Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Senate Intelligence Committee: Bush and Cheney Misled us on Iraq

By Jim Lobe, IPS News. Posted June 10, 2008.


In news that should surprise no one, a bipartisan report finds the Bush administration exaggerated threats of WMDs as well as Saddam/al Queda links.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

WASHINGTON -- Claims by U.S. President George W. Bush and other top administration officials before the 2003 invasion of Iraq regarding Baghdad's ties to al Qaeda and its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs were generally not supported by the evidence that the U.S. intelligence community had at the time, according to a major new report by the Senate Intelligence Committee released Thursday.

The long-awaited report, the last in a series published over the past several years by the committee, found that Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, in particular, frequently made assertions in the run-up to the war that key intelligence agencies could not substantiate or about which there was substantial disagreement within the intelligence community.

"In making the case for war, the administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent," the Committee chairman, Sen. Jay Rockefeller, said on releasing the 172-page report. "As a result, the American people were led to believe that the threat from Iraq was much greater than actually existed."

"There is no question we all relied on flawed intelligence," he added. "But, there is a fundamental difference between relying on incorrect intelligence and deliberately painting a picture to the American people that you know is not fully accurate."

The Committee also released a second report Thursday on a series of initially secret meetings in Rome and Paris between neo-conservative Pentagon officials and alleged Iranian dissidents, including a notorious Iranian arms dealer, Manucher Ghobanifar who played a key role in the so-called Iran-Contra affair of the mid-1980s.

The report found that the meetings, which also included another Iran-Contra player, Michael Ledeen of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), were authorized by then-Deputy National Security Adviser (currently National Security Adviser) Stephen Hadley and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz who, it concluded, failed to keep relevant intelligence agencies and the State Department informed.

"The report found that the clandestine meetings … were inappropriate and mishandled from beginning to end" and that "senior Defense Department officials cut short internal investigations of the meetings … " after they became known, a press release issued by the committee stated.

Both reports were signed by 10 members of the Committee, including two Republicans, Sens. Olympia Snowe and Chuck Hagel. Five members -- all Republicans -- issued a strong dissent, arguing that the minority had been "entirely cut out of the process" and charging that the Democrats had "twisted policy makers' statements and cherry-picked the intelligence in order to reach their misleading conclusions." The ranking Republican on the committee, Sen. Christopher "Kit" Bond, called the report "political theater".

The timing of the report's release, as well as its conclusions, however, is likely to fuel the ongoing political debate over the Iraq war at a critical moment in the presidential election campaign. This is particularly so with the securing of the Democratic nomination by Sen. Barack Obama, whose outspoken opposition to invading Iraq before the war is seen as a major reason for his victory over Sen. Hillary Clinton, who voted in favor of the Congressional authorization to go to war in the fall of 2002.

Obama now faces Republican Sen. John McCain, who, as honorary chairman of the Committee to Liberate Iraq in the run-up to the invasion, not only endorsed the claims that were being made by Bush and Cheney at the time, but also helped to propagate them.

The new reports also tend to bolster the charges made in a new book by former White House spokesman Scott McClellan, a long-time Bush aide who was considered part of the president's inner circle during the same period.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: iraq, al qaeda, dick cheney, george w. bush, wmds, senate intelligence commi

Jim Lobe is the Washington bureau chief for Inter Press Service. His blog on U.S. foreign policy, and particularly the neo-conservative influence in the Bush administration, can be read at http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/ .

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from World! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Libbrul Press
Posted by: Crazy H on Jun 10, 2008 10:08 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Saw this story in my hometown paper - on page 7. (In a blue state, none-the-less)

When the Senate decided that Clinton had lied about a BJ it was on the top of the front page, with an 80 point headline.

If the press had made as much noise about Bush as they did about Clinton, we would be out of Iraq. Bush & the rest of the neoconmen would be in jail.

What's wrong with this picture?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Alternate headline: Senate Intelligence Committee Covers Own Ass
Posted by: fanny666 on Jun 10, 2008 10:16 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's obnoxious to use the argument "We knew so little that the mean Bush people were able to tell us fairy tales and we believed them."

If, by listening to Scott Ritter lectures that I found for free on the internet, I knew that we weren't going to find stockpiles of WMDs in Iraq, then this committee certainly should have known as well.

If, by knowing a tiny bit about history and Islam, I knew that bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were enemies that would not be working together, then this committee should have known as well.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Alternet's little blurb is kind of revealing, as is the back page location of this story.
Posted by: non-person on Jun 10, 2008 12:03 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Reader's may not realize that the little "subheadings" are written by Alternet staff - in this case:

"In news that should surprise no one, a bipartisan report finds the Bush administration exaggerated threats of WMDs as well as Saddam/al Queda links."

Watered down nonsense. A real blurb would read:

"The Senate Intelligence Committee reveals that Bush lied to the American public about Saddam's nuclear and biological arsenals as well as about his ties to Al Qaeda and 9/11."

This could be continued:

"The Senate Intelligence Committee did NOT review the nature of the actual intelligence itself, much of which was provided by Chalabi-linked groups as well as by British and European intelligence services."

Going a little further,

"This provides a clear legal basis for the impeachment and removal from office of the President and the Vice President."

Frauds!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

US Senate Intelligence Committee
Posted by: Captainmagic on Jun 11, 2008 5:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Read carefully....."oxymoron".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

pop
Posted by: Pop on Jun 13, 2008 12:22 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So when will our New Majority finally stand and represent us and the United States Constitution?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: pop Posted by: anna132