IslandDog

Claiming we were in danger from a nuclear attack as a reason to go to war when the Intelligence did not support that danger is reason enough.

IslandDog

“We have already shown you many times Congress had all relevant information about Iraq.”

That is not correct. The majority of Congress DID not have the Intelligence from the NIE in 2002 that said Saddam was not a nuclear threat. The nuclear threat was the main reason why Bush was able to get Congress to approve attacking Saddam. Time has proven that Intel in the 2002 NIE was CORRECT Saddam had no nuclear program or nuclear weapons and that information was not presented to Congress prior to the vote! That report was declassified AFTER the vote. The NIE is the most comprehensive and important intelligence source and that source was NOT given to Most of Congress before they voted for the Iraq war. YOU ARE WRONG AGAIN!

Claiming we were in danger from a nuclear attack as a reason to go to war when the Intelligence did not support that danger is reason enough.[/quote] You are cherry picking again col.  [quote]The NIE is the most comprehensive and important intelligence source and that source was NOT given to Most of Congress before they voted for the Iraq war. YOU ARE WRONG AGAIN

There is more than one source of intelligence and information.  The fact is almost every intelligence agency and most democrats though Saddam had WMD's and was a threat.  

That is not correct. The majority of Congress DID not have the Intelligence from the NIE in 2002 that said Saddam was not a nuclear threat.

This is a lie! All members of Congress were allowed to view the eniter report not just the summary they usually get. Only a few Democrats bothered to sit down and read the report that the president has to read every day and every quarter they are produced. Of the Congresspeople that read the report only one that did read the report disagreed with the President. So in fact they had the chance to see exactly what the President saw but chose not to read it and voted for it anyway. What does that say about your liberal Democrats? They make laws but don't read them or study them until it is already passed.

IslandDoig

The MOST complete Intel comes from the NIE. That is the Intel the majority of Congress did not see because Bush kept it classified until AFTER the vote. Only the Congressional Leadership and intelligence committees saw this Intel before the vote!

paladin77

No. The majority of Congress was not given the 2002 NIE which was classified prior to their vote. They were not given the Intel that said, Saddam was not a nuclear threat as Bush and Cheney said!

IslandDog & Paladin 77

Since Bush and Cheney had the classified 2002 NIE that said Saddam did not have a nuclear program or nuclear weapons, WHY did both Bush and Cheney tell Americans that to delay invading Saddam would risk mushroom Clouds over our Cities? They knew no such threat existed!

Since Bush and Cheney had the classified 2002 NIE that said Saddam did not have a nuclear program or nuclear weapons, WHY did both Bush and Cheney tell Americans that to delay invading Saddam would risk mushroom Clouds over our Cities? They knew no such threat existed!

That's a good question col. I would like you to explain to us all with your briliant insight why is it that the Democrats that read the same report that you mention did not bother to tell the world of this? And why is it that the one Democrat that read the report and disagreed with the President did not tell anyone of this either? Or maybe your full of crap again. No one but the members of Congress the Presidents people and the intelligence communty saw the full report Yet no one said anything to anyone about this until the war was over? You have cried how we had really bad intelligence for years and now that there is a report you like the same intelligence people are good and wise. You hack!

Paladin77

That question was asked of the members of the Intelligence Committee that did have access to the NIE. There answer was simple, it was classified and they would have had to violate the law to make the report public. That does not alter the fact that the most comprehensive Intelligence input the President receives said one thing and he and Cheney were telling Congress and the American People the very opposite. Given what the NIE of 2002 said we should not have been told by Bush and Cheney that we were in danger of nuclear attack from Saddam if we did not remove him from power. How was Saddam to produce those mushroom clouds without nuclear weapons?

paladin77 No. The majority of Congress was not given the 2002 NIE which was classified prior to their vote. They were not given the Intel that said, Saddam was not a nuclear threat as Bush and Cheney said!

PROVE IT!

PROVE IT

Exactly.  I can't find anything, even in the liberal media that is close to what he is talking about.  He's getting his "facts" from Tim Russert......I can't stop laughing at that.

This lie was debunked by me a while ago. I will say it agian. Before the vote to authorize the president to use force all members of Congress was afforded access to the NIE. Not the aids only the Congresspeople. I can't remember off hand but I think it was five or seven that acutally read the report and of that number onoy one voted against the authorization. If the media, who was touting nuclear bombs going off in America not the administration, reached more people than the administration then maybe you better think of getting rid of the media that mislead you and the Democrats.

Paladin77

Yes members if the Intelligence committee and the very top leaders of Congress had access to the 2002 NIE. They were asked WHY they did not speak out about the intelligence that did not agree with what Bush and Cheney were telling Congress and the American people. Their answer was very simple-- IT WAS CLASSIFIED and we could not tell other members of Congress or the public about the intelligence that did not support the Bush/Cheney positions.

The IG Report released yesterday also confirms that Feith was sifting through the intelligence and using that which supported the claim we were in danger from Saddam and ignoring ANY Intel that did not support that view. That is what Gen Zinni said in his book. He was at the Pentagon and saw ALL the intelligence, that which Dough Feith office used and that which he buried. An example is the Al Tubes. Feith used the idea they could be part of centrifuges even though the most knowledgeable intelligence from the Dept of Energy said the tubes were not part of a Centrifuge but of Rocket motors. Feith used sources that were of questionable reliability and did not obtain any corroboration of that intelligence. The most important sources Feith used have been shown to be 100 % WRONG.

The IG Report supports the idea that Bush and Cheney wanted to invade Iraq, even before 9/11, and Feith and his operation in the Pentagon selectively used available intelligence to support that policy and ignored ANYTHING that said Saddam was not the danger that Bush and Cheney claimed. WE now have this new IG Report, the claims of three former CIA Section Chiefs that said Bush CHERRY PICKED the Intelligence and the confirmation of General Zinni who saw ALL the intelligence produced by both military and non-military intelligence agencies. There is no question Bush and Cheney made a mountain out of a Mole hill and took our country into WAR that was not justified by and ANY REAL threat to America!

This would be a nice story except it contradicts what the NYT printed. The Administration made the entire report available to all 535 members of congress prior to the vote. Most Democrats chose not to see it.



This is fantastic! You are saying that because the report was classified they could not say that the report was a lie? That they were forced to vote knowing that it was wrong and knowing that people were going to die for this lie? Is it not the responsibility of Congress to handle the spending of money? If the report was wrong and they knew it all they had to do was cut off funds and say why without giving away classified material. What you suggest is that all 535 members of Congress are culpable for gross criminal negligence, but you want to charge the President? POLITICAL HACK!



You keep bringing up this crap. What section chiefs? What sections did they work?

Oh and if memory serves General Zinni was retired before the war started and was sent to calm down the Israeli Lebanon situation not the Iraqi situation. He failed and faded on out of the spot light.

Paladin 77

I guess the testimony in Court is also Crap; Read you IDIOT:

Libby Trial Sheds Light on White House
By TOM RAUM (Associated Press Writer)
From Associated Press
February 11, 2007 4:13 PM EST
WASHINGTON - Sworn testimony in the perjury trial of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby has shone a spotlight on White House attempts to sell a gone-wrong war in Iraq to the nation and Vice President Dick Cheney's aggressive role in the effort.

Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald rested his case against Cheney's former chief of staff on Thursday in a trial that has so far lasted 11 days. The defense planned to begin its presentation Monday.

The drama being played out in a Washington courtroom goes back in time to the early summer of 2003. The Bush administration was struggling to overcome growing evidence the mission in Iraq was anything but accomplished.

The claim about weapons of mass destruction that was used to justify the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003 had not been supported. Insurgent attacks were on the rise. Accusations were growing that the White House had distorted intelligence to rationalize the invasion.

Trial testimony so far - including eight hours of Libby's own audio-recordedd testimony to a grand jury in 2004 - suggest that a White House known as disciplined was anything but that.

What has emerged, instead, is:

-a vice president fixated on finding ways to debunk a former diplomat's claims that Bush misled the U.S. people in going to war and his suggestion Cheney might have played a role in suppressing contrary intelligence.

-a presidential press secretary kept in the dark on Iraq policy.

-top White House officials meeting daily to discuss the diplomat, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, and sometimes even his CIA-officer wife Valerie Plame.

Sorry I did not see any testimony in your post. I did she the writer tell what he got from the testimony I saw no quotation marks just opinions. I know this is hard for you to grasp but just because a reporter says it happens does not make it so anymore. If he was reporting what happened in the trial why did he spend so much space reminding us about stuff that is not covered in the trial?