Senate committee: Bush knew Iraq statements were untrue
June 5th, 2008 at 10:28am Pat Cunningham
McClatchy has a STORY about a Senate Select Intelligence Committee report made public today and its conclusion that President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney made public statements to promote an invasion of Iraq that they knew at the time were not supported by available intelligence.
UPDATE: A British paper REPORTS that the Bush administration is negotiating a secret deal that would perpetuate the American military occupation of Iraq indefinitely, regardless of the outcome of the US presidential election in November.
UPDATE II: A member of the Iraqi Parliament TELLS a U.S. House subcommittee that as many as 70 percent of the Iraqi people want U.S. troops withdrawn from their country.
UPDATE III: How’s this for counterintuition?: David Frum, a former speechwriter for President Bush, SAYS John McCain will win the presidency if the election pivots on the war in Iraq.
Entry Filed under: Dick Cheney, War in Iraq, President Bush
10 Comments Add your own
1. Mike Carroll | June 5th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
That report does not say “Bush knew Iraq statements were untrue” although that is the implication that Senator Rockefeller would like the looney left to conclude. Looks like you fell for it too Pat or you are quite comfortable promoting the Bush lied fantasies already disproven by 3 separate Congressional inquiries.
2. Pat Cunningham | June 5th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Mike: Bush, Cheney, et al made statements in support of going to war that are now known to have been untrue — and that were not supported by intelligence available at the time the statements were made. That’s called lying. You can put all the lipstick you want on that pig, Mike, but it’s still going to be a pig. Perhaps the most cynical tactic of the Bush crowd was to convey the impression to the American public that Iraq and Saddam Hussein were involved in the attacks of Sept. 11. Read about it here: http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html
3. Mike Carroll | June 5th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
I will repeat Pat-there were 3 congressional investigations and not a single conclusion of those reports found ANT evidence of lying on the part of any administration official. Period. As the old saying goes Patrick, you are entitled to your opinions but not your own set of facts.
4. Mike Carroll | June 5th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Edit to above-ANT is obviously meant to be ANY.
5. Menlo Bob | June 5th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
I think Pat has been caught cherry picking the evidence to promote a pet theory.
6. Menlo Bob | June 5th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Only a pseudo-newman would believe the McClatchey story. Here’s what they didn’t say;
“…the partisan report not only violates the Committee’s nonpartisan principles but also rejects the conclusions unanimously reached in previous reports.
In July 2004, the Senate Intelligence Committee’s Iraq report, adopted by a unanimous vote, makes clear that flawed intelligence – not Administration deception – was the basis for policy maker’s statements and decisions. The report released today completely ignores this key finding.
Bond also called attention to the Democrats’ hypocrisy in excluding any of their own statements in this final report.”
http://intelligence.senate.gov/press/record.cfm?id=298783
Meanwhile the Democratic lead Senate Intelligence Committee has failed to enact a reformed FISA bill for the second straight year.
7. Menlo Bob | June 5th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
So Pat, keep pumping this partisan crap and your readers will continue to act as a filter.
8. Pat Cunningham | June 5th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Yeah, well, it’s about time you readers served some useful function around here.
9. Craig Knauss | June 5th, 2008 at 9:49 pm
Regardless of whether the misinformation was intentional or not, no intellienge report has ever conclusively stated that Saddam Hussein had WMD or was involved in 9/11 in any way. And five years later, we still haven’t found any WMD or proof that Hussein was involved in 9/11. There have been numerous reports that the Prez was informed the accusations of both were weak at best. In fact, there have been several reports by former White House insiders that Bush started discussing the invasion of Iraq the very first week he inhabited the White House, which would mean the invasion was on with or without provocation. The disenting congressman were die-hard Republicans. The White House informers were also Republicans. Hmmm. But that’s OK. The right wing chicken hawks can continue to live in their fantasy.
10. kaus | June 7th, 2008 at 10:26 pm
Maybe Hillary can get her ole buddy Sandy Pants to fess up what really happened….
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed