Once again the mainstream media is 5 to 10 years behind the bloggers.
Bush went to war in Iraq based on a false confession by Iban al Shakh al Libby about a link between Saddam and al Qaeda obtained by torture. If you assume Bush was seeking real information, this is proof that waterboarding and other torture techniques have only given the US bad intelligence which Bush has acted upon, causing tens of thousands of needless civilian deaths. The other option, the one I think is more correct, is that the neocons already knew the answer that there was no link. Osama Bin Laden and Saddam hated and distrusted each other. The neocons, however, were just seeking to force someone to sign their bad check. The decision was made prior to 1998 by PNAC members that the US must invade Iraq. They just needed a new “Pearl Harbor”.
and his top policymakers misstated ‘s links to terrorism and ignored doubts among intelligence agencies about Iraq’s arms programs as they made a case for war, the Senate intelligence committee reported on Thursday.
The report shows an administration that “led the nation to war on false premises,” said the committee’s Democratic Chairman,of West Virginia. Several Republicans on the committee protested its findings as a “partisan exercise.”
The committee studied major speeches by Bush,and other officials in advance of the U.S.-led in March 2003, and compared key assertions with intelligence available at the time.
Statements that Iraq had a partnership with al Qaeda were wrong and unsupported by intelligence, the report said.
It said that Bush’s and Cheney’s assertions that Saddam was prepared to arm terrorist groups withfor attacks on the United States contradicted available intelligence.
Such assertions had a strong resonance with a U.S. public, still reeling after‘s September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States. Polls showed that many Americans believed Iraq played a role in the attacks, even long after Bush acknowledged in September 2003 that there was no evidence Saddam was involved.
The report also said administration prewar statements on Iraq’s weapons programs were backed up in most cases by available U.S. intelligence, but officials failed to reflect internal debate over those findings, which proved wrong.
The long-delayed Senate study supported previous reports and findings that the administration’s main cases for war — that Iraq hadand was spreading them to terrorists — were inaccurate and deeply flawed.
“The president and his advisors undertook a relentless public campaign in the aftermath of the (September 11) attacks to use the war against al Qaeda as a justification for overthrowing Saddam Hussein,” Rockefeller said in written commentary on the report.
“Representing to the American people that the two had an operational partnership and posed a single, indistinguishable threat was fundamentally misleading and led the nation to war on false premises.”
A statement to Congress by then-Defense Secretary Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon said Rumsfeld’s comments should be investigated further, but he stopped short of urging a criminal probe.that the Iraqi government hid weapons of mass destruction in facilities underground was not backed up by intelligence information, the report said.
The committee voted 10-5 to approve the report, with two Republican lawmakers supporting it. Missouri and three other Republican panel members denounced the study in an attached dissent.of
“The committee finds itself once again consumed with political gamesmanship,” the Republicans said. The effort to produce the report “has indeed resulted in a partisan exercise.” They said, however, that the report demonstrated that Bush administration statements were backed by intelligence and “it was the intelligence that was faulty.”
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said: “We had the intelligence that we had, fully vetted, but it was wrong. We certainly regret that and we’ve taken measures to fix it.”
U.S. public opinion on the war, supportive at first, has soured, contributing to a dive in Bush’s popularity.
The conflict is likely to be a key issue in the November presidential election between Republican John McCain, who supports the war, and Democrat Barack Obama, who opposed the war from the start and says he would aim to pull U.S. troops out within 16 months of taking office in January 2009.
Rockefeller has announced his support for Obama.
The administration’s record in making its case for Iran. They accuse Bush of overstating the potential threat of Iran’s nuclear program in order to justify the possible use of force.has also been cited by critics of Bush’s get-tough policy on
A second report by the committee faulted the administration’s handling of December 2001 Rome meetings between defense officials and Iranian informants, which dealt with the Iran issue. It said department officials failed to share intelligence from the meeting, which Rockefeller said demonstrated a “fundamental disdain” for other intelligence agencies. – yahoo