Hardly Seems Fair To Quote Them Now

I haven't found Ted Kennedy's floor speech prior to the October 2002 vote on the war resolution, but here he is at SAIS on Sept 27, 2002.  Early laugh lines include these:

But there is a difference between honest public dialogue and partisan appeals. There is a difference between questioning policy and questioning motives.

and

Let me say it plainly: I not only concede, but I am convinced that President Bush believes genuinely in the course he urges upon us.

Only later did Kennedy realize what a liar Bush was, and how important it was to question his motives.  Well, Bush fooled 'em for a while....

[Mini-UPDATE:  The rest of the Kennedy speech is cogently anti-war - folks looking for a Michael Moore tirade will be disappointed (I was disappointed).  However, as TigerHawk observed, if Kennedy, a respected senior Democrat, was able to penetrate the shroud of Bush's lies, why weren't other Dems?]

Well.  Showing a real comic flair, we have Jay Rockefeller, who is getting hammered by Captain Ed for his Sunday talk show effort.

Here we go from Oct 2002.  This is pretty martial stuff, so don't read it aloud to your kids:

We also have to acknowledge that any military operations against Saddam Hussein pose potential risks to our own homeland, too. Saddam’s government has contact with many international terrorist organizations that likely have cells here in the United States.

Say it ain't so - a connection between Saddam and terrorists?

There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.

Bush lied.

...this time, our nuclear foe would be an unpredictable and often irrational individual, a dictator who has demonstrated that he is prepared to violate     international law and initiate unprovoked attacks when he feels it serves his purposes to do so.

The global community -- in the form of the United Nations -- has declared repeatedly, through multiple resolutions, that the frightening prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam cannot come to pass. But the U.N. has been unable to enforce those resolutions. We must eliminate that threat now, before it is too late.   

Pretty scary.  I blame Karl Rove's mind rays.

...He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East.

And he could make those weapons available to many terrorist groups which have contact with his government, and those groups could bring those weapons into the U.S. and unleash a devastating attack against our citizens. I fear that greatly.   

I fear your second thoughts.

I am forced to conclude, on all the evidence, that Saddam poses a significant risk.

Some argue it would be totally irrational for Saddam Hussein to initiate an attack against the mainland United States, and they believe he would not do it. But if Saddam thought he could attack America through terrorist proxies and cover the trail back to Baghdad, he might not think it so irrational.

...At the end of the day, we cannot let the security of American citizens rest in the hands of someone whose track record gives us every reason to fear that he is prepared to use the weapons he has against his enemies.

Now remember, Rockefeller was on the Intelligence Committee.

As the attacks of September 11 demonstrated, the immense destructiveness of modern technology means we can no longer afford to wait around for a smoking gun. September 11 demonstrated that the fact that an attack on our homeland has not yet occurred cannot give us any false sense of security that one will not occur in the future. We no longer have that luxury.

Oh my goodness, no - the dreaded link between Saddam and 9/11!  What terrible hold did Bush have over this poor man that could make him utter these falsehoods?

This is a difficult vote, but I could not sleep knowing that faced with this grave danger to the people of my state and to all Americans, I had voted for nothing more than continuing the policies that have failed to address this problem in the past.

...At this point, America’s best opportunity to move the United Nations and Iraq to a peaceful resolution of this crisis is by making clear the U.S. is prepared to act on our own, if necessary, as one nation, indivisible. Sometimes the rest of the world looks to America not just for the diversity of our debate, or the vitality of our ideals, but for the firm resolve that the world’s leader must demonstrate if intractable global problems are to be solved.

Acting unilaterally?  Inexplicable - shouldn't we at least try to assemble a fraudulent coalition?

By my vote, I say to Saddam Hussein, "Disarm, or the United States will be forced to act."

Apparently in the margin of the original draft, an historian from the DNC saw this:

Note to self: Strike "Disarm", substitute, "Waltz with Hans Blix".

The Senator builds to his big finish:

September 11 has forever changed the world. We may not like it, but that is the world in which we live. When there is a grave threat to Americans’ lives, we have a responsibility to take action to prevent it.

Again with the forbidden 9/11 link?  How can he show his face?

Well, that was then, when the Dems had an election to focus on.  The Captain has the transcript with the current laugher:

WALLACE: But you voted, sir, and aren't you responsible for your vote?

SEN. ROCKEFELLER: No.

Bring it on.  Send in the clowns.

UPDATE:  Turn off the mind rays!  Nancy Pelosi's tin foil needed refreshing on Feb 5, 2003 when she said this:

"Any decision about going to war against Iraq must reflect the fact that   the clear and present danger to our national security is terrorism. The presence   of al Qaeda operatives in Iraq and in so many countries in the Middle East and   the rest of the world is troubling.

Fortunately, she was able to get back on message by June 2005:

Iraq is now what it was not when the war began - a magnet for terrorism - because the President invaded Iraq with no idea of what it would take to secure the country after Baghdad fell.

MORE:  The Heretik's wife had an aneurysm after cussing a blue streak - I question the patriotism of her arteries.

Comments

[topsecretk9]

Yes TM...I think they realized the "Wilson and the cooked Intel" was backfiring

1. Too many of their on the record warnings were being read back to them on cable
2. The argument makes them look stupid (and not just because the argument is stupid)

and so in the same vain the 9-11 meme emerges....but like 'cooked intel" this, as you've proven, will provide them with the same results...

I found this from Senator Levine on Hardball:

" "I think basically they decided immediately after 9/11 to go after Saddam. They began to---look there was plenty of evidence that Saddam had nuclear weapons, by the way. That is not in dispute. There is plenty of evidence of that."

this the pivot from plan A (if you can win it, admit it) to plan B (9-11).

[topsecretk9]

BTW...I didn't watch this but I wonder if Matthew's was personally offended when Levine said this?

"look there was plenty of evidence that Saddam had nuclear weapons, by the way. That is not in dispute. There is plenty of evidence of that."

[Cecil Turner]

Imminent threat? Nukes? Hyping the intelligence? [Snort.] Talk about projection.

[Toby Petzold]

Rockefeller is not to be taken seriously.

The reason why Democrats are ripping into the President just now is because his poll numbers suck.

The reason why the President's poll numbers suck is because Big Media is doing all it can to contribute to the notion that this Administration is the enemy of everybody from the CIA to black people to Mother Sheehan.

But the Democrats are idiots if they think that that alone is enough to make them over into America's favorite party again. Most Americans recognize that the Democrats are weak on the war and clueless on domestic issues.

And here's a little secret: we didn't go to war for Iraq because of WMD; we went because Iraq had to fall if the Middle East is ever going to be pacified and secularized. We owe our men and women in uniform a tremendous debt for their sacrifices in the name of the future of that part of the world. These sniveling craphounds like Rockefeller and Kennedy and that lot have no idea how stupid and dangerous their positions are. I have nothing but contempt for them.

[kim]

MSM used to own the memory hole.
===============================

[TM]

Tops, that is very funny from Levin.

And the full quote does signal a talking points shift:

LEVIN: I think basically they decided immediately after 9/11 to go after Saddam. They began to—look there was plenty of evidence that Saddam had nuclear weapons, by the way. That is not in dispute. There is plenty of evidence of that.

Where they fell short, the administration fell short, was getting intelligence from the intelligence community about a link, alleged link between the people who attacked us, al Qaeda, and Saddam Hussein. That‘s one of the important declassified sentences from the Defense Intelligence Agency over this weekend, which I released.

Listen to this sentence and how different it is from what the administration was saying. Here is what the Defense Intelligence community in this declassified document says. Saddam‘s regime is intensely secular and is wary of Islamic revolutionary movements. Moreover, Baghdad is unlikely to provide assistance to a group it cannot control.

That‘s what the Defense Intelligence Agency said before the war. Yet you have the president before the war saying there is—this is President Bush, quote, you can‘t distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk on the war on terror. His own intelligence community was distinguishing between the two.

The complete Bush quote is well known, but I bet it will be even better known by the end of the week. From Sept 25, 2002:

Q Mr. President, do you believe that Saddam Hussein is a bigger threat to the United States than al Qaeda?

PRESIDENT BUSH: That's a -- that is an interesting question. I'm trying to think of something humorous to say. (Laughter.) But I can't when I think about al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. They're both risks, they're both dangerous. The difference, of course, is that al Qaeda likes to hijack governments. Saddam Hussein is a dictator of a government. Al Qaeda hides, Saddam doesn't, but the danger is, is that they work in concert. The danger is, is that al Qaeda becomes an extension of Saddam's madness and his hatred and his capacity to extend weapons of mass destruction around the world.

Both of them need to be dealt with. The war on terror, you can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror. And so it's a comparison that is -- I can't make because I can't distinguish between the two, because they're both equally as bad, and equally as evil, and equally as destructive.

I assume some lefty attack-bot will jump on "the danger is, is that they work in concert".

From context, it is prefectly obvious that he meant, the prospective future danger, but I don't think that context is what the critics will be looking for.

[kim]

They really just can't admit that Bush was smart and lucky, and move on. They should. For the good of all of us.
=================================================

[Dwilkers]

I didn't even watch them yesterday. I'm kinda burned out on listening to this rot right now. Its so unserious, and with the Islamo-Loonies burning France to the ground I'm getting seriously worried that while we're arguing about this idiocy they're getting closer to putting my daughter in a burkha.

Plus the wife dragged me out to go 'buy-buy'.

[flackcatcher]

Rockefeller is the ranking democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee. Just be glad you never had to deal with him, or his staff. What a nightmare. Welcome to my world.

[kim]

I spoke with a Dutchman yesterday. I brought up that Europe has a new class and religious conflict, and at first he thought I was talking about religious instruction in school. Once I explained that by class, I meant economic class, he shuddered and said ""We thought we had put all that behind us".
==============================================

[kim]

And the Netherlands a haven for the put-upon for what two thirds of a millenium and more? This is bad stuff. Here, our newest economic underclass is Catholic.
================================================

[kim]

Forty years ago, America had ghettos, now Europe does.

Ever again.
================================================

[kim]

Our ghettos were used to chaos; their's are used to autocracy. It is bad.
==============================================

[susan]

Iraqis no longer are forced to live inside Saddam's rape rooms, no longer are forced to starve from rotted United Nations corruption, no longer are searching for the lost souls of relatives who were slaughtered under Saddam yet all the Democrats can offer Iraqis in their new found freedom is hopelessness and despair by determining Iraqi Liberation is just simply a "BushCo Lie".

I am digusted with those who have reduced Iraqis to nothingness all for the purpose of demonizing a political opponent.

Not once have I heard the Democrat leaders express joy in witnessing the Liberation of millions of brutally tortured people.

Democrats, The Party United for Genocidal Peace and Justice for Dictators!

[Cecil Turner]

I assume some lefty attack-bot will jump on "the danger is, is that they work in concert".

Probably so, but the fantasy view that terrorists thrive without state sponsorship is hardly convincing. Methinks you're relatively safe on that one.

Just be glad you never had to deal with him, or his staff. What a nightmare. Welcome to my world.

Heh. On a somewhat related note, just finished Gary Schroen's First In. Aside from the fairly obvious fact he's not expert in military operations (and has a truly annoying tendency to heinously split his infinitives), it was an outstanding read.

[r flanagan]

That's a bit over the top.Clinton intervened to stop genocide in Kosovo but unfortunately not in Rwanda . But GHW Bush failed to intervene when Saddam committed genocide against the marsh arabs after Gulf War 1. I wish he had but I don't claim that that means the Republicans are United for Genocidal Peace.

[kim]

Oh Susannah, Oh don't you cry for them.
They've gone to Losiana and denied that they are Dems.
============================================

[r flanagan]

Hey , we could put that to music.

[p.lukasiak]

whoa! you guys are spinning stuff so hard it makes my head spin.

Instead of parsing what Bush said, and then parsing it to death, why not compare what he said to the truth? Saddam was not a threat to the US, and al Qaeda and Iraq were anathema to each other.

[susan]

Gulf War I ended in a cease fire because the anti-war movement 'United for Genocidal Peace and Justice for Dictators' dictated the policy. The anti-war movement was just a present during Clinton's sort-of war in Kosovo it's just that the mainstream media did not capitalize or promote the anti-war movement because that would have made a Democrat President Clinton look bad. Image is eveything for those(like Big Brother MAinstream Media) who wish to control public opinion. Forget about reality, MSM creates a fake but considers it an accurate picture of the way things are.

Also, the US State Department (cheney included at the time) believed it was far better to maintain Stability than to address genocidal Dictatorships. For several decades the US State Department led us to belived the world was peacefully stablized, that not harm could come even when we were attcked on our own soil in 1993. All this changed when we were attack on our soil for a second time.

The US State Dept was wrong to fear Arab street uprising because it turns out those living under oppressive tyranny want to be free just as much as you and I do.

[susan]

Bush said

"We cannot wait until Saddam BECOMES an imminent threat"

MSM distorted his words to mean something entirely the opposite.

[kim]

p.l., Saddam was an unpredictable and dangerous man and he and bin Laden both hated the United States. That's the truth, not your ex post facto hallucinations.
=============================================

[Dwilkers]

Maybe you should start your own blog p.luk, and every thread could be about BushLied.

[Sue]

P. Luk,

Spin? You wouldn't recognize spin if it had a flashing sign on it. We are discussing spin, the spin of Rockefeller. You must have just jumped in without reading TM's post. Had you done so, you would be wondering like the rest of us how someone on the Intelligence Committee, privvy to the classified documents, was repeating the Bush lies in 2002. :)

[p.lukasiak]

Gulf War I ended in a cease fire because the anti-war movement 'United for Genocidal Peace and Justice for Dictators' dictated the policy.

gee, I guess that means that Pappy Bush is a liar.

[kim]

Pappy Bush, not in charge of a unified coalition like his son is, regretfully betrayed so many Shia. One of many impressive things I find about Sistani is that he seems capable of forgiveness.
=================================================

[kim]

I think I meant regrettably instead of regretfully above, but it is probably both.
=================================================

[Dwilkers]

Po tay to, Po tah to.

[boris]

Leaving Saddam in power after GW1 was a obvious and tragic mistake. After 911, the US finally entered the WOT and Saddam was given the choice, compliance or removal. Saddam chose trust in his bribes to France, Russia and the UN to protect him while he gamed around. Wrong choice.

Once the shooting starts the standard is not "innocent until proven guilty beyond reasnable doubt", the standard is "comply or die".

[p.lukasiak]

Spin? You wouldn't recognize spin if it had a flashing sign on it.

Sue, here is a prime example of "spin."

(Quoting Ted Kennedy) Let me say it plainly: I not only concede, but I am convinced that President Bush believes genuinely in the course he urges upon us.

Only later did Kennedy realize what a liar Bush was, and how important it was to question his motives.

now, if you will notice, all that Ted Kennedy says is that he thinks that Bush believes in his policy. Kennedy doesn't say that Bush is telling us the truth about the threat, nor does Kennedy describe Bush's motives -- indeed, the part of the speech that those remarks were taken from are a plea for open debate without having people question the patriotism of the skeptics and those opposed to Bush's policies.

But, Maguires spin is that "Kennedy believed in Bush in 2002, and believed the "intelligence", and only now is calling for investigations. That's is COMPLETE bullshit, as can be shown from this quote further down from Kennedy's speech....

In recent weeks, in briefings and in hearings in the Senate Armed Services Committee, I have seen no persuasive evidence that Saddam would not be deterred from attacking U.S. interests by America's overwhelming military superiority.

I have heard no persuasive evidence that Saddam is on the threshold of acquiring the nuclear weapons he has sought for more than 20 years.

And the Administration has offered no persuasive evidence that Saddam would transfer chemical or biological weapons of mass destruction to Al Qaeda or any other terrorist organization. As General Joseph Hoar, the former Commander of Central Command told the members of the Armed Services Committee, a case has not been made to connect Al Qaeda and Iraq.

To the contrary, there is no clear and convincing pattern of Iraqi relations with either Al Qaeda or the Taliban.

Basically, in that section of the speech, Kennedy did make it clear that the intelligence did not justify the claims being made by the administration.

Of course, he couldn't actually discuss why he found the administration's arguments so unpersuasive, because it was classified. All that Kennedy could do is quote people who agreed with him, who had also looked at the evidence.

In other words, not only is McGuire spinning what Kennedy said, he is consciously and deliberately misreprenting the speech itself.

So maybe you are right... maybe its not spin. Maybe its just flat out lying.

[richard mcenroe]

But... but... Bush used Psychological Pressure to make Rockefeller vote for the Resolution. The Senator said so on Fox, and you know a Democrat wouldn't lie...

[Foo Bar]

Does anyone know whether the Feb 2002 DIA report that discredited this guy al-Libi (who claimed that Iraq was giving Al Qaeda WMD training) was available to congress at the time?

WP

Newsweek

TM is making fun of Rockefeller for having said that Saddam had ties to international terrorist groups, but if the Senate Intelligence committee didn't have access to those doubts about al-Libi, then there's a case where the Senate and the White House were not working with the same intelligence. So I'd like to know one way or the other whether Congress should have known that al-Libi was a fabricator.

[kim]

Well, potatoes is plural, so singular is potatoe, right? Or is it just the spelling that is singular?
==================================================

[Smithy]

Rabid, loony left crazy, p.lukasiak: "now, if you will notice, all that Ted Kennedy says is that he thinks that Bush believes in his policy. "

Baloney!
Quotes from Whiksey Ted Kennedy BEFORE the Iraq war.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

That doesn't even come close to being the end of it.

There is even more.

Some prize quotes from the lying sniveling RATS:

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

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

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

And it goes on and on and on and on.

Are the current RATS leaders and their puppetmasters from DU/Kos/moveon, the BIGGEST liars on the planet?
YOU BET!

[kim]

Well, p.l., if you care to parse that second part of Kennedy's statement he is talking a lot about the 'absence of evidence'. Careful politician that he was, he was just elegantly admitting ignorance on the subject, while criticizing the actions of a man he had just called honest.

Now that's nuance. No wonder they like him in Massachusetts.
===================================================

[TexasToast]

It hardly seems fair to quote them so far out of context. More of Kennedy’s speech:

"There is clearly a threat from Iraq, and there is clearly a danger, but the Administration has not made a convincing case that we face such an imminent threat to our national security that a unilateral, pre-emptive American strike and an immediate war are necessary.
Nor has the Administration laid out the cost in blood and treasure of this operation.
With all the talk of war, the Administration has not explicitly acknowledged, let alone explained to the American people, the immense post-war commitment that will be required to create a stable Iraq.
…
A largely unilateral American war that is widely perceived in the Muslim world as untimely or unjust could worsen not lessen the threat of terrorism. War with Iraq before a genuine attempt at inspection and disarmament, or without genuine international support -- could swell the ranks of Al Qaeda sympathizers and trigger an escalation in terrorist acts. As General Clark told the Senate Armed Services Committee, it would "super-charge recruiting for Al Qaeda."

[clarice]

Tom, once again you're serving up the richest, most delicious broth..

It's obvious some genius Dem strategist conceived of a jujitsu strategy--whittle away at Bush' strong suit , his credibility--by claiming he lied to get us into this war. And as long as people only get their news from the MSM and suffer amnesia , it works.

But then there's the alternate media and hard working folks like you..

I can't wait to see Russert on the stand in the Libby case..it'll be the end of his increasingly shabby career--

No one should ever answer any question he poses which is based on a quote without first demanding to see the entire citation from which it was taken. Forewarned is forearmed...and the person being interviewed should mention this incident as an example.

It's long past time that he was treated as a non partisan journo. He's just a more sophisticated version of Matthews.

[beautifulatrocities]

Can Rockefeller & Kennedy be shamed? Does the Pope do Bette Midler karaoke?

[Smithy]

TexasToast : "It hardly seems fair to quote them so far out of context. More of Kennedy’s speech:
"

Nonsense.
Where is the "out of context" about these quotes here from Whiskey Ted Kennedy :

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

It's as clear as day and night.

But hey, I forget,
This is the same RATS Party that gave is, "it depends on what you mean by sex".

The RATS Party today are the biggest, slimiest slitherers, weasels and flip floppers in the history of this country, apart from being the biggest liars on the planet.

You stand for nothing, you don't take responsibility for nothing, you are bereft of any ideas,. you can only destroy and spew out hate.
When it comes to actually building anything constructive, the RATS Party is guaranteed to come up empty every time.

[kim]

Several points there, TT, worth responding to.

Granted, the sacrifice in blood and money has been great; the Iraqis gratefulness appears as prolific as the burgeoning bunches of purple grapes on the vine of choosing your own path to the light.

Secondly, the remaining domestic terrorists in Iraq are the remnant of Baathist thuggery or the religiously misled. The alien contingent is better in Iraq than anywhere else. Now that last remark is a little hard on innocent Iraqis, but no doubt they would agree that they are better prepared for random domestic violence than any other place, and they are resolved to end it.

You don't like that? Go argue with Iraqis. They are much more eloquent than I.
================================================

[TexasToast]

Kennedy also said this:

“In recent weeks, in briefings and in hearings in the Senate Armed Services Committee, I have seen no persuasive evidence that Saddam would not be deterred from attacking U.S. interests by America's overwhelming military superiority.
I have heard no persuasive evidence that Saddam is on the threshold of acquiring the nuclear weapons he has sought for more than 20 years.
And the Administration has offered no persuasive evidence that Saddam would transfer chemical or biological weapons of mass destruction to Al Qaeda or any other terrorist organization. As General Joseph Hoar, the former Commander of Central Command told the members of the Armed Services Committee, a case has not been made to connect Al Qaeda and Iraq.
To the contrary, there is no clear and convincing pattern of Iraqi relations with either Al Qaeda or the Taliban.”

He seems remarkable consistent to me. Remember, this is a speech on Sept 22, 2002. It ain’t hindsight – its actually pretty impressive foresight.

[POUNCER]

p.lukasiak >Kennedy doesn't say that Bush
>is telling us the truth about the threat...

Well, now, that depends on what the meaning of "lie" is.

If I genuinely believe than Iran is defying the UN nuclear regulatory bodies and is seeking uranium ore from Africa and is trying to build fission weapons and long range missiles for with the intent of potential use against Israel, possibly our NATO ally Turkey, and perhaps even providing such missiles and weapons to terror groups for use against the United States ... and I tell you that Iran is doing so -- and I turn out to be wrong. Am I "lying"? Or am I mistaken?

Yes, by the way, I do most assuredly mean "Iran" and not Iraq. If Bush is a lying liar who has lied about Iraq then he is probably lying now about Iran and we should ignore all the news reports about Iran seeking WMD, right? I bet Rockefeller and Ted Kennedy and Howard Dean are willing to come up and show us the intelligence information they now have proving that Bush is now lying about Iran, right? Because they are all honorable men and they would not accuse their president of outright lying unless they had at least some evidence to refute his lies. Right?

[David Walser]

For all the defenders of Senator Kennedy, how do you square his acknowledgment that Bush honestly believes the war was the right course for the US with his charge that the war was cooked up in Texas for purely political purposes? And, no, saying that Kennedy meant that Bush believed that the war was good for America because he thought it would lead to Bush's re-election does not square the two comments. In the first, he's saying Bush is honestly wrong. In the second, he's saying Bush is willing to commit us to war for purely selfish reasons having nothing to do with what's in the country's interest.

[Smithy]

TexaxToast :"A largely unilateral American war "

You RATS are just so pathetic ain't ya?
Tell me this, if Iraq was a unilateral war, what do you call BJ Klinton's adventure in Kosovo and Bosnia then?
If I remember correctly BJ Klinton NEVER even went to the US Congress for authorisation before he launched his nasty bombing campaign against Serbia, in which the self same General Clarke, bombed the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade , killing an 8 month pregnant Chinese embassy woman, and nearly starting another war with China.

Kiloton never got a vote in the US Congress, let alone a vote from the United Nations.

George Bush got FULL authorization from the United States Congress before BOTH the war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq.
That is all he needed to do.
That is far, far, far more than your clown BJ Klinton ever did.
Its worth pointing out that Bosnia is about as strategically important to America as a worm.

At least Iraq supplies this country with vast quantities of oil, without which this country's economy would grind to a halt.

[kim]

Nice, POUNCER, and TT, we covered that already. Teddy boy was just elegantly admitting ignorance and criticizing Bush after just calling his motives in Iraq honest.

Kennedy is a piece of work. They know it in heaven.
===================================================

[kim]

Weighed in the balance, if that is the one the Moorian Moonbats want to use, this is tons of oil for grams of blood. That kind of energy classicly required much greater quantities of blood sweat and tears. Another little nugget for the reality-based.
============================================

[Rick Ballard]

"without genuine international support"

I'd almost forgotten the 'global test" meme. The tranzi dream is a little tarnished by France and Russia's "relationship" with Hussein in my opinion. Looking at de Villepin's peformance before the UNSC in light of the OFF revelations leads to the question "Was he Saddam's sock puppet or his marionette?"

I wonder if Kerry still believes that we should have the French whore's approval today? We know that it is on sale, how much would Kerry propose to pay for it? Somewhat more than Kofi's rental price, I would presume but it would be nice to know what Kerry considers to be a fair price for a French whore's approval to be.

[Gary Maxwell]

God this looks like a rout. Just for a second I started to think about feeling sorry for Puke. But then I remember all of his drivel and his failure to acknowledge a single time when he was wrong or had not a fact to back up his statements, and well the feeling past.

[TM]

...to heinously split his infinitives

it is to LOL.

[Gary Maxwell]

I think, Rick, that you just insulted all of the hard working French whores with that remark!

[kim]

to heinouly and hilariously to split his infinitives and the guts of his audience.
=============================================

[kim]

I don't know, GM, those particular French whores deserved the insult for faking it so badly.
==========================================

[Smithy]

TexasToast : "widely perceived in the Muslim world as untimely or unjust could worsen not lessen the threat of terrorism."

"Widely perceived in the Muslim world" huh?
You mean like the Islamic crazies that have been trying their best to burn down France in the past over 2 weeks?

I suppose you'd prefer a weasely President like Chirac, who continued to kow tow and kiss the butts of the Islamofacists, thinking that it would get him a pass from Islamic fundamentalism, no?

What did Chirac's's modern day performance of Chamberlain's "Peace in our time" get him?

Well it got him chaos, riots and contempt and rapid hate from the Islamocrazies.

The RATS under Jimmy Carter,m, continued to weasel out of confronting Islamic fundamentalism in Iran, and got rewarded with American hostages held in Iran for to the tune of 444 days, while the hapless, clueless Jimmy Carter waved his hands about helplessly.

You just can't trust RATS with national security can ya?
That might explain why the RATS have only won the presidential elections 3 times in the past 40 years, and are destined to get clobbered yet again in 2008.

[DrSteve]

PL: "and al Qaeda and Iraq were anathema to each other"

Hey, who is Hikmat Shakir? Why did Richard Clarke think UBL would "boogie to Baghdad" if he was flushed from his hiding place by an ISI intel leak? Why did Zarqawi, injured in Afghanistan, receive shelter and medical care in Iraq?

Lee Hamilton, 9-11 Commissioner: "The Vice President is saying, I think, that there were connections between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's government. We don't disagree with that. So it seems to me the sharp differences that the press has drawn, the media has drawn, are not that apparent to me."

You're kidding us, right?

[kim]

Rice rules, Hillary hiccoughs.
==================================

[p.lukasiak]

If I genuinely believe than Iran is defying the UN nuclear regulatory bodies and is seeking uranium ore from Africa and is trying to build fission weapons and long range missiles for with the intent of potential use against Israel, possibly our NATO ally Turkey, and perhaps even providing such missiles and weapons to terror groups for use against the United States ... and I tell you that Iran is doing so -- and I turn out to be wrong. Am I "lying"? Or am I mistaken?

That depends upon if you tell me you believe that Iran is doing so, or you assert that its a fact that Iran is doing so.

It also depends on the degree to which you hype the "possibility" that Iran would use a nuclear weapon on Israel or Turkey without provocation, or turn over such weapons to "terrorists" over which it has no control.

I don't know if Iran is developing nuclear weapons or not -- I consider it not unlikely, because if I was running Iran, I'd sure as hell want one because nukes seem to be the only deterrent that the idiot in the White House seems to understand.

In other words, I don't buy the hyped up threat about Israel and Turkey and terrorists, because I see no reason to suspect that Iran would even use a nuke in that fashion because of the consequences of doing so.

If Bush were to tell us "there is considerable evidence that Iran is intent on building nukes because they think I'm a cowboy who wants to invade their country, and they see a nuke as the only effective deterrent to me doing so" he'd be telling the truth.

But to hype a threat for which there is really no rational basis is dishonest.

[kim]

Condi Pleeza, Clinton Clunkit.
================================

[r flanagan]

Gosh. Klinton. Whiskey Kennedy. The french whores. Oh well. One of the commentators
asked "how many of us do you think could
state the case for the other side?" I expect
the answer is "Most of us , but it's more fun
to engage in abuse."

[kim]

Oh, yeah, p.l., give everyone nukes. They won't use them for fear of the consequences. I've got a cave to sell you in Waziristan.
================================================

[Dwilkers]

"Well, potatoes is plural, so singular is potatoe, right? Or is it just the spelling that is singular?"

You'll have to ask Dan Quayle that one kim. 8^D

[TexasToast]

Kim

Wouldn't it be better to say that Kennedy thought GWB simply hadn't made the case for war? He declined to question the President's motives, as you point out, but lots of folks on this very blog have gotten rather upset at "ascribing motive". I'll grant Tom's point that the President believed in this war - but that doesn't mean that he got the necessary votes for the force authorization by being "forthright" with the facts. It isn’t hindsight to point out that the “White Paper” was a sales brochure – without the usual boilerplate about checking with your own tax adviser. We as a nation are now stuck with the payments on the swampland in Florida.

[Smithy]

Loony left crazy, p.lukasiak:"It also depends on the degree to which you hype the "possibility" that Iran would use a nuclear weapon on Israel or Turkey without provocation, or turn over such weapons to "terrorists" over which it has no control."

Umm.. Irans's president President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did exactly that in October when he called for the Israel to be "wiped off the map".

That sounds aike a clear and open enough declaration of Iran's intentions to Israel to me.

But hey, you are the loony left.
You suckers just love the Islamofacist vermin don't ya?
Hey, how is your pal Bin Laden doing in the caves these days?

[Rick Ballard]

"But to hype a threat for which there is really no rational basis is dishonest."

Google hockey - search terms = ["iran's president" israel nuclear]

first hit

Perhaps you need a day off, PL.

[Sue]

P. Luk,

Now do the same thing with Rockefeller.

[Gary Maxwell]

TT

That is pretty lame. I would get out my electronic eraser and then just disappear for a bit until the playing venue gets a tad more hospitable.

[Robert]

I assume some lefty attack-bot will jump on "the danger is, is that they work in concert".
From context, it is prefectly obvious that he meant, the prospective future danger, but I don't think that context is what the critics will be looking for.
Posted by: TM | November 14, 2005 at 03:24 AM

Saddam was not a threat to the US, and al Qaeda and Iraq were anathema to each other.
Posted by: p.lukasiak | November 14, 2005 at 05:47 AM

From the November 1998 U.S. government indictment against Osama bin Laden:

"4. Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezballah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States. In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq."

Obviously another Bush lie!

[kim]

I'm of the opinion that Bush was lucky in Iraq. He had not made the case for war to me, but Duelfer, and Rosett, and of course, the Iraqi people, afterwards have. Bush's hunch was right. Aren't you glad that Saddam was bluffing? He might not have been bluffing, and by now, wouldn't have been. Can you not see that Saddam was dangerous and that alone was enough to justify removing him? The world has simply become too interconnected to allow men so crazy and so powerful to remain at large.
=========================================
=====================================================

[TexasToast]

OT

Actually Gary - I'm planning on that - but I didn't think quoting Kennedy was firebreathing. If it is, then so be it.

See ya later - much later.

[Smithy]

loony left crazy p.lukasiak,:"If Bush were to tell us "there is considerable evidence that Iran is intent on building nukes"

Ummm..its your German pals from Hanoi John Kerry's "Global Test" who are making that suggestion now:

"Berlin: Iran could be secretly developing nuclear weapons, Germany’s foreign minister said on Thursday.

.................................

"We still have some suspicions that there are developments being pursued [by Iran] that go against this principle," Frank-Walter Steinmeier said."

http://www.gulf-news.com/Articles/RegionNF.asp?ArticleID=191585

Now that your German masters think its ok to think the Iranians are dishonest, are you suckers going to do your normal kow tow to the America-hating foreigners?

[Sue]

Suddenly, context matters. When Bush was being quoted out of context, hey, no big deal. You quote a democrat out of context and stand back and get ready...

:)

[kim]

Hey, TT, look what they are building on that swampland. My grandchildren will be grateful I thought that pesthole looked promising.
=============================================

[TM]

[Kennedy's speech is] actually pretty impressive foresight.

Ok, Texas T, remind me not to dig up any more Kennedy links - I was on a roll with the Rockefeller stuff.

I was actually curious to see what Kennedy said as part of my ongoing Kerry-bashing - my theme was that Kerry, from a deep-Blue state and with cover from Ted Kennedy himself still voted in favor of the war resolution.

My (very faint) hope was that Kennedy's speech would read like something from Michael Moore, with long rants about pipelines in Afghanistan or something. No luck.

But no problem! Where I really expected to be going with this was, why *didn't* Kerry believe Kennedy? I haven't studied any polls from those months, but I can't believe it would have hurt Kerry in Massachusetts to oppose the resolution.

Which takes us to, Kerry voted this way for expediency with an eye on the 2004 run, and how did that work out, Tall John? But don't tell me now that Bush lied - Kerry had a senior respected Dem proving perfect political cover, and he still whiffed.

I threw in a link to a Pelosi statement, too - it is also not daft, after the fact.

My current summary of the Dem position:

(1) Bush was unassailable in the polls, so Dems had to give him whatever he wanted;

(2) the public would never have backed Bush's war with Iraq unless he lied.

Corollary: If Dems had told the truth, people would not have believed them.

Well. Why "Mr. Unassailable" had to lie is still a puzzle, since the Fox-hypnotized sheeple would have followed him anywhere, but I am not expecting a whole lot of logic.

Oh, Smithy, welcome aboard and we love your enthusiasm, but I suspect that you can communicate that without stuff like You RATS are just so pathetic ain't ya?

I agree with Tex about once in a blue moon (next scheduled for 2007, IIRC), but he is hardly pathetic.

[kim]

Blue moons are nearly twice a year, but I agree that TT is hardly pathetic, except as a real estate appraiser.

Can I interest you in a little shale oil ground out West. Sh, don't tell him about water.
===================

[Rick Ballard]

"but it's more fun to engage in abuse."

Actually not. The decision by the Democrats to pursue the "Bush lied" meme so deeply loved by their left wing is possibly the greatest disgrace that they have committed since abandoning the South Vietnamese. The fact that their divisive tactic is emboldening and encouraging the remnants of al Queada terrorists and Baathist deadenders is counted as a cheap cost that others will pay in order that political advantage be gained by "the party".

Democratic leadership is willing to attempt to purchase political gain with the blood of innocent Iraqis and American troops performing their duties. There are no words abusive enough to to adequately describe the contempt that I hold for them and for the sycophants pursuing this strategy.

To be called a whore for your party is to get off lightly.

Purse your lips and stamp your little foot all you want but don't expect this particular "debate" to be conducted by your rules. Not while people are dying because of it.

[TM]

So I'd like to know one way or the other whether Congress should have known that al-Libi was a fabricator.

Good question - this post has links to the Tiems and WaPo coverage, and the declassified CIA letter from fall 2002 that used the word "credible".

But the classified assessment is not clear, to me anyway.

The Times does have this:

But Mr. Levin said he had learned that a classified C.I.A. assessment at the time went on to state that "the source was not in a position to know if any training had taken place."

Was that in the NIE? Who knows.

[McDuff]

I don't see the spin, really. Someone trusted the President of the United States of America to not lie about a matter of great importance to National Security. Then it turned out that he had lied, and they got upset about it.

Bush fooled me too. I thought that there were all manner of nasties in Iraq, and couldn't understand why the evidence was so unconvincing. Remember, three years ago we were all yet to go through the thorough dismantling of the credibility of anything that these guys said.

When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?

[kim]

and since I'm only wrong about once in a blue moon, let me revisit my observations, and repair my calculations. Kind of like Democrats.

Let's see, there are almost precisely 13 lunar months in a year, so my almost twice a year is more like slightly more than once a year.

Dems, some of them. Let's see, that 100,000 excess dead was bad propaganda, and peace, prosperity, and open spigots in the middle east are good things, but they are happening despite Bush instead of because of him.
===================================

[Smithy]

McDuff : "Someone trusted the President of the United States of America to not lie about a matter of great importance to National Security. Then it turned out that he had lied, and they got upset about it."

I think you lost your way here.
The asylum for the crininally insane is not in this direction.

BTW, the only people who are lying today, are are RATS leaders, led by Whiskey Ted Kennedy, John Rockefeller, Madeline Albright, Barbra Boxer, John Edwards, Hanoi John Kerry etc.

They are the ones you shoulde be worrying about, as we call their lies out.

[kim]

What I fail to comprehend, McDuff, is how you can even read the facts. Sorry, Tom, it just came out.
==================================================

[Sue]

McDuff,

If Bush had just used cruise missles, no boots on the ground, in Iraq, would you still think he lied to you? You know, come to think of it, that is why no one knew Clinton was lying. He could bomb all day and who was to say whether or not he bombed a nuke plant, a chemical factory, a biological lab? He could come back and claim mission accomplished and we, the trusting public, just had to take his word for it.

[TM]

Kim, since I happen to know both the original definition *and*the common misapprehension as to what is a "blue moon", I am feeling wise as an owl on this very point.

Also, I looked it up last week, heaven alone knows why, but I can't remember what I found.

Anyway, scheduled full moons.

[kim]

For a variety of reasons, some of them obvious, Afghanistan was a better training ground than Iraq. Even look at the Iraqis training in Afghanistan, surely there was someone prominent among them. If I could remember where I put my head I could recall the name of one of them.
========================================

[Smithy]

Even more loony left/MSM lies exposed:

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/003844.htm

[kim]

This old bird can't tell a blue moon with the moon full in the face. Eclipses scare me because the only man I know who can independently predict them dirt farms all summer and studies Confucious all winter.
================================================

[Monkberrymoon]

"Aren't you glad that Saddam was bluffing? He might not have been bluffing, and by now, wouldn't have been."

Agreed. And I'll say further that I'm shocked that people implicitly think it should be okay for someone to get away with bluffing. I mean, it's like not doing anything when a crook is pointing a finger at you through his jacket, swearing to others that he doesn't have a gun, but telling you that he will rain down death and destruction on you and your descendants will not know where your bones are buried and jackals will feast on your entrails, etc etc. Are you supposed to do everything he says, or would it be acceptable to make sure that he's unarmed.

Which brings up another question. Do the people who believe there is NO evidence of wmd also believe that Saddam was not bluffing about it? Does anyone like that exist?

[kim]

When a man walks into a liquor store, as you described, with a finger pointing out behind his trench coat, are you guilty of murder when you blow him away? Why would you object to the wasting of such a bad actor when you also know him to be a murderer, a rapist, a thief, and a terror to his neighborhood, with some particularly sinister international acquaintances.

The imprudence of the Democrat's argument is Moon You Mental, breast stakingly lethal.
=================================================

[Syl]

Kennedy: There is clearly a threat from Iraq, and there is clearly a danger, but the Administration has not made a convincing case that we face such an imminent threat to our national security that a unilateral, pre-emptive American strike and an immediate war are necessary.

There is no imminent threat so kick the can down the road.

Kennedy is arguing a strawman.

[Syl]

MonkberryMoon:

Do the people who believe there is NO evidence of wmd also believe that Saddam was not bluffing about it? Does anyone like that exist?

Sure. Everyone who doesn't believe Saddam tried to start trade with Niger in yellowcake.

[Syl]

I think what the anti-war types should be worried about is Iraq stabilizing.

That will move al Qaeda's attention elsewhere.

Think about it.

[Gary Maxwell]

There is no imminent threat so kick the can down the road. Syl

But Syl

The junior Sen from West Virginia and member of the intelligence committee said he thought there was an imminent threat. Russert nailed him with the quote.

This is all so confusing, can we get a scorecard with the players on it so we can tell who is who ( or is it who is who WHEN?)

[p.lukasiak]

the wingnuts need to make up their minds....

half the time they seem to be arguing "Bush lied, but its okay because democrats lied too."

the other half of the time they seem to be arguing "Bush lied, but its okay because Democrats were either too stupid to catch the lies, or knew that they were lies but too spineless to challenge Bush."

Of course, both approaches are just an effort to distract from the central fact -- that "Bush lied".

***************************

Now do the same thing with Rockefeller.

Sue, Jay Rockefeller is, in my estimation, one of those "either he's incompetent or spineless" democrats that you guys like to point out to change the subject.

Don't ask me to defend his statements, because IMHO, they are indefensible. The difference between Bush and Rockefeller is that Rockefeller only voted to provide Bush with the authority to go to war if the circumstances demanded it --- Bush went to war five months later when it was obvious that the circumstances did not demand it.

[Gary Maxwell]

I know of no one on here other than the moonbats who believes Bush Lied about anything including what he had for lunch yesterday.

Dont defend the junior Senator from WVa and intelligence committee member since as you say he is indefensible. But know that many people will see that and his memo and know what game he and his party and therby its supporters are playing.

And quit setting up strawman arguments about what conservatives think.

[TM]

P.luk nicely illustrates the problem of using a reductio ad absurdum argument with someone to whom nothing is absurd.

[kim]

No, p.l., it's Bush didn't lie, niether did the Democrats; why are they lying now, and Bush didn't lie because the CIA was too stupid or crooked to tell him the truth; why are they lying now? Don't you see it, or are you lying now?

And what circumstances didn't demand Saddam's removal? That's the central point you keep dodging around.
=============================================

[arrowhead]

Rick Ballard -

"The decision by the Democrats to pursue the "Bush lied" meme so deeply loved by their left wing is possibly the greatest disgrace that they have committed since abandoning the South Vietnamese. The fact that their divisive tactic is emboldening and encouraging the remnants of al Queada terrorists and Baathist deadenders is counted as a cheap cost that others will pay in order that political advantage be gained by 'the party'."

That, in a nutshell, is THE issue.

Excellent post!

[Sue]

P. Luk,

Fair enough in re Rockefeller. I disagree, of course, on whether or not we should have taken action against Saddam.

[kim]

You guys run on ahead, I'm going to linger over the crumpled up remains of that Jaybird's crediblity. Smells good, especially there where his head hit the Irock, and his guts spilled out about his vote.

And one concession a month might be all you can get from p.l. JBG would self destruct before admitting an error, or even wrongfulness of opinion.
===================================================

[Dwilkers]

They were with Bush then because it was in what they thought was their political best interests. Now Bush is a liar when they think THAT is in their political best interests.

Totally missing from the Democrat thought process is what is the right thing to do, or what is best for the country.

What they sincerely hope is that nobody remembers what they said yesterday when tomorrow rolls around.

[JayDee]

If all you want to do is play a silly game of Name that Quote, how do you like these, on the occasion of the outstanding patriotic shown by Republicans to Clinton's Kosovo policy, where I believe NOT ONE American life was lost ?

"I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarifiedrules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today"

-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

"It is a remarkable spectacle to see the Clinton Administration and NATO taking over from the Soviet Union the role of sponsoring "wars of national liberation."

-Representative Helen Chenoweth (R-ID)

"President Clinton is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be
away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy."

-Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA)

"I'm on the Senate Intelligence Committee, so you can trust me and believe me when I say we're running out of cruise missles. I can't tell you exactly how many we have left, for security reasons, but we're almost out of cruise missles."

-Senator Inhofe (R-OK )

"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?"

-Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99

"This is President Clinton's war, and when he falls flat on his face, that's his problem."

-Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN)

And the ultimate irony:
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."

-Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)

And just to help keep the McCarthyism at bay, try and remember the words of one of you beleagered heroes:
"You can support the troops but not the president"

-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

[sonicfrog]

So many miss the bigger picture concerning the war. The only reason we are fairly certain Iraq possessed so much less than what we thought, is that we are there, on the ground, and not trying to guess whether the UN inspectors have full access or not. It is so easy in hindsight for opponents of the war to say "See. I told you so". But they are afforded that luxury because, again, we are there.

As far as the pre-war intelligence goes. The main reason, IMO, Kennedy didn't favor Bushes push for war is that he believed that containment was still viable policy concerning Iraq. Does any one want to argue that ones personal beliefs DON'T color our decisions and perceptions? During this time, Kennedy didn't see enough evidence to proceed with war, yet most of the other guys in the room did!

The problem with the "Bush Lied" meme is that you have to prove that Bush KNEW that there were no WMD's present, not that there were conflicting intelligence reports about certain details. Face it, the vast majority of intelligence favored Bushes argument for war. And you would have to believe that Cheney, Rove, or someone else who presented the evidence, told the Prez: "Hey, BTW, this little piece of evidence right here is , well, make up sir. It's flat out false. But we think you should use it anyway 'cause it will bolster your case for war". 'Don't know about you, but I don't think that ever happened. The evidence in question is about WMD's. But if the CIA director says with certainty that "it's a slam dunk", well, what do you do? He, supposedly, has more info on the intel than anyone else. That quote was from Woodward's book. Wasn't this the first time these kind of meetings have been observed by a journalist. So much for a veil of secrecy.

PS. Remember that Iraq, from 1991 to 2003, offered nothing but false and untruthful information, and was uncooperative before the war. So when Saddam said "Hey, you swine! I have no WMD's"! there was good reason to think he was lying.