Cherrypicking The Intelligence

Yesterday the NY Times and the WaPo had the same story - the Bush Administration had been warned that some of the alleged ties between Al Qaeda and Saddam were coming from a high-level Al Qaeda detainee with credibility problems.

The Times:

Report Warned Bush Team About Intelligence Suspicions

By DOUGLAS JEHL

WASHINGTON, Nov. 5 - A high Qaeda official in American custody was identified as a likely fabricator months before the Bush administration began to use his statements as the foundation for its claims that Iraq trained Al Qaeda members to use biological and chemical weapons, according to newly declassified portions of a Defense Intelligence Agency document... 

The WaPo:

Newly Released Data Undercut Prewar Claims
Source Tying Baghdad, Al Qaeda Doubted

By Walter Pincus

Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, November 6, 2005;  Page A22

In February 2002, the Defense Intelligence Agency questioned the reliability of a captured top al Qaeda operative whose allegations became the basis of Bush administration claims that terrorists had been trained in the use of chemical and biological weapons in Iraq, according to declassified material released by Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.).

Referring to the first interrogation report on al Qaeda senior military trainer Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, the DIA took note that the Libyan terrorist could not name any Iraqis involved, any chemical or biological material used or where the training occurred. As a result, "it is more likely this individual is intentionally misleading the debriefers," a DIA report concluded.

And it gets worse!  From the WaPo:

"The newly declassified information provides additional dramatic evidence that the administration's prewar statements regarding links between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda represents an incredible deception," Levin said.

Levin pointed specifically to an Oct. 7, 2002, speech in which the president outlined what he said was the "grave threat" from Iraq days before the House and Senate voted on a resolution giving him the authority to go to war.

"We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases," Bush said, an assertion that was based, according to Levin, primarily on al-Libi's material.

Oh, Bush lied, and Levin caught him!  But wait - a few paragraphs later, we get this:

Levin also pointed out that before the war, the CIA had its own reservations about al-Libi, although the agency did not note them in its publicly distributed unclassified statements. In those, Levin said, it described the source -- without naming al-Libi -- as "credible." In the classified version, however, the CIA added that the source "was not in a position to know if any training had taken place."

Do tell.  Let's excerpt what George Tenet wrote to the Senate on Oct 2, 2002, just before the Bush speech:

Regarding Senator Bayh's Evan Bayh, Democrat of Indiana question of Iraqi links to al-Qa'ida. Senators could draw from the following points for unclassified discussions:

Our understanding of the relationship between Iraq and al-Qa'ida is evolving and is based on sources of varying reliability. Some of the information we have received comes from detainees, including some of high rank.

We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and al-Qa'ida going back a decade.

• Credible information indicates that Iraq and al-Qa'ida have discussed safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression.
• Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of al-Qa'ida members, including some that have been in Baghdad.
• We have credible reporting that al-Qa'ida leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire W.M.D. capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to al-Qa'ida members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs.
• Iraq's increasing support to extremist Palestinians coupled with growing indications of a relationship with al-Qa'ida, suggest that Baghdad's links to terrorists will increase, even absent U.S. military action.

Emphasis added.

Now, why do we have a CIA?  Is the White House meant to simply rely on the DIA, and put George "Slam Dunk" Tenet's view in the round file?  (OK, not a bad idea, but...)

As an aside, this DIA report questioning Saddam/Qaeda links was circulated in Feb 2002, just as the DIA was also catching Dick Cheney's eye with another report:

Based on information from the CIA report from the foreign service, on February 12, 2002, the DIA wrote a finished intelligence product titled Niamey signed an agreement to sell 500 tons of uranium a year to Baghdad (NMJIC [National Military Joint Intelligence Center] Executive Highlight, Vol 028-02, Februaryl2, 2002).

Was that DIA report equally credible?

I'll grant that this game of selective declassification will prod the Senate Republicans into finally issuing the follow-up cover-up about pre-war intelligence. In that respect, it is Mission Accomplished for  Carl Levin.

MORE:  My personal hero is all this remains Dianne Feinstein of California, whose position was, in my retelling, "I didn't believe the lies, but I supported the war anyway".

FYI, here are the declassified NIE excerpts.

Comments

[Florence Schmieg]

What was Levin's vote on the war, I don't remember. But I do remember that most of the Dems on the intelligence committee voted for the war. They saw these documents did they not? So, they are hypocrits. But what else is new? I still think this is not going to work for the Dems in the elections. Americans notoriously are forward looking people. They want plans for solving Iraq and getting the troops back with honor, not constantly replaying the past.

[p.lukasiak]

Tim, have you ever considered that neither the DIA, nor the CIA, (nor INR, nor any other intelligence agency) is a monolithic enterprise where everyone agrees on everything?

Either the intelligence was being "cherry picked" or administration officials deliberately lied. No better proof of this can be found than in Condi Rice's statement (9/8/02) that 'the aluminum tubes "are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs." '

This is the exact opposite conclusion of the experts at the Department of Energy.

The administration's conclusions on the tubes were repeatedly publicly challenged; nevertheless, in Bush's SOTU of 1/28/03 he stated "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."

This statement was made AFTER numerous articles citing "anonymous" experts rebutting the claims, an ISIS report that knocked down the claim, and the IAEA conclusion the tubes were to be used for rockets.

Either Bush was lying (the tubes were NOT suitable for nuclear weapons production, and Saddam HAD credibly explained their intended purpose) or was getting "cherry picked" intelligence --- or both.

[spongeworthy]

And then you have other sources who claim the tubes were wildly over-engineered for Saddam's stated purpose, you know he was dying to fire up the centrifuges and you have recent disclosures that the tubes were indeed for centrifuges from, I think, France, right?

So add all this conflicting information and then bet the lives of Americans and I would hope we don't search for reasons to give Saddam the benfit of the doubt.

I don't think Americans believe "intel" is the same thing as "fact". There's always going to be sme guesswork involved. I think the President and Congress could be excused for treating intel as supportable enough and acting upon it.

It's hard to put much past a guy who tried to kill your Dad. I wouldn't, and it wasn't even my Dad.

[clarice]

Last night Bill Kristol noted on Fox that Levin is getting to play this game because he succeeded in getting tidbits declassified while Stephen Hayes who knows about the stronger AQ-Iraq ties cannot make his case as well as he'd like to because the government is so slow in releasing to him the already declassified documents he needs and has requested. PHEH

[owl]

Gonna rain on Dianne Feinstein, TM. While the discussion was raging, Bush going to the UN, etc...I watched 2 top Dems go on FOX and each were questioned if they thought the US or the UN should "decide". Levin dodged and sputtered but finally said UN. Dianne Feinstein didn't sputter. She agreed with UN. No thanks Carl and Dianne.

[JayDee]

You know what all this means? That we should have a Senate inquiry, the long promised Part Two, to explain HOW intelligence was used in the run up to war. But no worries. Fox News keeps telling me the report has already been written and Senate Dems were just being silly grandstanders last week demanding this information. So we should all have the true facts in hand....oh, aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaany day now.

[Jeff]

TM - Am I right to assume that Senators had the same access to the classified version of the CIA's assessment as the Bush adminnistration? Your post makes it sound like that might not be the case, but I'm not clear.

On the more general question, if we can assume that the Bush administration and Democratic senators all knew that the public justification being offered for war was weakly based -- as I think we can -- do you think they were identically motivated to bs the rest of us? Or is it plausible to imagine different motivations: the Bush administration had already decided it wanted to go to war and aggressively bs-ed to persuade the public; while most (not all) of the Democratic senators who bs-ed were wimps making craven political calculations for fear of being tagged as wimps and unpatriotic and unsupportive of the war on terror. I'm not saying which is worse; they're both bad enough for me. But modern politics being what it is, when it comes to war it's the executive branch that runs the public show.

[p.lukasiak]

I don't think Americans believe "intel" is the same thing as "fact". There's always going to be sme guesswork involved. I think the President and Congress could be excused for treating intel as supportable enough and acting upon it.

its not a question of "acting on intelligence", its a question of acting prudently on intelligence.

It was not imprudent for the US Congress to authorize the use of force as a last resort in order to compel Saddam Hussein to co-operate with UN inspections. "Everyone knew" that Saddam had WMDs, and "everyone knew" that Saddam would never allow unrestricted access to UN inspectors. So, "everyone assumed" that the use of force would be necessary, based on what they thought they knew at the time.

But it turned out that Saddam did allow unrestricted access---what "everyone knew" was wrong. And it turned out that the unrestricted access inspections resulted in every assumption about WMDs being disproven or thrown into serious question.

At that point, it became wholly imprudent to go to war in Iraq. But rather than do the "prudent" thing --- a complete review of all the intelligence concerning Iraq in light of the results of the inspections process --- the Bush regime continued to insist that the intelligence conclusions remained valid, and invaded Iraq.

Now, personally, I think that the reason we went to war was that the administration knew that there were no WMDs --- that the whole "inspections process" had backfired, and that as a result sanctions would be lifted and Iraq would be free to do whatever it wanted. That, at least, is an argument that makes some sense.

But that is not what we were told -- we were never allowed to debate the question "What should be do if there are no WMDs? Does the potential for Saddam to restart his WMD programs justify going to war? Is there a way that we can maintain partial sanctions, and/or continuing inspections that would make it impossible for Iraq to pursue banned weapons without detection?"

Obviously, the Bush regime would have argued that there was no way to contain Iraq if sanction were lifted. And others would have argued differently --- and we would have had an honest debate in this country.

But that isn't what we got. And Bush needs to be held accountable for it.

[JayDee]

I think that is the ultimate Misinformation Question, Jeff - DID the Senate have access to the same intelligence as the White House? How can we find this out? I am unable to trust righwing news outlets on this, because of their vested interest in the question. Is there no objective way of knowing where the Senate intelligence information derived from?

I agree with Jeff also that it's entirely possible that Senate Dems caved to political expedience and voted for a war based on lies , giving tacit credence to the lies. If that 's the actual case, they deserve to be tossed out in the same pile of trash as the Pub senators. But in order to make this determination, we need to know this one strangely elusive bit of info - who provides the Senate with intelligence and what information did they receive?

Why is this not a commonly known verifiable and objective fact? Like so much in our "open democracy by informed electorate", simple basic facts like this are consistently confused and obscured from our knowledge. Why?

[JayDee]

Jeff - DID the Senate have access to the same intelligence as the White House? How can we find this out? I am unable to trust righwing news outlets on this, because of their vested interest in the question. Is there no objective way of knowing where the Senate intelligence information derived from?

I agree with Jeff also that it's entirely possible that Senate Dems caved to political expedience and voted for a war based on lies , giving tacit credence to the lies. If that 's the actual case, they deserve to be tossed out in the same pile of trash as the Pub senators. But in order to make this determination, we need to know this one strangely elusive bit of info - who provides the Senate with intelligence and what information did they receive?

Why is this not a commonly known verifiable and objective fact? Like so much in our "open democracy by informed electorate", simple basic facts like this are consistently confused and obscured from our knowledge. Why?

[Syl]

p.luk.

"At that point, it became wholly imprudent to go to war in Iraq."

No, it became wholly imprudent to go to war based on WMD which is the case we made to the U.N. The American people didn't need that case made to support the war. Therefore we should have performed regime change unilaterally.

Which is exactly what we did.

[Syl]

Oh my. The case for war based on WMD is absolutely no justification for this!

[JayDee]

The American people didn't need that case made to support the war. Therefore we should have performed regime change unilaterally.

The American people never got the chance to make this choice. The American people were kept entirely out of the loop in this exercise in "spreading democracy"...apparently by perverting it.

Now that the American people have the facts in hand, their verdict is in complete contradiction to yours.

[Jeff]

The American people didn't need that case made to support the war. Therefore we should have performed regime change unilaterally.

Which is exactly what we did.

Leaving aside the exceptional amount of illogic you manage to pack into three little sentences, Syl, how about just some facts: the Bush administration evidently didn't agree that the American people didn't need the case for war made on the basis of WMD, since WMD in conjunction with Iraq's alleged connection to al-Qaeda was the central public justification of the war. If the Bush administration had said nothing about WMD and Iraq's connection to terrorism and had instead argued that war with Iraq was justified solely or principally as a humanitarian intervention, fine, we could have had that argument and seen where it went. If the Bush administration had argued, "The intelligence is murky at best, there's no hard evidence of either WMD or substantial ties between Iraq and al-Qaeda amounting to an immediate threat and making Iraq a central front in the war on terror, but nevertheless the Bush doctrine of preventive war suggests that some time in the distant future Saddam may be such a threat to the U.S. that it justifies American blood and money -- and potentially large quantities of both -- being expended in getting rid of Saddam," then fine, we could have had that argument and seen where the American people ended up. But the reality is that we didn't have those arguments, and American democracy was betrayed in the process. To be clear, I believe that different players within the Bush administration had different motives for supporting the push for war with Iraq, and some were motivated principally by humanitarian concerns, some were motiavted by democracy promotion visions, some by WMD fears, some by the need for a demonstration effect, some by regret over past screw-ups, and so on. But all of that is internal to the Bush administration, and I care much more about the public decision to support the push for war -- and that decision was preceded by a debate that was largely centered around WMD and terrorism in Iraq, with at least overtones of the immediacy and seriousness of the threat posed thereby.

[Syl]

It's all BS.

I wasn't paying attention much to anything before 9/11, like a lot of people.

But the one thing I knew for sure was that Saddam was a tyrant and a danger to the region, his people, and to us.

I'm not the only one.

If the intelligence was so screwed up, how come the Democratic administration in power back then led me to believe this lie?

The world didn't begin with Bush, you know.

[owl]

Syl....They believe the world did begin with Bush. He has the "world" fooled also.

If you were paying attention in the 1990s, the Democrats made a firm case to take out Hussein on WMDs. Over and over but it's all lip service and they put their faith in the UN and France to handle it. The Dems were the party that made the case on WMDs and the Repubs did not dispute it. But it was certainly not my reason for supporting the war. You can sit and let them burn you out or you can carry it into their territory.

[Jeff]

It's funny to watch people who belong to what claims to be the party of personal responsibility constantly try to shove responsibility onto others as soon as the going gets tough. Syl and owl, I'm looking at you.

Was Saddam dangerous in the 1990s? Yes. Was Saddam dangerous in 2003? Yes. Do either of those answers add up to a justification for a preventive war? No. You've got to do more work for that.

Here's a thought experiment to test your embrace of the 1990s Democrats in the name of saving Bush's face: do you think that if we had President Al Gore, we would have gone to war with Iraq in 2003?

[p.lukasiak]

If you were paying attention in the 1990s, the Democrats made a firm case to take out Hussein on WMDs.

the democrats made a case sufficient to justify the actions taken against Iraq. Clinton (and Bush I) chose a prudent course, designed to navigate between the substantial risk of "doing nothing" and the substantial risk of "invading and occupying Iraq."

On 9-10-2001, the "threat" posed by Iraq was contained. It was just as contained on 9-12-2001. What changed was not the nature of the threat, but the perception of the threat---and the only reason that changed was the Bush regime's exploitation of the fear and panic that resulted from the events of 9-11-2001.

[TM]

Levin was against the war resolution.

in Bush's SOTU of 1/28/03 he stated "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."

This statement was made AFTER numerous articles citing "anonymous" experts rebutting the claims, an ISIS report that knocked down the claim, and the IAEA conclusion the tubes were to be used for rockets.

Hmm. I recall the IAEA report from March 2003 (which also debunked ther forgeries), but I am unfamiliar with anything sooner.

[Gary Maxwell]

What a crock! "Regime change" was a policy adopted by Clinton. I understand you need to parse Clinton sometimes but that is so clear you dont need much else. Bush I had no such policy. Where you going to get the policy by playing a game of H o r s e with Saddam ( 2 0f 3 and make it take it)?

[Jeff]

What a crock! "Regime change" was a policy adopted by Clinton.

Oh yeah, I remember what a central role that played in the Bush administration's public justification of war.

Take my thought experiment: do you think that if we had President Al Gore, we would have gone to war with Iraq in 2003?

[TM]

TM - Am I right to assume that Senators had the same access to the classified version of the CIA's assessment as the Bush adminnistration? Your post makes it sound like that might not be the case, but I'm not clear.

Well, I thought so - my impression was that they got classified briefings, then got permission from Tenet to declassify parts of it. That would be Tenet's letter (Oct 2002), and the declassifed NIE excerpts (which was an after-the-war PR exercise).

Well, my comments seem to be crashing out (with everyone elses), and my link to the declassified NIE points to the wrong place - my day in microcosm.

[JayDee]

Impressions and assumptions. Why do we not KNOW how intelligence was communicated to our representatives? It should not be so difficult to lay our hands on this information. It is impossible to conclude otherwise than that this difficulty is intentional.

Are there people on this blog who OPPOSE the idea of Phase II inquiry?

[p.lukasiak]

Hmm. I recall the IAEA report from March 2003 (which also debunked ther forgeries), but I am unfamiliar with anything sooner.

After weeks of investigation, U.N. weapons inspectors in Iraq are increasingly confident that the aluminum tubes were never meant for enriching uranium, according to officials familiar with the inspection process. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the U.N.-chartered nuclear watchdog, reported in a Jan. 8 preliminary assessment that the tubes were "not directly suitable" for uranium enrichment but were "consistent" with making ordinary artillery rockets -- a finding that meshed with Iraq's official explanation for the tubes. New evidence supporting that conclusion has been gathered in recent weeks and will be presented to the U.N. Security Council in a report due to be released on Monday, the officials said.

Moreover, there were clues from the beginning that should have raised doubts about claims that the tubes were part of a secret Iraqi nuclear weapons program, according to U.S. and international experts on uranium enrichment. The quantity and specifications of the tubes -- narrow, silver cylinders measuring 81 millimeters in diameter and about a meter in length -- made them ill-suited to enrich uranium without extensive modification, the experts said.

But they are a perfect fit for a well-documented 81mm conventional rocket program in place for two decades. Iraq imported the same aluminum tubes for rockets in the 1980s. The new tubes it tried to purchase actually bear an inscription that includes the word "rocket," according to one official who examined them.

from a reprint of a 1-24-03 Washington Post article on the Common Dreams website....

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0124-08.htm

[clarice]

TM-- You and me both--The Viagra offers , penis lengthening ads and and Niger investment opportunities make it to my inbox but anything relating to Wilson freezes up everything..Yikes!!

[Jeff]

Comments seem to be working fine, so here goes, SMG this one's for you: looks like your man Steven Hayes may need to go back and reconsider his sources, who evidently considered al-libi among the most reliable.

TM - The significance of the infamous "slam dunk" comment from Tenet is widely misunderstood, I think. If you look at Woodward's book, Tenet makes the comment after and in the face of a report, based on the facts, from the CIA deemed unsatisfactory by Bush. Tenet's comment was, evidently, based on nothing else. This is not to lessen what a bad act it was on Tenet's part. On the contrary. But it was Tenet and not the CIA who got the Medal of Freedom.

[Syl]

Jeff

"Syl and owl, I'm looking at you."

::glowering back::

"Was Saddam dangerous in the 1990s? Yes. Was Saddam dangerous in 2003? Yes. Do either of those answers add up to a justification for a preventive war? No. You've got to do more work for that."

What happened between the '90's and 2003?

Even the meaning of Saddam's box changed. I swear the Dems willfully ignore the significance of 9/11.

[Sue]

If I were Bush, I would throw my hands up in the air and say F... It. You want it, you got it. Thankfully, Bush isn't me. :)

[topsecretk9]

TM-
Well, I thought so - my impression was that they got classified briefings, Schemur did!

C. WALLACE: As we noted, the Democrats forced the Senate into a closed session this week to try to force or get the Senate Intelligence Committee to investigate the manipulation, the exaggeration of pre-war intelligence by the White House.

I want to play a clip from your statement back in October of 2002 when you voted to authorize the use of force. Here it is.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SCHUMER: It is Hussein's vigorous pursuit of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, and his present and future potential support for terrorist acts and organizations that make him a danger to the people of the united states.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

C. WALLACE: Senator, you read the intelligence and you came to the same conclusion the president did.

SCHUMER: Yes.The bottom line is I wasn't as sure of it as the president was, but I believe in a post-9/11 world, Chris, that the president does need latitude to keep our national security strong. And you know, that is true.

[Syl]

p.luk.

What changed was not the nature of the threat, but the perception of the threat---and the only reason that changed was the Bush regime's exploitation of the fear and panic that resulted from the events of 9-11-2001.

Your words give your paranoia away. What benefit does exploitation accrue to all the players? How does the timing fit? wouldn't either 2002 or 2004 have been better? You're going to have to prove a conspiracy here and you can't even get close.

Besides, if it were truly an exploitation of fears the Dems look awfully foolish for not seeing through it. So we should trust them? exactly why?

[topsecretk9]

=Schumer

[JayDee]

The only "significance of 9/11" that matters to pubs is their belief that they now have a blank check to abuse our democracy in the service of whatever self serving agenda they choose.

I was one of those who barely noticed when judicial activists gave Bush the presidency in 2000. I pretty much felt all politicians were the same. It was 9/11 that galvanized me by teaching me that there are really people in our government so execrable that they would EXPLOIT that horror for partisan political gain. It was an epiphany I never anticipated, or could possibly have believed about my countrymen before. I had been reading all summer how we should anticipate an attack by Islamic fundamentalists. What I had never read was that there were such people as the PNAC signatories, just lying in wait, rubbing their hands together, for just such a tragedy to exploit.

[Syl]

"Are there people on this blog who OPPOSE the idea of Phase II inquiry?"

I oppose the IDEA because it's based on false premises and doesn't account for anything pre-Bush.

If the IDEA were to just discover what happened to be sure we're dotting i's and crossing t's, well, okay. But the IDEA is purely political: to hinder the administration in its efforts and to reduce support for Iraq among the citizenry which, in and of itself has nationalal security implications.

So, I believe the investigation should be DELAYED until our troops come home. Because why we went to war has NOTHING to do with waging it.

[p.lukasiak]

Besides, if it were truly an exploitation of fears the Dems look awfully foolish for not seeing through it. So we should trust them? exactly why?

some dems, syl.

Do you think we would have invaded Iraq if Al Gore had been President?

[Sue]

P. Luk,

No. We wouldn't have invaded Afghanistan either.

[Syl]

JayDee

Do you think maybe, someday, you might realize that there are two parties in America, and they have political differences and that if your party loses it does not mean somebody exploited or tricked you or otherwise used nefarious means to get their way?

In other words, will you ever grow up?

[Syl]

"some dems, syl."

The Dems that count....those who you elected.

[dogtownGuy]

--Do you think we would have invaded Iraq if Al Gore had been President?

No, not sure he had the balls...Clinton just kicked the can down the road...which is okay to a point. I don't fault him as much as I resent the history rewriters.

[JayDee]

So, I believe the investigation should be DELAYED until our troops come home. Because why we went to war has NOTHING to do with waging it.

You would have made a very good German, Syl. That is exactly the suppliance that dictators rely on from the human race. They believe it is the default human trait, and many Americans unfortunately are proving them right. But luckily, not most. Not any more.

Two political parties does NOT explain, for instance, the inexcusable FAKE terror alerts these bastards pulled during last year's election campaign. They have played the fear of 9/11 like a well tuned piano, using it to shut up the opposition and get the uninformed crowds cheering. If they cared about our national security, just for starters, they would have made some freaking PLANS for protecting our troops and for securing the peace after our candies and flowers victory lap.

I understand Republicans like the idea of a Big Daddy government who makes their decisions for them and just shows them how to follow along. But when are you going to realize not all Americans are so subservient? Some of us actually love the ideals and principles that made this country great, not just the rah rah propaganda that makes us feel like we are superior beings.

[TexasToast]

So, I believe the investigation should be DELAYED until our troops come home. Because why we went to war has NOTHING to do with waging it.

But it has everything to do with preventing us from making the same mistakes.

[Syl]

JayDee

That hitler comparison doesn't even make sense. I'm talking specifically about after we bring our guys home from Iraq. Has nothing to do with perpetual war the human condition or anything else.

TT

The point is that we already deposed Saddam and are in the process of cleaning up and if we cut and run, which the Dems are trying to get us to do by undermining citizen support, it could have disastrous national security implications.

You don't have to worry about us making the same 'mistake', if indeed we did, in the near future simply because of all the accusations.

So the investigation CAN certainly wait a year or two.

[spongeworthy]

But that isn't what we got. And Bush needs to be held accountable for it.

And you don't think the Left or the Democrats or anybody else should be held accountable, right? Congress votes for regime change while Bush is opening a Wal-mart in Killeen, but he's responsible for not knowing they were only kidding.

Every freaking nation on the planet is on record about Saddam's weapons, but Bush should be held accountable for not knowing their intel was deficient.

The antiwar movement screams No Blood for Oil, infantilizing what should have been a legitimate debate about nation-building and its imperialist implications, but Bush is responsible for not questioning his own assumptions.

Congress, always the first in line to blame the Executive for their errors, stands in fucking line to decry Saddam's efforts to build a WMD arsenal, but it's Bush's fault for not giving Saddam the benefit of the doubt.

Pretty convenient position you've taken there. Ever wonder why it's so easy for the rest of us to dismiss your arguments as Bush-bashing and little else?

What's more, the inspections did not absolve Saddam as you claim. If there's one thing that was crystal clear as the inspections fizzled, it was that Saddam was in violation of 1441 and would never have complied. If he won't do it with 200,000 troops on his borders, it wasn't going to happen. This seems obvious to those of us not out to play Pin the Blame on Bush.

[Wilson's a liar]

Jeff-

HELL YES, Al Gore would have led an invasion of Iraq. Because his chief political mentor, Marty Peretz, would have insisted on it. It isn't only Republicans that want to remove the threats to Israel, you know. Gore supported Clinton's war in Bosnia, didn't he? And he didn't really care about "controlling legal authority" either. ;-)

[Syl]

JayDee

"But when are you going to realize not all Americans are so subservient?"

This is just dopey.

We have our own opinions. They just are not in lockstep with yours. Live with it.

[Wilson's a liar]

And there also would have been that small matter of Gore's Jewish Vice-President....

[Sue]

This might be a good time to remind some what the objective of democrats and pre-war intelligence really is...it isn't our security...that much is obvious.

Transcript of a memo written by a Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee staff suggesting how to make the greatest gain off of intelligence data leading to the war against Iraq.

We have carefully reviewed our options under the rules and believe we have identified the best approach. Our plan is as follows:

1) Pull the majority along as far as we can on issues that may lead to major new disclosures regarding improper or questionable conduct by administration officials. We are having some success in that regard. For example, in addition to the president's State of the Union speech, the chairman has agreed to look at the activities of the Office of the Secretary of Defense as well as Secretary Bolton's office at the State Department. The fact that the chairman supports our investigations into these offices and co-signs our requests for information is helpful and potentially crucial. We don't know what we will find but our prospects for getting the access we seek is far greater when we have the backing of the majority. (Note: we can verbally mention some of the intriguing leads we are pursuing.)

2) Assiduously prepare Democratic "additional views" to attach to any interim or final reports the committee may release. Committee rules provide this opportunity and we intend to take full advantage of it. In that regard, we have already compiled all the public statements on Iraq made by senior administration officials. We will identify the most exaggerated claims and contrast them with the intelligence estimates that have since been declassified. Our additional views will also, among other things, castigate the majority for seeking to limit the scope of the inquiry. The Democrats will then be in a strong position to reopen the question of establishing an independent commission (i.e. the Corzine amendment).

3) Prepare to launch an independent investigation when it becomes clear we have exhausted the opportunity to usefully collaborate with the majority. We can pull the trigger on an independent investigation at any time-- but we can only do so once. The best time to do so will probably be next year either:

A) After we have already released our additional views on an interim report -- thereby providing as many as three opportunities to make our case to the public: 1) additional views on the interim report; 2) announcement of our independent investigation; and 3) additional views on the final investigation; or

B) Once we identify solid leads the majority does not want to pursue. We could attract more coverage and have greater credibility in that context than one in which we simply launch an independent investigation based on principled but vague notions regarding the "use" of intelligence.

In the meantime, even without a specifically authorized independent investigation, we continue to act independently when we encounter foot-dragging on the part of the majority. For example, the FBI Niger investigation was done solely at the request of the vice chairman; we have independently submitted written questions to DoD; and we are preparing further independent requests for information.

Summary

Intelligence issues are clearly secondary to the public's concern regarding the insurgency in Iraq. Yet, we have an important role to play in the revealing the misleading -- if not flagrantly dishonest methods and motives -- of the senior administration officials who made the case for a unilateral, preemptive war. The approach outline above seems to offer the best prospect for exposing the administration's dubious motives and methods.

[Syl]

JayDee

Read again what Sue posted. Now tell me that you are not being subservient to your leaders.

It's all politics. Has nothing to do with Saddam.

[JayDee]

The reason to have this inquiry NOW and in the OPEN is not just to prevent future recurrences. You are correct that the American public will never stand for another fullscale military offensive like this Iraq debacle. In that sense, the failures of the Bush admin to make a success of their unaccomplished mission does serve as a kind of inocculation against future misadventures.

But we need the inquiry now for this reason: As much as it is forgotten, we are still a DEMOCRACY. It may seem naive, but I still believe the practice of our own democracy holds a higher priority than the armed export of some Islamic law version of it to other countries. We will be having elections next year that will be a referendum on many of those who voted for this war and on some who did not. We deserve full knowledge and information of their roles in order to make informed decisions. It is truly remarkable that expressing this point of view in our current political climate can result in one being insulted as a traitor. Elections without information - what an enlightened concept for a modern democracy.

[JayDee]

Excuse me, Syl, but are you expecting me to be shocked that politicians are looking for the best way to play their given hand? Do you think this makes me any less interested in discovering the TRUTH about what happened when we entered this war?

If you want to read a real fun fairy tale of Democracy Perverted, check out this History of the Iraq War, Told Entirely in Lies

Except every last lie is an actual verbatim statement of a Bush admin official.

[p.lukasiak]

Here's an example of an administration lie that didn't make it into the papers...

From Judith Miller's account of her talk with Libby on June 23...

What was evident, I told the grand jury, was Mr. Libby's anger that Mr. Bush might have made inaccurate statements because the C.I.A. failed to share doubts about the Iraq intelligence.

"No briefer came in and said, 'You got it wrong, Mr. President,' " he said, according to my notes.

As we all know by now, the CIA intervened to keep out of a speech given by Bush in October 2002 any reference to the Niger claims.

But we didn't know this on June 23rd.... we only found out after the Wilson op-ed piece was published.

Here we have a clear case of the Bush administration attempting to illegitimately scapegoat the CIA. Is it any wonder that the CIA was pissed off?

[Sue]

http://www.mediaresearch.org/rm/cyber/2004/binladen061704/segment1.ram>Shocking

[kim]

It's really quite ignorant, and politically as stupid as can be, for the Democrats to oppose the current process in Iraq. Any criticism they have of past process suffers from the absence of a more effective one, a paucity of preferable processes, so to speak.
=======================================================

[kim]

JD's got a gimmick, and p.l. cherry-picks one instance. I'm convinced.
=================================================

[Tom Bowler]

Here's an example of an administration lie that didn't make it into the papers...

From Judith Miller's account of her talk with Libby on June 23...

What was evident, I told the grand jury, was Mr. Libby's anger that Mr. Bush might have made inaccurate statements because the C.I.A. failed to share doubts about the Iraq intelligence. "No briefer came in and said, 'You got it wrong, Mr. President,' " he said, according to my notes.

I seem to recall some low level Clinton holdover who said "It's a slam dunk!" What was his name? George Tenet? Was that it?

[TexasToast]

Well Kim, since the topic is the past process, thats what we are supposed to talk about in this thread. Now if you want to talk about what we should do now, how about stop the torture and the demi-gulag?

[Jeff]

Even the meaning of Saddam's box changed. I swear the Dems willfully ignore the significance of 9/11.

I am so sick of Republicans pulling this crap. Did it even occur to you as a possibility that I was not ignoring the significance of 9-11, and yet still was able to make the claims that I was making? Or is this abuse such an instinct with you that it just came without thought? For the record, syl, I appreciate the significance of 9-11, and I still believe -- no: I believe all the more strongly -- that the invasion of Iraq was a strategic mistake of the first order, and that the way the Bush administration got the American people to go along with the war was a disgrace. I also believe that the craven, politically calculated acquiescence of so many Democrats in Congress in the Bush administration's case for war was a disgrace and a forgoing of their political and moral responsibility.

It's extraordinary to me that Republicans have managed to monopolize the symbolic power of those horrible events that were actually experienced by -- as the enduring threat of their renewal is still mainly faced by -- the bluest of American cities. Indeed, did not New York represent in Republican demonology all that Republicans most hate about America in all its loosey-goosey freedom?

I am quite sure, syl, that I recall what 9-11 felt like at least as vividly as you, and I appreciate its significance at least as well as you.

[kim]

So past process. Bush did the right thing by removing Saddam and has done it elegantly, but not faultlessly, and provided the Iraqi people with a new political dream and the Islamic world with an alternative to nihilism. Not too bad for process.
===============================================

[kim]

And you don't know nuthin' from torture.
==========================================

[kim]

I don't think Republicans demonize the denizens of azure communities. They recognize all the shades of purple haze, and don't much care for demonizing anyhoo.
================================================

[Sue]

Jeff,

Once again, you separate us by color, only this time red/blue instead of black/white. I didn't look at those people on 9/11 and say, oh my god, they are blue staters, why should I, a red stater, care? I looked at them and said oh my god, my fellow Americans.

[TexasToast]

So past process. Bush did the right thing by removing Saddam and has done it elegantly, but not faultlessly, and provided the Iraqi people with a new political dream and the Islamic world with an alternative to nihilism. Not too bad for process.

So past process. Bush used 9/11 as an excuse to start an offensive war to grab control of the oilfields and has done it with atrocious post-invasion planning after a catastrophic victory. He has provided the Iraqi people with a boatload of civilian casualties, a country splintered into devolving mini-states, a boiling insurgency, a constitution with no support in the sunni areas supporting and harboring the insurgency. He has provided us with an islamic world of nearly universal hostility and a tarnished image in the rest of the world as most recently evidenced by the open arms welcome he received in Argentina. Not to bad off for process? When is the next troop rotation?

As for torture, why does our president oppose the McCain amendment? What do words like "get to the bottom of it" mean to this guy? From recent experience, it means send Scott McClellan out there to peddle a falsehood.

[Jeff]

Once again, you separate us by color, only this time red/blue instead of black/white.

I did no such thing. The reality is that it is overwhelmingly people in Democratic places who face the threat of 9-11 type attacks, and faced 9-11, and it is grotesque the way many Republicans have capitalized on 9-11 to accuse Democrats of failure to appreciate the significance of the event. It was syl who launched an accusation separating Democrats -- and me specifically -- from Republicans on 9-11. If you have a complaint, take it up with her. But it is typical and further exploitation of the event that you would go after me instead of the one who launched that piece of nonsense.

[Sue]

Jeff,

Yes you did. You brought up blue/red as in the blues have a larger ownership to 9/11 than reds do. I did not see where Syl launched an accusation.

[p.lukasiak]

I also believe that the craven, politically calculated acquiescence of so many Democrats in Congress in the Bush administration's case for war was a disgrace and a forgoing of their political and moral responsibility.

Lest we forget.... the Democrats were putting up a pretty good fight against authorizing the use of force until Dick Gephardt caved. Gephardt motives appear to have been political --- he thought that by supporting the use of force, he could remove the "Democrats are soft on terrorism" meme, and the Dems would pick up seats in the House of Representatives when voters focussed on other issues. With passage of the resolution assured, lots of Democrats who had doubts about the authorization of force did the politically expedient thing, and voted for it.

The quality of an opposition is only as good as the quality of the leadership of the opposition. Gephardt demonstrated that the Democrats were, in fact, directionless at a time when the nation craved leadership, and as a result the Democrats lost seats in the House and Senate...

[Neo]

Most of the Dems never believed in an Iraq - al Qaeda connection to begin with, so I take this occasion to congratulate them for the incite, at least as far as this detainee is concerned.

That said, exactly where does this story lead us ?

Iraq needed to be brought to heel for their multiple violations of multiple UN resolutions (ie SC res 688 repression of the Iraqi civilian population) and the 1991 Gulf War ceasefire agreement (that small matter of firing, almost daily, on Coalition planes).

We don't need no stinking terrorists or WMDs.

[Syl]

Jeff

If your position was that Iraq was the wrong next move to make, and you had a feasible alternative that involved more than whack-o-terrorist, then I say that is an honorable position to take.

But, let me remind you, that many anti-war posters have other reasons, and those are the ones I just get tired of. And they outnumber you about 10,000 to 1.

-it was for oil
-a Republican did it
-Saddam was contained
-it's not our job to free the Iraqi people
-we should have hit Darfour instead
-or North Korea
-Bush! did it
-it's imperialism
-France said Non
-catch bin laden instead to end our troubles
-it costs too much
-our children will die in Iraq
-it was all about Bush's daddy
-and Halliburton!
-too many troops
-too few troops
-the Arab street will hate us
-Saddam was no threat to anybody
-and on and on and on

[Sue]

P. Luk,

So you are blaming Gephardt? What happened to each senator taking responsibility for his/her vote? Only when it's republicans? :)

[Syl]

p.luk.

[Gephart] thought that by supporting the use of force, he could remove the "Democrats are soft on terrorism" meme, and the Dems would pick up seats in the House of Representatives when voters focussed on other issues. With passage of the resolution assured, lots of Democrats who had doubts about the authorization of force did the politically expedient thing, and voted for it.

This is an insult to Gephart.

And an insult to the Democrats.

You are saying that they really are soft on terrorism and that national security is only important to them as a means to get more seats in an election.

Gurgle Glug

[Sue]

Syl,

It may be a cheap shot, but when you break it down, it is true. Democrats voted for the war before they were against the war. The poll numbers controlled them. Just ask John Kerry. :)

[Sue]

Wow,

Clarice, you are famous. I think. Is this you?

WILSON, ETC. [Michael Ledeen]
In case nobody's noticed it yet, Angleton's theory of the French Connection may actually be a misunderestimation. Look at this, from Clarice Feldman (who used to be the best cook in Washington before she started blogging). http://corner.nationalreview.com/

[p.lukasiak]

So you are blaming Gephardt? What happened to each senator taking responsibility for his/her vote? Only when it's republicans? :)

No, Sue, I'm placing primary responsibility for the Democrats failure to put up more resistance on Gephardt. As for holding politicians responsible, I think there is a difference between votes that are cast when the outcome is already determined, and votes cast when the outcome is close. Political expediency takes precedence in both parties when the outcome is determined --- but on those occasions where the choice turned out to be wrong, politicians needs to admit they were wrong. (in other words, don't expect me to support Hillary for the Democratic nomination.)

You are saying that they really are soft on terrorism and that national security is only important to them as a means to get more seats in an election.

Syl, sometimes I think you are Sue when she is off her meds or something.

[Jeff]

Sue - I absolutely challenge and defy you to show me where I said, according to your allegation,

blues have a larger ownership to 9/11 than reds do.

Not only did I not say that blues have a larger ownership of 9/11 than reds do, I did not suggest it. It is a simple fact that the WTC is in the middle of New York City, a very blue place by everyone's account, and that New Yorkers live with the shadow and threat of a terrorist attack in a way that no one else in the country, and certainly no one else in Republican-dominated parts of the country, do. New Yorkers own 9/11 in a way the rest of us do not -- though most of them would probably rather not so own it -- and the vast majority of them are Democrats. But that does not mean that Democrats own 9/11 in a way that Republicans do not. What I said was that it was extraordinary that Republicans have sought to monopolize and use 9/11 in light of this fact. That is, I reject the Republicans' separation of us along the axis of 9/11, which is not to endorse in turn the idea that the Democrats own 9/11. I was in fact objecting to Republicans doing the very thing you accuse me of doing.

Sue, you further say,

I did not see where Syl launched an accusation.

But you see it now, right? Because you took seriously your responsibility to look at what I was responding to, which in fact I quoted in my initial post on this topic. Once again, here is what syl said:

I swear the Dems willfully ignore the significance of 9/11.

This in response to a post in which I talked about 1999 and 2003, did not mention 9/11 explicitly, and yet made an argument that fully took 9/11 into account. syl did not like the argument and, probably out of thoughtless habit, just assumed I willfully ignored 9/11. You see, syl has a habit of caricaturing her adversaries. (See her later post here on why most of those who opposed the war opposed the war, according to her; it is rife with caricature.) It's so much easier that way.

[MayBee]

Would we have gone to Iraq with Gore? I don't know, I don't know how much of an extension of Clinton's administration Gore might have been.

But here's what intelligence (via Clinton) told us at the time he left office:
- N Korea was not pursuing nukes, and was interested only in patriotic pageants with amazing card sections
- AQ Khan did not exist
- Libya had no nuclear program, even got the free and clear from IAEA inspectors
- Iran was not pursuing nukes
- Negotiating with Arafat was the best path toward peace in Israel/Palestine
- Saddam Hussein had weapons stockpiled, was tyrannical, and was perhaps the most evil ruler in all of the world
- Bin Laden was this bad guy who could be neutralized by a bomb strike in the Sudan

Come on. Was Intelligence being cherry picked, interpreted, misintepreted, or was some of it just wrong?

I can't abide by what the Dems are doing right now.

[Jeff]

MayBee - Your caricatures show that you are completely unserious. Plus you don't even understand the implications of the position you suggest on the thought experiment.

[Chads]

As for torture, why does our president oppose the McCain amendment?

Maybe because it seeks to restrict the rights of the President as Commander in Cheif? The opposition has less to do with torture than it appears. It's a very bad idea for the senate to get the idea that it is the CINC of the armed forces.

[Chads]

Going to Iraq with Gore? you gotta be kidding. Wouldn't have been no Afghanistan. Hell, they couldn't even prosecute the Cole bombing. There was no stomach anywhere in the Clintoon administration for it, and there's no indications that things would have been any different under a Gore administration(shudder).

In response to questioning on how to responde to the Cole attack Admiral Zinni responded "What should we do, attack Afghanistan?" There wasn't going to be anything done untill somebody came along to knock things off center. That much should be obvious. What's going on in France should be a good indication of what was in the cards for us.

[MayBee]

Jeff-

Yes, I indulged in caricatures but I promise you I am serious. Each one of those points has at its heart a 'fact' that we American citizens 'knew' on January 19, 2001.

Which ones do you dispute?

As for understanding implications of my thought experiment: it being my brain and all, I feel perfectly qualified to tell you what I think the implications are.

I think sometimes What We Think We Know turns out to be very very wrong. Looking back through the lens of What We Know Now does not make the things that turned out to be wrong become lies. Perhaps in most of these cases, we were naive, too trusting, or our intelligence was simply too shallow, or conflicting, or incorrectly analyzed.

As for the current situation, I cannot understand how the Dems honestly believe that they can get past their own statements about Iraq and what we thought we knew.
Even if the Senators want to pretend someone manipulated them, they are still throwing Clinton to the wolves. Or they stupidly hope that nobody will remember that our contentious history with Iraq and our firm belief in his desire for our destruction did not begin January 20, 2001. Or the day PNAC wrote some memo.

I believe the Dems are completely disengenous to be playing this game and worse -because it is political gamesmanship this country can ill afford.

If you disagree or see things differently, by all means explain yourself. But no need to be such a bully. :)

[kim]

Hey TT, check with a few Iraqis. They are grateful. They are going to put Casey Sheehan on a coin.
===================================================

[kim]

I'm waiting for the day when the Democratic objection to Bush will be that he went to war for oil, then failed to control it.
=================================================

[p.lukasiak]

I don't know if Gore would have invaded Afghanistan --- mostly because I think that Gore would have continued Clinton's sharp focus on the threat of terrorism, and 9-11 might not have happened.

But assuming it did happen, Gore may not have invaded Afghanistan, and instead taken full advantage of the world's willingness to help bring bin Laden to justice and discredit al Qaeda once and for all.

Or Gore might have dusted off the plan to "covertly" invade Afghanistan through Pakistan to take out bin Laden (notwithstanding May's perversion of intelligence, the Clinton administration was poised to send in troops to take out bin Laden through Pakistan. That fell through when Bush's buddy Musharraf overthrew the democratically elected government of Pakistan, and rescinded permission to do so.)

But, regardless of how Gore addressed 9-11, he'd have captured or killed bin Laden by now.

[kim]

Bin Laden is presently effectively greatly neutralized. Operationally, he no longer controls al Qaeda. Quite frankly he is more valuable dead than alive. Watch for him never to reappear.

How's that for spin?
=============================================

[kim]

So, p.l., in that scenario Saddam and the Taliban are still in power. You say it's my move? Hmmm...let's see, oh I gotta good one. Schedule elections.
=========================================

[kim]

By the way Jeff, until the Swifties came along, I'd have considered a Gephart/Kucinich ticket, merely for the sheer entertainment of watching it win, or nearly. I even hoped Kerry would be exposed soon enough for the Democrats to replace him as the nominee. Now that would have been a race.
===================================================

[Syl]

Jeff

"(See her later post here on why most of those who opposed the war opposed the war, according to her; it is rife with caricature.) It's so much easier that way."

Well, if Dems like you had the guts to tell those 'caricatures' that it wasn't about oil maybe you'd have a point. I've been listening to crap like that for almost three years now. There's a reason my patience grows thin.

[Jeff]

Well, if Dems like you had the guts to tell those 'caricatures' that it wasn't about oil maybe you'd have a point. I've been listening to crap like that for almost three years now. There's a reason my patience grows thin.

Leave aside the issue that surely even you can't think that "crap like that" is uniquely or even distinctively characteristic of the left and absent on the right. Let's take your example, which is a perfect one, since it is typical. It is of course true that political calculations about oil were an indispensable part of the calculations about going to war with Iraq. If you think otherwise, you are just delusional about how important oil is as a geopolitical matter. It's that last specification that, I will agree with you, is missed by some on the left, when they claim that a major motivation of the war was to economically benefit oil companies who were in effect Bush cronies. (That was just a predictable and welcome side benefit.) So the war was inescapably -- not solely -- about oil as a geopolitical consideration of the first order, not as a crony-capitalist consideration. I will tell anyone on the left who will listen that they are mistaken if they think the war was principally or even majorly motivated by the desire to put profits in Halliburton's hands, even though the geopolitics of oil is certainly a crucial part of the Bush administration's strategy in the Middle East and Iraq in particular.

It seems to me that your blind hatred of the left leads to simple analytic blindness as you refuse to think about, say, oil in a real political way in relation to the war. You also take a position shared by some on the left, make it characteristic of the left as a whole, and then you treat the whole left as a bunch of morons. The result is that, quite frankly, the simplistic protestors who shout "No blood for oil" are closer to the truth than you are. Though, again, I am more than willing to voice my criticism of their oversimplistic understanding of that slogan.

[Jeff]

If you are convinced that a President Gore would not have gone to war with Iraq, then it make no sense to have recourse to the Clinton administration's thinking in defense of the Bush administration's decision to go to war. You make the point that the Clinton administration could make the declarations it made and still not arrive at the Bush administration did to go to war. So those declarations can serve no purpose to save the Bush administration's face now.

[p.lukasiak]

Though, again, I am more than willing to voice my criticism of their oversimplistic understanding of that slogan.

I think that you underestimate the sophistication of "the left" --- and perhaps of the slogan. "No blood for oil" is about the "geopolitical matter"; the slogan wasn't "no blood for profits."

"The left" saw the "geopolitical" aspect as aimed at "controlling the oil." The right would describe the same consideration as "securing the oil". The left perspective recognizes that those who were associated with those who stood to profit from the control of oil were extremely influential in determining US policy. The right perspective implies that this access/juxtaposition was irrelevant.

No slogan can effectively present the arguments behind it -- but "No Blood for Oil" (like "Bush Lied, People Died") has an essential truth behind it. Were their leftists who didn't get the broader argument? I'm sure there were. But that doesn't mean that "the left" didn't understand what the slogan meant.

[Chads]

"mostly because I think that Gore would have continued Clinton's sharp focus on the threat of terrorism, and 9-11 might not have happened."

I have to assume you're kidding-right?

[Syl]

Jeff

The oil flowed before Iraq, the oil flowed after. It used to belong to Saddam, now it belongs to the Iraqi people.

So no big friggin' deal. There were so many damn reasons for Iraq and oil was not at the top of anyone's list. Except the caricatures who themselves make a caricature out of Iraq and Bush.

Next...

[kim]

The vicious battling around Jalaba, for which Saddam has been incorrectly blamed, was about water.

What are the chances this latest assassination of his aides' defense attornies was arranged by pro-Saddam forces in order to strengthen the case for a change of venue?
===============================================

[kim]

I asked a month or so ago at what price of gasoline you would consider oil worth fighting for?
=================================================

[MayBee]

Jeff, is this addressed to me?:
If you are convinced that a President Gore would not have gone to war with Iraq, then it make no sense to have recourse to the Clinton administration's thinking in defense of the Bush administration's decision to go to war. You make the point that the Clinton administration could make the declarations it made and still not arrive at the Bush administration did to go to war. So those declarations can serve no purpose to save the Bush administration's face now.

If so, I don't know if Gore would have gone to war with Iraq or not. I am certain, all things being equal, that he would have had his hand forced to do something about Iraq. The status quo, through internal US tension and international pressure, wasn't going to work much longer. There was pressure within and without to eliminate sanctions. Nobody but the US and Britain supported the no-fly zones. Something was going to be done by whomever was President.

I don't understand the rest of your post. Because Clinton made statements about WMD but decided not to go to war, that somehow undermines Bush's case that he didn't lie about WMD?

I would expect different administrations to act on their beliefs differently. Yet, if they both professed those beliefs (Iraq had WMD) they were either both lying or both not lying.
What I'm saying is, if the Dems are unhappy with the war, that is fine. Make that case. But to revise history and assert Bush lied to them and Clinton didn't is a ridiculous tactic, imho.