’s to cut or eleminate all funding to colleges other than local community colleges. If the dummies want the former non-educational institutions to continue the brainwashing of their children then let them pay the total bill. More and more taxpayers are seeing the light that most major colleges are a waste of their money.

    ReplyReply
  3. Scrapiron says: 3

    Did George Soros fund (this) another phony study? Figures don’t lie, but liars figure.

    ReplyReply
  4. Richard Romano says: 4

    This made me want to break my computer and throw it out the window — another rotten hit-piece on our president, and more b.s. ‘non-profit’ (MSM-speak for ‘no agenda here!’) propaganda.

    These same people didn’t give a rat’s arse for the Iraqi people — as John Burns reported, CNN and others were willing to keep quiet on Saddam’s atrocities in exchange for a Baghdad Bureau. The MSM is a cold-hearted enterprise, and Soros should be tossed out of the country for repeatedly undermining trust and support in a fine president who has done his best to keep us safe. To hell with you sorry *ssed Soros!!

    ReplyReply
  5. jainphx says: 5

    I’m still curious, is this guy a citizen of America. He sounds and acts like an enemy agent of who I don’t know. He paid for all the legalize drug movements in this country, it sounds like he doesn’t have our best interest at heart.

    ReplyReply
  6. pagar says: 6

    IMO, there is no leftist report in America that is not influenced by funds from George Soros or one of the leftist foundations.

    ReplyReply
  7. Philadelphia Steve says: 7

    Here we go again.

    The blind defenders of George W. Bush go into full attack mode to preotect the president they wish could be president-for-life.

    As I have said many times, the deceit that accompanied President Bush’ run up to war, the diversion of efforts from capturing Osama bin Laden, the ignoring of the Iraqi Foreign Minister’s information in 2002..

    All would not be remembered at all now, had George W. Bush been even mildly competent in managing the occupation.

    He wasn’t.

    And we are all paying now.

    ReplyReply
  8. Scott says: 8

    I’m not seeking to “protect the President”, but instead am asking where the accountability is for the members of Congress and Presidential wannabes who were so inept, ignorant, and incompetent as to have made the same statements about the threat Saddam Hussein posed in 2002?

    “As I have said many times, the deceit that accompanied President Bush’ run up to war,”
    -Was not the President’s alone, and the duplicity of presuming guilt on his part, but innocence on the part of Democrats is hypocritical as well as deceitful in and of itself

    “the diversion of efforts from capturing Osama bin Laden,”
    -Classic deception and distraction. This article has nothing to do with the hunt for Osama Bin Laden, and the only military unit “diverted” for the invasion of Iraq was the 5th Special Forces Group which ironically was sent to Northern Iraq to fight Al Queda in Iraq which was working as Saddam’s strong arm in the Kurdish territories

    “the ignoring of the Iraqi Foreign Minister’s information in 2002.”
    -debunked at least 5 times on other threads. Steve, ya better hit HuffoPo for some new talking points.

    ReplyReply
  9. Theresa, MSgt (ret), USAF says: 9

    Here are some of the contributing organizations and clusterfuck foundations:

    Annenberg Foundation
    Around Foundation
    Attias Family Foundation
    The Brodie Price Fund of the Jewish Community Foundation
    Morton K. and Jane Blaustein Foundation
    Keith Campbell Foundation for the Environment
    Carnegie Corporation of New York
    Compton Foundation, Inc.
    Deer Creek Foundation
    Domitila Barrios de Chungara Fund at Peninsula Community Foundation
    Dudley Foundation
    Educational Foundation of America
    Everett Philanthropic Fund at the New York Community Trust
    Ford Foundation
    David B. Gold Foundation
    Daniel J. Goldman Foundation
    Gunzenhauser-Chapin Fund
    Haas Charitable Trusts
    Hafif Family Foundation
    The Heinz Endowments
    Honeybee Foundation
    The Inge Foundation
    JEHT Foundation
    The Lawrence Foundation
    Liberty Hill Foundation
    John D. & Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
    Maloney Family Fund
    The Robert & Bethany Millard Charitable Foundation
    Stewart R. Mott Charitable Trust
    Nell Williams Family Foundation
    New York Community Trust
    John & Florence Newman Foundation
    Park Foundation, Inc.
    Karen & Christopher Payne Foundation
    Popplestone Foundation
    Lynn R. & Karl E. Prickett Fund
    Princeton University Class of 1969
    Rockefeller Brothers Fund
    The Shelley and Donald Rubin Foundation
    Scherman Foundation, Inc.
    The Joan Shorenstein Center
    Streisand Foundation
    John & Donna Sussman Foundation
    The Fund for Independence in Journalism
    Town Creek Foundation, Inc.
    Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program
    The Elmaleh Fund at the New York Community Trust
    Wallace Global Fund

    And here are a few verifiable statements made by the dipshit coward parties “elite” dating as far back as 98.

    John Kerry (D-MA)

    “Oh, I think we clearly have to keep the pressure on terrorism globally. This doesn’t end with Afghanistan by any imagination. Terrorism is a global menace. It’s a scourge. And it is absolutely vital that we continue, for instance, Saddam Hussein.”
    December 14, 2001
    Larry King Live

    “If Saddam Hussein is unwilling to bend to the international community’s already existing order, then he will have invited enforcement, even if the enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act.”
    September 6, 2002
    New York Times

    Bill Clinton

    “If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
    February 17, 1998

    “The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq’s history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life. ”
    October 31, 1998
    Press Release Upon Signing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998

    Letter to Congress

    “We are convinced that as long as Saddam Hussein remains in power, he will continue to threaten the well-being of his people, the peace of the region and the security of the world. We will continue to contain these threats, but over the long term the best way to address them is through a new government in Baghdad.

    To that end, working with the Congress, we have deepened our engagement with the forces of change in Iraq to help make the opposition a more effective voice for the aspirations of the Iraqi people…

    Hillary Clinton (D-NY)

    “In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members . It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
    October 10, 2002

    Harry Reid (D-NV)

    “What is my position on Iraq? Saddam Hussein is an evil dictator who presents a serious threat to international peace and security. Under Saddam’s rule, Iraq has engaged in far-reaching human rights abuses, been a state sponsor of terrorism, and has long sought to obtain and develop weapons of mass destruction.”
    From Sen. Reid’s own website as of November 7, 2005.

    Al Gore

    We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
    September 23, 2002

    Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.
    Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

    Even if we give first priority to the destruction of terrorist networks, and even if we succeed, there are still governments that could bring us great harm. And there is a clear case that one of these governments in particular represents a virulent threat in a class by itself: Iraq. As far as I am concerned, a final reckoning with that government should be on the table.”
    February 12, 2002
    Remarks to the US Council on Foreign Relations

    “We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
    September 27, 2002

    “There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein’s regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed.”
    September 27, 2002

    Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)

    “Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
    December 16, 1998

    John Edwards (D-NC)

    “Saddam Hussein’s regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal.”
    October 10, 2002

    “The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.”
    October 10, 2002

    Jay Rockefeller (D-WV)

    “There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years has made in development of weapons of mass destruction…

    Carl Levin (D-MI)

    “[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
    Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

    Bob Graham (D-FL)

    “There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.”
    Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

    Madeline Albright

    “Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”
    February 18,1998

    “Hussein has .. chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
    November 10, 1999

    “No one has done what Saddam Hussein has done, or is thinking of doing. He is producing WMDs and he is qualatively and quantitatively different from other dictators.”
    February 18, 1998

    “I’m really surprised that people are defending the rights of Saddam Hussein.”
    February 18, 1998

    “Saddam’s goal … is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed.”
    1998

    “As we made very clear this week, we will take unilateral action when we feel our national interests have been threatened.”
    August 23, 1998

    “Saddam was not just another dictator. He had invaded both Iran and Kuwait, and yearned to develop a nuclear bomb to impress an Arab world that despised him.”
    From “Madam Secretary”

    It seemed to me obvious that, under the circumstances, it would have been immoral not to confront Saddam Hussein.”
    “Madam Secretary”

    Wanting to shield Iraqi’s from suffering, they [protesters] thought the way to do that was to oppose us. But most hadn’t seen the video footage of Saddam’s attack on the Kurdish village of Halabja in 1998, where five thousand died…they accused us of not caring but seemed to have no conception of the suffering that appeasing a ruthless dictator might cause.”
    Madam Secretary

    “The world has not seen, except maybe Hitler, somebody who is quite as evil as Saddam Hussein. If you don’t stop a horrific dictator before he gets started to far, then he could do untold damage.”
    February 19, 1997

    General Wesley Clark

    “There’s no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat… Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He’s had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001… He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn’t have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we.”
    September 26, 2002

    Seems to me that the leadership of the dipshit cowards party sure were jonesing for the removal of saddam. They just didn’t have the collective spine to do it when billy boob was the President. Guess he was too busy sexually harassing any female who came within 10 feet of his pathetic ass.

    ReplyReply
  10. Pingback: Michelle Malkin » MSM tools spread Soros propaganda

  11. Philadelphia Steve says: 11

    Re: “I’m not seeking to “protect the President”, but instead am asking where the accountability is for the members of Congress and Presidential wannabes who were so inept, ignorant, and incompetent as to have made the same statements about the threat Saddam Hussein posed in 2002?”

    Is that your alibi for George W. Bush? That, since there was a Congressional authorization vote, the $11 billion in cash (170 pallet loads) that just dissapeared in Baghdad was just peachy?

    It appears that all the comments, congressional votes and previous statements is the all-purpose alibi for George W. Bush’s disengagement and refusal to step in and act as Donald Rumsfeld (Dick Cheney’s “greatest Secretary of Defense in history”) ran the occupation to the brink of ruin.

    It’s all just swell with you becuase “it’s all Hillary Clinton’s fault because she voted to authorize force”.

    The alibis for George W. Bush will never end, as Conservatives protect him from accountability forever. Only “minor mistakes” were made, and no one is accountable because they fell from the sky.

    Had a Democratic President presided over this level of incompetence, you would be demanding that he/she be hanging from a light pole.

    But, since it is George W. Bush, it is only “too bad”, and “lets talk about something else”.

    I repeat: Conservatives are shielding George W. Bush by refusing to acknowl.edge the massive level of damage his blundreed occupation of Iraq has caused, regardless of the authorization.

    Shame on Hillary Clinton for voting too much power to this incompetent.

    But double shame on the man who IS that incompetent.

    I will say that.

    But no Conservative will say anything approaching that, because he/she must protect George W. Bush from TRUE accountability, no matter what.

    ReplyReply
  12. pagar says: 12

    Thank you Scott, 158 pages refuting leftist lies, that’s awesome. Even Snopes (who IMO try really hard to avoid condemming any leftist statement) has a long Article
    admitting the leftist did make statements that Saddam had WMD and must go. Course they try to hedge their statements by trying to say that some were out of context, that some statements were political statements and not meant to be believed, etc,etc.

    ReplyReply
  13. Scott says: 13

    You keep asserting that the occupation was incompetently handled, but without a historical precedent of similar scale and condition to prove your point, it’s just your heavily biased opinion-which is worthless and losing respect with every cut/paste talking point you repeat sans substance.

    The so-called alibis for President Bush are so-called and are at the same time in complete contrast to the facts which this report and so many others ignore in favor of political partisanship, denial in support of that partisanship, and distraction from the reality which is that President Bush is a lame duck and raving about him does nothing, but using the lessons of the past to make our decisions on the future is of critical importance. Among those lessons is the pure and simple fact that Sen Clinton and Sen Edwards demonstrated equal or greater incompetence, ignorance, and/or misleading re the war in Iraq, and holding them to account for this can actually do something for the future while holding the President accountable no longer does. His moment of atonement was the 2004 election.

    Among the things I find truly amazing is that someone would rail in support of this report without even reading it, and then comment upon it with talking points that have been thoroughly and completely debunked so many times already (for example the bit about the Iraqi foreign minister “turning”…what a joke).

    ReplyReply
  14. Pingback: A Blog For All

  15. David says: 14

    Same old fiction with a new title. Didn’t work before with the old titles, still doesn’t work with the new title.

    ReplyReply
  16. Richard Romano says: 15

    “wish could be president-for-life.”

    More leftist projectionism — you, Phili Steve, and your leftist nitwits are the ones who would love a president for life, not us.

    Your smears of President Bush are lame and pathetic — you have been thoroughly debunked here, but you still cling, like a child clings to an empty box of candy.

    ReplyReply
  17. Scrapiron says: 16

    Theresa, MSgt (ret), USAF, Thanks for the posting. I have it saved on my computer and was going to post it myself. Scrapiron,SMsgt (ret), USAF.
    Phili Steve is a perfect example of a brain dead democrat. Funny that a USC study (03-04) determined that 47% of the American people need mental health care and 47% of the voters voted democrat in 04. Pretty telling match.

    ReplyReply
  18. Wordsmith says: 17

    Philly Steve wrote:

    Here we go again.

    Yup….

    “here we go again”.

    The blind defenders of George W. Bush

    Making you….what? “the blind attacker”?

    It amazes me that after all of your time spent here, you would label us “blind”. It demonstrates an unwillingness to engage in actual thought and reflection and dialogue.

    the ignoring of the Iraqi Foreign Minister’s information in 2002..

    See? This is a prime example of your willful unwillingness to look beyond your own mental echo chamber.

    ReplyReply
  19. Philadelphia Steve says: 18

    Re: “You keep asserting that the occupation was incompetently handled, but without a historical precedent of similar scale and condition to prove your point, it’s just your heavily biased opinion-which is worthless and losing respect with every cut/paste talking point you repeat sans substance.”

    There has been no historical precedent of an administration this incompetent.

    The blunders have been documented, time and time again. The fact that Conservatives, in their zeal to deny any hint of accountability on the part of Geroge W. Bush, pretend the facts do not exist just means they live in the same bubble with George W. Bush.

    ReplyReply
  20. TJ says: 19

    Steve, can you give me an example of some of the ‘lies’ uttered by Bush that wasn’t also said by the Demcrats?

    ReplyReply
  21. Scott says: 20

    “There has been no historical precedent of an administration this incompetent.”

    That, is called spin. You can’t face the truth, so you distort reality to fit your political bias. The reality is that HISTORIANS will point out that there is no historical example of an occupation that has gone worse than the occupation of Iraq. Politics aside, you can’t argue with that historical fact, and as such your claims of an ineptly handled occupation lack historical substance, and they are based soley on your political propaganda and heavily biased opinion/agenda.

    ReplyReply
  22. Pingback: Soro’s Funded Bile Treated As Hard News « Nice Deb

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>