Senate committee highlights “untrue” statements later proved correct
posted at 12:30 pm on June 5, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
The Senate Intelligence Committee has released a report accusing George Bush and Dick Cheney of knowingly using untrue statements to foster support for the war in Iraq. The chair of the committee, Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) admitted that everyone operated from the same “flawed” intelligence, but accused the administration of outright deception. Oddly enough, at least one of the supposed deceptions have proven true, while another continues to get support from the intelligence agency that supplied it:
Among the reports conclusions:
- Claims by President Bush that Iraq and al Qaida had a partnership “were not substantiated by the intelligence.”
- The president and vice president misrepresented what was known about Iraq’s chemical weapons capabiliies [sic].
- Rumsfeld misrepresented what the intelligence community knew when he said Iraq’s weapons productions facilities were buried deeply underground.
- Cheney’s claim that the intelligence community had confirmed that lead Sept. 11 hijacker Mohammed Atta had met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in 2001 was not true.
The last claim comes from Czech intelligence, which they have repeatedly defended. The 9/11 Commission reported concluded that it was unlikely, given the pattern of use from Atta’s cell phone, but (a) no one can put Atta in the US outside of that data, and (b) it ignores the possibility that Atta loaned his phone to an associate while he traveled abroad. With the Czechs standing behind that intelligence before and during the war, it’s nothing more than a political cheap shot to call it a “deception”.
The first claim is even more laughable. Less than three months ago, the Pentagon released a report on the captured documents from the Saddam Hussein regime’s intelligence service, the IIS, which detailed support for two separate al-Qaeda terrorist partners. The Iraqis provided financial backing for the Army of Mohammed, a Bahraini terrorist organization that explicitly planned to target American assets in the region and around the world. The IIS and the Saddam regime in its own documents noted the necessity of keeping those arrangements quiet so as not to trigger another American invasion. The IIS also provided support for Egyptian Islamic Jihad, which incorporated itself into the AQ network when Osama bin Laden made its leader his right-hand man: Ayman al-Zawahiri.
Quite obviously, the Saddam regime saw opportunities to wage war against us and Israel by proxy using the network of radical Islamist terrorists for their own ends. The captured intelligence revealed this. How could the entire Senate Intelligence Committee miss those rather large data points?
If this is the kind of scholarship that went into this report, then we can guess how well the other conclusions of “deception” play out in it. Then again, it’s the kind of cheap shot one can expect from a man who says that military pilots know nothing of war and suffering.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
How about winning the war before the dense try to figure out what started it.
RobCon on June 5, 2008 at 12:34 PM
It doesn’t matter what proof reinforces the administration’s claims; people will always claim that it was a lie regardless.
I’ve tried this with friends who think the President lied; talking about Abu Nidal, Salman Pak, etc and they don’t listen, they just ignore it. I don’t know what they would accept as proof; a seance where Saddam speaks from the other side and admits it?
linlithgow on June 5, 2008 at 12:41 PM
the left has latched onto this ‘narrative’, even though its clearly a lie, to advance their political agenda. to believe them, you’d have to believe that Saddam was a bad guy in the 90s, when Clinton bombed a factory in the sudan because of the al-qaeda/iraqi link, and saddam of course had WMDS….until bush came along, when he was ‘converted’ and saved…hallelujah.
how anyone with any integrity, or intelligence, can be a democrat, is beyond me…
right4life on June 5, 2008 at 12:41 PM
The Iraqis provided financial backing for the Army of Mohammed … the Saddam regime …also provided support for Egyptian Islamic Jihad, which incorporated itself into the AQ network…
Good ’nuff for me, now whatta we got on Iran?
Tony737 on June 5, 2008 at 12:45 PM
Um…why is the Senate still mired in revisionist stuff like this? Shouldn’t they be looking at the intelligence on Iran about now?
rhombus on June 5, 2008 at 12:47 PM
Anyone else smell a possible run at impeachment really soon, say around election time?
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on June 5, 2008 at 12:49 PM
Truth doesn’t matter here. Democrats have taken what in the past was a rabidly bi-partisan committee and politicized it for their own agenda. Rockefeller and the other traitors will continue this propoganda from now until November. They should be removed from office for their disloyalty!!!
Of course, cranky old bastard will never take his colleagues to task for issuing these lies.
highhopes on June 5, 2008 at 12:50 PM
Partisan idiocy like this with regard to our intelligence apparatus is a national disgrace.
CP on June 5, 2008 at 12:51 PM
Um…why is the Senate still mired in revisionist stuff like this? Shouldn’t they be looking at the intelligence on Iran about now?
Why? Obambi is going to make Iran our steadfast friend and ally exactly two weeks after he takes office.
You obviously didn’t get the memo. Racist.
Bishop on June 5, 2008 at 12:51 PM
Didn’t Iraq use chemical weapons? (Documented)
Didn’t Sadamm ADMIT that Iraq had chemical weapons (and that he agreed to destroy them)? The weapons inspectors were not in Iraq to look for WMD but to verify that the existing WMD had been destroyed.
As I recall, the left stated we should NOT to go back into Iraq because Saddam would use his WMD against American troops.
We went to war in Iraq to make sure Saddam Hussein would never AGAIN be able to use weapons of mass destruction against his own people or other countries (regularly tryng to shoot down American planes in the no-fly zones was another good reason as well). This mission was successfully accomplished by the US within 21 days.
One must ignore the facts and lie in order to call Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld liars about the Iraq war.
jerseyman on June 5, 2008 at 12:53 PM
I just LOVE IT when you tell these lying thieving disloyal unpatriotic American politicians that they are lying, thieving, disloyal, unpatriotic, pieces of crap.
DO YOU HEAR THAT ROCKEFELLER???
YOU ARE A LYING, THIEVING, DISLOYAL, UNPATRIOTIC PIECE OF CRAP!
JiangxiDad on June 5, 2008 at 12:54 PM
Rockefeller is a joke. His purpose in life is to destroy the Bush Administration and he’s willing to take truth down with it. It’s getting to the point where much of this government simply can’t be trusted.
rplat on June 5, 2008 at 12:54 PM
If you’re not an opportunistic liar, there’s no room for you in the Democrat party anymore.
They’ve become “Troofers” at an official level.
How so many people can be such scum is kind of boggling.
How many times have each of us shot back “what lies?” to lefties making the claim, got a list back, debunked EACH ONE with documentation and had the creepy jerk making the same claims to someone else the next day?
Leftism is a social disease.
Merovign on June 5, 2008 at 12:55 PM
uh, what branch of the military was Rockefeller in?
originalpechanga on June 5, 2008 at 12:55 PM
How about Murtha stating marines killed innocent civilians in clod blood, Reid and Pelosi stating the war is lost. These have all been proven to have been false yet no charges???
trs on June 5, 2008 at 12:56 PM
Jerseyman has a point… wasn’t there a number of 75,000 body bags needed for our troops in Iraq due to WMD’s?
originalpechanga on June 5, 2008 at 12:56 PM
Peace Corps don’t count.
upinak on June 5, 2008 at 12:57 PM
How come nobody ever utters the words Big Oil when Rockefeller is mentioned?
Oh, he has a D after his name.
Never mind.
JammieWearingFool on June 5, 2008 at 12:59 PM
BSD. That’s all that matters to these Democraps. He stole the election, he lied and people died and of course all for Cheney and his oil buddies. I am so tired of the f…..ing liberals and their hate for this Nation. Why don’t they Susan Sarandon and move.
geminicontender on June 5, 2008 at 1:00 PM
It’s a headline on Yahoo now. Funny how they never report on positive things in Iraq.
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on June 5, 2008 at 1:01 PM
Here we go again. So I guess Bush’s deceptions began way before was he even elected president. He somehow managed to deceive the Clinton administration and all those members of Congress (many of which were Dems) that were yapping about Saddam and how he was such a threat. Didn’t Bush also mislead us into WWII, Korea and Vietnam? We need to re-evaluate that intelligence to make sure - I have a hunch that Bush did play a big role in those wars.
Rick on June 5, 2008 at 1:01 PM
I wonder how many senate intelligence reports are focused on IRAN??? now that the D(umbs) are now in charge???
let me guess….zero, zip, nada…
but I think we all know President Messiah’s response to Iran’s demands…
we submit
right4life on June 5, 2008 at 1:01 PM
Remember, this idiot, Rockefeller, is from West Virginia. And you know what they say about West Virginia……….
/sarc
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on June 5, 2008 at 1:02 PM
Well everyone knows what you say when you are operating on half a brain … Something like this —
Tough to make the case that Bush made him say it.
tarpon on June 5, 2008 at 1:03 PM
Yes, with carrots and sticks. Word’s still out on what exactly is meant by “carrot”, and particularly what is meant by “stick”. But hey, maybe meaningless metaphors are all we need to get everyone in the world to love one another.
I tried to get on Yomama’s myspace friends’ list, but he wouldn’t accept my invite. That might have something to do with temporarily changing my handled to “3D-08: Defeat Dick Durbin in ‘08″
ynot4tony2 on June 5, 2008 at 1:04 PM
That is one of the things that has annoyed me for years.
In the lead up to the war, two of the left’s primary arguments were;
1) Saddam will use his WMDs against American troops
2) Saddam will give his WMDs to his terrorist allies
and now these points have fallen down the memory hole apparently. Though it should be pointed out that the left’s other primary arguments also seemed to have become non-operative:
3) The war will costs tens of thousands of American lives
4) The war will cause the “friendly” Gulf States to fall to Salafists and/or Baathists
5) The war will lead N Korea, China, Russia, etc to launch their own wars against American interests.
18-1 on June 5, 2008 at 1:04 PM
Isn’t this the same report that Reid ordered the Senate doors closed to discuss back in Oct 06? Seems to me that the Dem Congress had 2 yrs to finish it. Interesting that they chose to release it AFTER Hillary (who saw the same intel AND MORE) drops out. My guess is if she’d have dropped out months ago, they’d have released the report months ago.
Oh well, at least the Democratic Party’s not politicizing the war or intelligence.
Exit point, 5yrs after the fact, and 6yrs after the debate…it doesn’t matter what sparked the invasion and end of America’s 12yr war with Saddam. What matters is how the US war in Iraq ends.
scottm on June 5, 2008 at 1:05 PM
It’s high time for scholars to publish their own reports condemning Congressmen for untrue statements and condemning Congress members for legislation proven to be based upon untrue statements.
With tit for tat, at least have the gumption to work from facts instead of wishful ill will thinking. Rockefellers are the grimiest. The only windfall they deserve is the one blowing the Rockefellers off their pedestal.
maverick muse on June 5, 2008 at 1:05 PM
“Senate Intelligence” is a contradiction in terms.
Badger in KC on June 5, 2008 at 1:08 PM
Beginning to build the case for impeachment.
The ultimate campaign diversion…
cntrlfrk on June 5, 2008 at 1:08 PM
To quote one their own…”He can’t help it, he was born with a silver foot in his mouth.”
Every time I read one of these goofball “born into the right family” quacks, I am envious that they can do and say whatever they want, because there forefathers created a life of privilege. They (like Kennedy, Gore, Jackson,and soon Chelsea) have to answer to no one…the money talks.
right2bright on June 5, 2008 at 1:08 PM
The Dems would have a much stance if any of them read the reports leading up to the war. I Believe they released that 2 people read the reports, one a republican and one a worker for Dennis Kucinich.
Rbastid on June 5, 2008 at 1:09 PM
Yet another example of how utterly desperate the Dems are to change the narrative for this fall’s election back to the Iraq War-they know full well that the polls now show that Iraq has dropped to number 2, so they are getting scared.
Del Dolemonte on June 5, 2008 at 1:16 PM
Ahem.
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on June 5, 2008 at 1:17 PM
The Dems belief system boils down to “pick your lie” and we will worship it regardless of actual facts. They still believe that Gore won his election regardless of countless recounts showing otherwise.
duff65 on June 5, 2008 at 1:43 PM
As opposed to providing “direct operational support”? But what’s the difference? I don’t know and you don’t either! What constitutes “a partnership” anyway?
As for Bush’s amazing time-traveling deceptions:
UNSCOM report on material balances (1999)
“We know for a fact, physical evidence, soil samples of VX precursor–chemical precursor at the site. Secondly, Wolf, direct evidence of ties between Osama bin Laden and the Military Industrial Corporation–the al Shifa factory was part of that. This is an operation–a collection of buildings that does a lot of this dirty munitions stuff. And, thirdly, there is no evidence that this precursor has a commercial application. So, you combine that with Sudan support for terrorism, their connections with Iraq on VX, and you combine that, also, with the chemical precursor issue, and Sudan’s leadership support for Osama bin Laden, and you’ve got a pretty clear cut case.”
Ambassador Bill Richardson, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, CNN’s “Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer,” August 30, 1998.
“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has 10 times since 1983.”
Sandy Berger, Clinton NatSec Advisor.
DrSteve on June 5, 2008 at 1:46 PM
I keep wondering about that, too.
For example:
“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…”
Senator Hillary Clinton, 10 Oct 2002. Those “four years” must go back to 1998, when her husband was president.
“People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons.”
Bill Clinton, on Larry King Live 22 July 2003.
“No one has done what Saddam Hussein has done, or is thinking of doing. He is producing weapons of mass destruction, and he is qualitatively and quantitatively different from other dictators.”
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, speech at Ohio State University, 18 Feb 1998.
“Dear Mr. President: … We 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 Iraq sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
Letter to President Clinton from numerous Senators, of both parties 9 Oct 1998.
These and many other examples are listed here.
Bigfoot on June 5, 2008 at 1:46 PM
Were there not one but two votes for going into Iraq?
jukin on June 5, 2008 at 1:47 PM
“The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons.”
Bill Clinton, 17 February 1998, the Pentagon
“The risks that the leader of a rogue state can use biological or chemical weapons on us or our allies is the greatest security risk that we face.”
Madeleine Albright, 18 February “Town Hall” meeting in Ohio
“I think the main thing I want to say to you is, people can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons. We might have destroyed them in ‘98. We tried to, but we sure as heck didn’t know it because we never got to go back in there.”
Bill Clinton, Larry King, 22 July 2003.
DrSteve on June 5, 2008 at 1:57 PM
Hey Bigfoot, I really should be faster with those quotes. I’ve got them practically memorized by now.
DrSteve on June 5, 2008 at 1:59 PM
Liars don’t care about the truth.
Screw the left.
cannonball on June 5, 2008 at 2:08 PM
They lie. People buy into the lie. And even more frustrating, no one in the administration ever calls them on it.
Rod on June 5, 2008 at 2:19 PM
The report’s dishonesty over the Cheney so-called “confirmed” claim is unbelievable.
Granted, once in an interview, Cheney said it was “pretty well confirmed” that Atta had been in Prague. But he said that in DECEMBER 2001.
By SEPTEMBER 2003, Cheney was saying “we just don’t know” if it happened.
It’s astonishing how dishonest the report is in this regard.
Here’s the truth of the episode:
TheMediaReport.com: September 2006
DPierre on June 5, 2008 at 2:43 PM
Those who endlessly repeat that, “Bush lied,” repeat it too often and with weird, abrupt energy bursts that make it obvious they don’t even believe what they are saying. (In the pantomime of lying a man has 18 ways to lie and a woman has 21.)
snaggletoothie on June 5, 2008 at 2:51 PM
I can remember an ABC report called Target America back in 1999 that was about Saddam and his ties with Osama and how dangerous they both were to America.
I don’t know what if anything a report like this will accomplish, but it would seem to me that it would be difficult to prove deliberate deception on the part of the Bush administration and just stupidity on the part of the Democrats. I guess that is what they are saying.
Terrye on June 5, 2008 at 2:59 PM
And since the Brits and the Czechs still stand by their own intel in this regard, is it the opinion of people like Rockefeller that they lied to us too?
Terrye on June 5, 2008 at 3:00 PM
I can’t believe they took an investigation into pre-war intel on Iraq, and one of the reports out today was about Feith’s OSP having meetings with Iranians. wha? Bush admin is damned if they don’t “talk” to Iran, and now apparently damned if they do.
scottm on June 5, 2008 at 3:12 PM
Rockefeller continues to underscore that most lib leaders have never earned an honest dollar in their lives and continue to tell us what to do.
pompous fool.
jimmer on June 5, 2008 at 3:36 PM
Glad to see the Dims are still dwelling in the past. IF the Obamassiah gets elected that means they’ll get around to CURRENT PROBLEMS about the end of his first term.
Henry Waxman, of course, will still be investigating Carl Rove.
GarandFan on June 5, 2008 at 4:58 PM
Well Steve, you know what they say about great minds. I keep my linked page bookmarked, just so I can bring up those quotes.
Meanwhile, we must all remember that Karl Rove is not merely a magnificent bastard, but a magnificent time-travelling bastard.
Bigfoot on June 5, 2008 at 5:52 PM
Jay Rockefeller (D-WV)
Communist
Red Pill on June 5, 2008 at 6:10 PM
John Davison “Jay” Rockefeller IV, nephew of banker David Rockefeller, co-founder of the Trilateral Commission, along with Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was formerly President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor (!) and is now a “foreign policy advisor” to Barack Obama.
The web of Communists.
Senator Joe McCarthy was right.
Wake up, Neo…
Red Pill on June 5, 2008 at 6:17 PM
Saddam Hussein paid $ 25,000 to the family of each Palestinian suicide bomber.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/03/25/1017004766310.html
That sounds like support of terrorism to me.
slp on June 5, 2008 at 7:45 PM
Composite polls say that the American majority believes our best days are over. Yet, they turn around and vote for MORE OF THE SAME white collared criminals who helped get us here. I no longer blame the politicians, as they are just accepting the job offer from millions of brainless Americans who WANT to PAY THEM to destroy us.
Rockefeller, et al are just living large while the ship goes down.
leftnomore on June 5, 2008 at 8:40 PM
The Rats like Rocky Raccoon are the enemy of this country, they have been for a long time.
They are professional liars, never ever trust them!
el Vaquero on June 6, 2008 at 7:07 AM