Iraq War False Statements By Month Chart of 935 False Statements by 7 Admin Officials

[host]

Over on the "new information on the runup to the iraq war", in post #3,
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=130539 ,

...I documented the fact that even after senate democratic leader Harry Reid closed the senate in an extraordinary procedural move, in November, 2005, in protest of senate republican efforts to block release of "phase II" of the senate select intel committee's report on Bush administration handling of pre-Iraq invasion intelligence information, what they knew and when they knew it, vs. what they said publicly and did, and even after a democratic majority took control of the senate a full year ago, now, that portion of the senate intel committee report has still not been released.

This new effort is a novel approach to evaluating the same controversy. Do you think that it is an accurate assessment of the actual intent and practices of the administration, in justifying invasion and occupation or Iraq,or is it somehow misleading and unfair?

Do you think it will signifigantly influence the timely release of the portion of the senate phase II report, dealing with this same issue?

I am impressed with the novel approach in presenting this determination, the depth and extent of it, and the charting, by month. I continue to be disappointed that these officials could do what they did, so blatantly, without, at this late date, being held to any accountability for their intention to mislead the public while they executed their agenda of elective and avoidable war.

Nearly five years after the fact, it is encouraging to see this much effort, at this late date, still being expended in an attempt at educating the American public about the integrity and motivation of the national leadership.

http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/
False Pretenses
Following 9/11, President Bush and seven top officials of his administration waged a carefully orchestrated campaign of misinformation about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

By Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith

President George W. Bush and seven of his administration's top officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, made at least 935 false statements in the two years following September 11, 2001, about the national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Nearly five years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, an exhaustive examination of the record shows that the statements were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses.

On at least 532 separate occasions (in speeches, briefings, interviews, testimony, and the like), Bush and these three key officials, along with Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan, stated unequivocally that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (or was trying to produce or obtain them), links to Al Qaeda, or both. This concerted effort was the underpinning of the Bush administration's case for war.

It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to Al Qaeda. This was the conclusion of numerous bipartisan government investigations, including those by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (2004 and 2006), the 9/11 Commission, and the multinational Iraq Survey Group, whose "Duelfer Report" established that Saddam Hussein had terminated Iraq's nuclear program in 1991 and made little effort to restart it.

In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003. Not surprisingly, the officials with the most opportunities to make speeches, grant media interviews, and otherwise frame the public debate also made the most false statements, according to this first-ever analysis of the entire body of prewar rhetoric.

President Bush, for example, made 232 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and another 28 false statements about Iraq's links to Al Qaeda. Secretary of State Powell had the second-highest total in the two-year period, with 244 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq's links to Al Qaeda. Rumsfeld and Fleischer each made 109 false statements, followed by Wolfowitz (with 85), Rice (with 56), Cheney (with 48), and McClellan (with 14).

The massive database at the heart of this project juxtaposes what President Bush and these seven top officials were saying for public consumption against what was known, or should have been known, on a day-to-day basis. This fully searchable database includes the public statements, drawn from both primary sources (such as official transcripts) and secondary sources (chiefly major news organizations) over the two years beginning on September 11, 2001. It also interlaces relevant information from more than 25 government reports, books, articles, speeches, and interviews.

Consider, for example, these false public statements made in the run-up to war:

On August 26, 2002, in an address to the national convention of the Veteran of Foreign Wars, Cheney flatly declared: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us." In fact, former CIA Director George Tenet later recalled, Cheney's assertions went well beyond his agency's assessments at the time. Another CIA official, referring to the same speech, told journalist Ron Suskind, "Our reaction was, 'Where is he getting this stuff from?' "
In the closing days of September 2002, with a congressional vote fast approaching on authorizing the use of military force in Iraq, Bush told the nation in his weekly radio address: "The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given. . . . This regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year." A few days later, similar findings were also included in a much-hurried National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction — an analysis that hadn't been done in years, as the intelligence community had deemed it unnecessary and the White House hadn't requested it.
In July 2002, Rumsfeld had a one-word answer for reporters who asked whether Iraq had relationships with Al Qaeda terrorists: "Sure." In fact, an assessment issued that same month by the Defense Intelligence Agency (and confirmed weeks later by CIA Director Tenet) found an absence of "compelling evidence demonstrating direct cooperation between the government of Iraq and Al Qaeda." What's more, an earlier DIA assessment said that "the nature of the regime's relationship with Al Qaeda is unclear."
On May 29, 2003, in an interview with Polish TV, President Bush declared: "We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories." But as journalist Bob Woodward reported in State of Denial, days earlier a team of civilian experts dispatched to examine the two mobile labs found in Iraq had concluded in a field report that the labs were not for biological weapons. The team's final report, completed the following month, concluded that the labs had probably been used to manufacture hydrogen for weather balloons.
On January 28, 2003, in his annual State of the Union address, Bush asserted: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production." Two weeks earlier, an analyst with the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research sent an email to colleagues in the intelligence community laying out why he believed the uranium-purchase agreement "probably is a hoax."
On February 5, 2003, in an address to the United Nations Security Council, Powell said: "What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence. I will cite some examples, and these are from human sources." As it turned out, however, two of the main human sources to which Powell referred had provided false information. One was an Iraqi con artist, code-named "Curveball," whom American intelligence officials were dubious about and in fact had never even spoken to. The other was an Al Qaeda detainee, Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi, who had reportedly been sent to Eqypt by the CIA and tortured and who later recanted the information he had provided. Libi told the CIA in January 2004 that he had "decided he would fabricate any information interrogators wanted in order to gain better treatment and avoid being handed over to [a foreign government]."
The false statements dramatically increased in August 2002, with congressional consideration of a war resolution, then escalated through the mid-term elections and spiked even higher from January 2003 to the eve of the invasion.
<center><img src="http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/Images/Charts/WarCardChart.jpg"></center>

It was during those critical weeks in early 2003 that the president delivered his State of the Union address and Powell delivered his memorable U.N. presentation. For all 935 false statements, including when and where they occurred, go to the <a href="http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/Search/Default.aspx">search</a> page for this project; the methodology used for this analysis is explained <a href="http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/Default.aspx?src=project_home&context=methodology&id=953">here</a>.

In addition to their patently false pronouncements, Bush and these seven top officials also made hundreds of other statements in the two years after 9/11 in which they implied that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or links to Al Qaeda. Other administration higher-ups, joined by Pentagon officials and Republican leaders in Congress, also routinely sounded false war alarms in the Washington echo chamber.

The cumulative effect of these false statements — amplified by thousands of news stories and broadcasts — was massive, with the media coverage creating an almost impenetrable din for several critical months in the run-up to war. Some journalists — indeed, even some entire news organizations — have since acknowledged that their coverage during those prewar months was far too deferential and uncritical. These mea culpas notwithstanding, much of the wall-to-wall media coverage provided additional, "independent" validation of the Bush administration's false statements about Iraq.

The "ground truth" of the Iraq war itself eventually forced the president to backpedal, albeit grudgingly. In a 2004 appearance on NBC's Meet the Press, for example, Bush acknowledged that no weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq. And on December 18, 2005, with his approval ratings on the decline, Bush told the nation in a Sunday-night address from the Oval Office: "It is true that Saddam Hussein had a history of pursuing and using weapons of mass destruction. It is true that he systematically concealed those programs, and blocked the work of U.N. weapons inspectors. It is true that many nations believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. But much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. As your president, I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq. Yet it was right to remove Saddam Hussein from power."

Bush stopped short, however, of admitting error or poor judgment; instead, his administration repeatedly attributed the stark disparity between its prewar public statements and the actual "ground truth" regarding the threat posed by Iraq to poor intelligence from a Who's Who of domestic agencies.

On the other hand, a growing number of critics, including a parade of former government officials, have publicly — and in some cases vociferously — accused the president and his inner circle of ignoring or distorting the available intelligence. In the end, these critics say, it was the calculated drumbeat of false information and public pronouncements that ultimately misled the American people and this nation's allies on their way to war.

Bush and the top officials of his administration have so far largely avoided the harsh, sustained glare of formal scrutiny about their personal responsibility for the litany of repeated, false statements in the run-up to the war in Iraq. There has been no congressional investigation, for example, into what exactly was going on inside the Bush White House in that period. Congressional oversight has focused almost entirely on the quality of the U.S. government's pre-war intelligence — not the judgment, public statements, or public accountability of its highest officials. And, of course, only four of the officials — Powell, Rice, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz — have testified before Congress about Iraq.

Short of such review, this project provides a heretofore unavailable framework for examining how the U.S. war in Iraq came to pass. Clearly, it calls into question the repeated assertions of Bush administration officials that they were the unwitting victims of bad intelligence.

Above all, the 935 false statements painstakingly presented here finally help to answer two all-too-familiar questions as they apply to Bush and his top advisers: What did they know, and when did they know it?

[Willravel]

I love publicintegrity.org.

This is an excellent article. I hope everyone will read it.

[aceventura3]

Another perspective from the editorial pages of IBD 1/24/2008:

Journalism's Lazy Lie Protectors

Media Bias: Left-wing activists claim "at least 935 false statements" by the Bush administration on Iraq, and the charge gets reported as if it were a scientific finding. Doesn't it follow that top Democrats also lied about Iraq?

The so-called Center For Public Integrity is a "non-profit" funded by the profits of left-wing billionaire George Soros. It also gets foundation support from the Heinz Endowments, chaired by Teresa Heinz, wife of Democratic Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry.

You'd think that in a presidential campaign year, a "study" by an organization propped up with money from someone who contributed more to defeat George W. Bush than anyone, plus cash from the wife of the man who ran against Bush in 2004, would be treated skeptically by our oh-so-impartial and professional mainstream media.

Not a chance. This week, when Soros' group accused the White House and Bush cabinet secretaries of making hundreds of deceitful assertions about Saddam Hussein and his nuclear ambitions, the activist organization was treated as an objective source.

The Associated Press, for instance, called it simply "A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations." The New York Times called the outfit "a research group that focuses on ethics in government and public policy." No mention of Soros. No mention of Kerry.

Some might insist that a president so obsessed with overthrowing Saddam should be held accountable for his words — a commander-in-chief who insists that "there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for" in Iraq after George H.W. Bush's first Gulf War, and who worries that "We might have gotten it all; we might have gotten half of it; we might have gotten none of it."

Isn't it reasonable to suspect paranoia of a president who wanted Iraq to be told "if you don't cooperate the penalty could be regime change, not just continued sanction" because it was resisting UN weapons inspections?

But those are all Bill Clinton's words, speaking in July, 2003, defending George W. Bush's policy in Iraq at a time when the Iraq invasion was wildly popular. He was also the Democratic president who in 1998 nearly invaded Iraq himself after signing an executive order making regime change there the U.S.' official policy.

That year, with Congress impeaching him, Clinton defended attacking Iraq, saying, "Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors with nuclear weapons, poison gas or biological weapons."

Also that year, then-House Democratic leader Dick Gephardt said of our Iraq policy, "the goal is to impair Saddam Hussein's ability to prosecute war with weapons of mass destruction and to impair Saddam Hussein's ability to wage war against his neighbors."

But the most impassioned words against Saddam may have come from Hillary Clinton, who in October 2002 said on the Senate floor, "The facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt."

Today's front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination pointed out in her floor speech that U.N. inspectors "found and destroyed far more weapons of mass destruction capability than were destroyed in the Gulf War, including thousands of chemical weapons, large volumes of chemical and biological stocks, a number of missiles and warheads, a major lab equipped to produce anthrax and other bio-weapons, as well as substantial nuclear facilities."

According to Hillary then, "if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

Stating that "my decision is influenced by my eight years of experience on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House," Hillary claimed her vote authorizing war against Iraq "says clearly to Saddam Hussein, 'This is your last chance. Disarm or be disarmed.' "

So Vice President Dick Cheney, secretaries of state Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld are all called liars by Soros' research center, yet it somehow chose not to include the "lies" that came from the mouths of Democrats, including both Clintons, in the hundreds of statements in its online database.

No one should doubt the threat that Saddam Hussein posed to the world, nor the wisdom of ousting him.

In an interview scheduled to be broadcast this coming Sunday on CBS' 60 Minutes, George Piro, the FBI agent who interrogated Saddam for months after his capture, says Saddam had every intention of restarting his entire WMD program.

"Saddam still had the engineers," according to Piro. "He wanted to pursue all of WMD . . . to reconstitute his entire WMD program" including chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, Piro tells CBS.

What's next on the agenda for Soros' "public integrity" center, to be dutifully reported as fact in the major media — a study showing that FBI agents are lying about Iraq,

http://www.investors.com/editorial/e...86069773455153

[Shauk]

Journalism's Lazy Lie Protectors

Media Bias: Left-wing activists claim "at least 935 false statements" by the Bush administration on Iraq, and the charge gets reported as if it were a scientific finding. Doesn't it follow that top Democrats also lied about Iraq?

Asking a question like this doesn't disprove the data

The so-called Center For Public Integrity is a "non-profit" funded by the profits of left-wing billionaire George Soros. It also gets foundation support from the Heinz Endowments, chaired by Teresa Heinz, wife of Democratic Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry.

ok but it still wouldn't make it impossible to fact check this data.

You'd think that in a presidential campaign year, a "study" by an organization propped up with money from someone who contributed more to defeat George W. Bush than anyone, plus cash from the wife of the man who ran against Bush in 2004, would be treated skeptically by our oh-so-impartial and professional mainstream media.

Yeah, it would make me skeptical, but thats why I'd fact check the data, but instead...

Not a chance. This week, when Soros' group accused the White House and Bush cabinet secretaries of making hundreds of deceitful assertions about Saddam Hussein and his nuclear ambitions, the activist organization was treated as an objective source.

I don't think they were treated as "objective" any more than any other source, it's up to the reader to decide how they treat it. Are you treating it objectively? The fact that this author goes on to rename it "Soros' Group" is pretty much taking pot shots at a scapegoat that doesn't refute the data.

go fact check it, not sit there and bash a figurehead. Then come back and refute the data that is inconsistent.

The Associated Press, for instance, called it simply "A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations." The New York Times called the outfit "a research group that focuses on ethics in government and public policy." No mention of Soros. No mention of Kerry.

Well, they fund it, they don't directly run it, do they? *shrug* Again, to attack the integrity of the data simply because of the political alignment of who funds them because you're skeptical of it being true or not is one thing, but here we go, fact check it yourself if you care.

Some might insist that a president so obsessed with overthrowing Saddam should be held accountable for his words — a commander-in-chief who insists that "there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for" in Iraq after George H.W. Bush's first Gulf War, and who worries that "We might have gotten it all; we might have gotten half of it; we might have gotten none of it."

Isn't it reasonable to suspect paranoia of a president who wanted Iraq to be told "if you don't cooperate the penalty could be regime change, not just continued sanction" because it was resisting UN weapons inspections?

But those are all Bill Clinton's words, speaking in July, 2003, defending George W. Bush's policy in Iraq at a time when the Iraq invasion was wildly popular. He was also the Democratic president who in 1998 nearly invaded Iraq himself after signing an executive order making regime change there the U.S.' official policy.

Yeah, Clinton went about it the right way, gave saddam ample time and way too many chances to comply, and Saddam publicly spit in the face of the terms he was given. Bush said "omg my towers fell down" and used Saddam as a scapegoat, and guess what, Osama is still running around free, and hell, it's still up to you to believe whether or not either saddam OR osama had anything to do with 9/11 That is a whole seperate discussion.

That year, with Congress impeaching him, Clinton defended attacking Iraq, saying, "Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors with nuclear weapons, poison gas or biological weapons."

Also that year, then-House Democratic leader Dick Gephardt said of our Iraq policy, "the goal is to impair Saddam Hussein's ability to prosecute war with weapons of mass destruction and to impair Saddam Hussein's ability to wage war against his neighbors."

But the most impassioned words against Saddam may have come from Hillary Clinton, who in October 2002 said on the Senate floor, "The facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt."

Today's front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination pointed out in her floor speech that U.N. inspectors "found and destroyed far more weapons of mass destruction capability than were destroyed in the Gulf War, including thousands of chemical weapons, large volumes of chemical and biological stocks, a number of missiles and warheads, a major lab equipped to produce anthrax and other bio-weapons, as well as substantial nuclear facilities."

According to Hillary then, "if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

Stating that "my decision is influenced by my eight years of experience on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House," Hillary claimed her vote authorizing war against Iraq "says clearly to Saddam Hussein, 'This is your last chance. Disarm or be disarmed.' "

So Hillary was president, like, ever? who cares what she has to say about it, she wasn't ever in charge of anything important. She still isn't.

yay for more irrelevant scapegoats. How about those 935 lies?

So Vice President Dick Cheney, secretaries of state Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld are all called liars by Soros' research center, yet it somehow chose not to include the "lies" that came from the mouths of Democrats, including both Clintons, in the hundreds of statements in its online database.

because the lies linking saddam to al-queda as a reason to invade iraq due to weapons of mass destruction were ever true?

the gulf war in the 90's actually showed results of dismantled and destroyed scud launchers, what does this "shock and awe" in retaliation for 9/11 have to show? dick, just dick.

No one should doubt the threat that Saddam Hussein posed to the world, nor the wisdom of ousting him.

he was pretty much defenseless and worthless as a threat after the gulf war imo, but thats a moot discussion, as he's dead.

In an interview scheduled to be broadcast this coming Sunday on CBS' 60 Minutes, George Piro, the FBI agent who interrogated Saddam for months after his capture, says Saddam had every intention of restarting his entire WMD program.

hey, better watch for the liberal counter article that will show him being funded by the regime of bush, and a liar, and, god damn I hate politics.

"Saddam still had the engineers," according to Piro. "He wanted to pursue all of WMD . . . to reconstitute his entire WMD program" including chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, Piro tells CBS.

What's next on the agenda for Soros' "public integrity" center, to be dutifully reported as fact in the major media — a study showing that FBI agents are lying about Iraq,

ok so not once did this article refute any of the lies, instead it tries to go "hey bush wasn't the only liar" then tried to paint the source as a puppet to a figurehead that republicans can hate simply due to the fact that it's a well known liberal.

so um, all alignments aside, where are the counter facts?

[Willravel]

Ace, who wrote that article? I don't see anyone's name attached to it.

[aceventura3]

Originally Posted by willravel

Ace, who wrote that article? I don't see anyone's name attached to it.

The Editorial Board at IBD wrote the editorial, I assume they operate the same as the Editorial Boards at most News Papers. They are business oriented, right-wing, and they add a flair of sarcasm and humor. My business day would not be complete without reading their editorials

[Shauk]

so, good ol boys opinion paper. again,there may be factual content in that article, but how it's relevant to disproving the content of the original presentation is evading me.

[aceventura3]

Originally Posted by Shauk

so, good ol boys opinion paper. again,there may be factual content in that article, but how it's relevant to disproving the content of the original presentation is evading me.

It is not relevant to disproving anything.

However, I think the point is that many people believed what Bush believed about Iraq prior to the war. I always thought Bush overstated his case for war and used hyperbole.

I would not call what was said "lies". But, I generally don't trust people and assume everything is an exaggeration or untrue until I have collaborating evidence. The people who make their decision to support or vote for war based on speeches, especially those in Congress, are pretty f.....g s....d in my opinion. But thats just me.

[Ustwo]

host how did such a biased source make it past your mighty google powers?

Perhaps you don't care about the source as long as it supports your point of view I assume?

Thanks Ace, I don't bother researching the crap anymore and its nice someone does.

[dc_dux]

Originally Posted by aceventura3

... I always thought Bush overstated his case for war and used hyperbole.

I would not call what was said "lies". But, I generally don't trust people and assume everything is an exaggeration or untrue until I have collaborating evidence. The people who make their decision to support or vote for war based on speeches, especially those in Congress, are pretty f.....g s....d in my opinion. But thats just me.

Semantics.....call it overstating the case, hyberole, false statements, lies, misrepresenting and/or cherrypicking the intel.....whats the difference.

Bush/Cheney initiated the call to war, played on post 9/11 fears, and committed young men and women to put their lives on the line when there was no direct threat to the US...based on an ideological agenda rather than hard facts and the complete intel from US and other sources.

Some Democrats (not a majority in either the House or Senate if I recall) are complicit for their role in not insisting on access to all the intel before voting on the Iraq resolution....but, ace, as you said elsewhere....the buck stops at Bush's desk.

[Ustwo]

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Semantics.....call it overstating the case, hyberole, lies, misrepresenting and/or cherrypicking the intel.....its all the same.

Bush/Cheney initiated the call to war, played on post 9/11 fears, and committed young men and women to put their lives on the line when there was no direct threat to the US...based on an ideological agenda rather than hard facts and the complete intel from US and other sources.

Some Democrats (not a majority in either the House or Senate if I recall) are complicit for their role in not insisting on access to all the intel before voting on the Iraq resolution....but, ace, as you said elsewhere....the buck stops at Bush's desk.

Was Korea a non-threat?
Vietnam?
Panama?
Cuba?
Mexico?
Libya?
(Just to name a few 'little' wars)

You know since the only war the Democrats approve of is WWII as far as I know, and I'd much rather have these 'little' wars than WWIII thanks.

Non-threat my ass.

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by Ustwo

You know since the only war the Democrats approve of is WWII as far as I know, and I'd much rather have these 'little' wars than WWIII thanks.

You wouldn't have gone to war with Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan? Had we not stopped them, America would have been in deep shit.

Had we not "stopped" Panama? Ha. Noriega has proven ties to the CIA. We made that mess and we killed thousands of innocent people to get him. He was no threat to us.

[Baraka_Guru]

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I'd much rather have these 'little' wars than WWIII thanks.

Do you want to know how many 'little' wars occurred in the 20 years between WWI and WWII? "Orchestrating" one does not necessarily avoid the other; and perhaps one could lead to the other. Ask Japan.

[dc_dux]

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Was Korea a non-threat?
Vietnam?
Panama?
Cuba?
Mexico?
Libya?
(Just to name a few 'little' wars)

You know since the only war the Democrats approve of is WWII as far as I know, and I'd much rather have these 'little' wars than WWIII thanks.

Non-threat my ass.

Saddam posed no direct threat to the US or the region. He had no ties to al Q'uida and he was marginalized with no-fly zones, weapons inspectors, arms embargoes, etc. We've been down this road before.

But now we also have more of the pre-war intel that was not shared before....its worth noting several of the conclusions of the portion of the Phase II Senate Intel report on Pre-War Intelligence Assessments about Post War Iraq that was released last May:

The Intelligence Community assessed prior to the war that the United States' defeat of Iraq probably would result in a surge of political Islam and increased funding for terrorist groups. In January 2003, the Intelligence Community assessed that a US-led defeat of Arab Iraq would probably boost proponents of political Islam and would result in calls from Islamists for the people of the region to unite and build up defenses against the West. Assessments concluded that funds for terrorist groups probably would increase as a result of Muslin outrage over US action. The Intelligence Community also underscored that in some countries an increase in Islamist sentiment also probably would take the form of greater support for Islamist political parties that seek to come to power through legitimate means.

The Intelligence Community assessed prior to the war that Iranian leaders would try to influence the shape of post-Saddam Iraq to preserve Iranian security and demonstrate that Iran is important regional actor.

The Intelligence Community assessed prior to the war that military action to eliminate Iraqi WMD would not cause other regional states to abandon their WMD programs, or their desire to develop such programs.

also:
The Intelligence Community assessed prior to the war that establishing a stable democratic government in post-war Iraq would be a long, difficult and probably turbulent challenge.

http://intelligence.senate.gov/prewar.pdf from Senate Intel Committee

None of this was shared outside of the Bush inner circle....

....and the Intel conclusions were prophetic

An Iraqi government that is dysfunctional but dominated by the Dawa and SCIRI parties with historical ties to Iran, strengthening Iran's position in internal Iraqi politics as well as their position in the region.

A boost for political Islam and increased funding for terrorist groups around the world.

A surge in anti-American sentiment among the Muslim world (even Moderate Muslims) reaching unprecedented levels

Is the threat to the US not greater as a result of our invasion and continued occupation?

added:
particularly for Host.....perhaps we will finally see the rest of the Phase II report...how the Bush administration used or misused this intel.

What About the Senate Intelligence Committee?

So what, you may well ask, ever happened to the Senate Intelligence Committee's promised inquiry into whether the White House intentionally deceived the public in the run-up to war? That, presumably, would provide an accountability moment of sorts.

You may recall that more than two years ago, in November 2005, Democrats were so upset about Republican foot-dragging on the inquiry that they brought the Senate to a halt with a rare closed session to demand that work resume.

The Republicans, not surprisingly, continued to stall anyway. But the Democrats have controlled the Senate for more than a year now. Where is the report?

Wendy Morigi, spokeswoman for Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller, told me this morning that it will be out before the end of spring.

Why the delay? Due to the "lack of comity on the committee" when Rockefeller took over the chairmanship, he decided that pushing ahead with the inquiry right away "would again create tension," Morigi said.

Nevertheless, the committee staff has "continued to work" on the report, she said. And a hearing on the matter will be held "within the next few months."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...301758_pf.html

[host]

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Another perspective from the editorial pages of IBD 1/24/2008:



http://www.investors.com/editorial/e...86069773455153

Originally Posted by aceventura3

The Editorial Board at IBD wrote the editorial, I assume they operate the same as the Editorial Boards at most News Papers. They are business oriented, right-wing, and they add a flair of sarcasm and humor...

Originally Posted by aceventura3

t is not relevant to disproving anything.

However, I think the point is that many people believed what Bush believed about Iraq prior to the war. I always thought Bush overstated his case for war and used hyperbole.

I would not call what was said "lies". But, I generally don't trust people and assume everything is an exaggeration or untrue until I have collaborating evidence. The people who make their decision to support or vote for war based on speeches, especially those in Congress, are pretty f.....g s....d in my opinion. But thats just me.

Originally Posted by Ustwo

host how did such a biased source make it past your mighty google powers?

Perhaps you don't care about the source as long as it supports your point of view I assume?

Thanks Ace, I don't bother researching the crap anymore and its nice someone does.

Guys...this is an easy one. Here are numerous quotes and news articles demonstrating that president Bush and his associates told outright falsehoods and made blatantly misleading statements to make a case for invading and occupying Iraq. I've focused almost exclusively on their "Saddam's Iraq had a "relationship" with al-Qaeda assertions. I've tried to organize the material chronologically, except for the immediately following quote box. It's purpose is to demonstrate that, finally in 2007, Bush has stopped claiming that "Saddam had relations with al Zarqawi, or al Qaeda. Compare the July 2007 statements to all of the preceding quotes, up until 9/15/06, when ABC's Martha Raddatz finally called Bush out, on his deception.

I'm confident that you two will stick to your "shoot the messenger" strategy, if you reply at all, so I'm doing this for others to compare. I did not use the resource of the "935 statements". This is the Bush et al record, their history, their "Marley's chain" ala Dickens' "Christmas Carol". So far, they are unindicted war criminals, perpetrators of Aggressive, Pre-Emptive War, Robert Jackson;s "ulitmate crime against humnaity". Finger pointing at Soros or at "host" won't alter what has happened.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0070724-3.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
July 24, 2007

President Bush Discusses War on Terror in South Carolina
Charleston Air Force Base
Charleston, South Carolina

...A good place to start is with some basic facts: Al Qaeda in Iraq was founded by a Jordanian terrorist, not an Iraqi. His name

was Abu Musab al Zarqawi. Before 9/11, he ran a terrorist camp in Afghanistan. He was not yet a member of al Qaida, but our

intelligence community reports that he had longstanding relations with senior al Qaida leaders, that he had met with Osama bin

Laden and his chief deputy, Zawahiri.

In 2001, coalition forces destroyed Zarqawi's Afghan training camp, and he fled the country and he went to Iraq, where he set up

operations with terrorist associates long before the arrival of coalition forces. In the violence and instability following

Saddam's fall, Zarqawi was able to expand dramatically the size, scope, and lethality of his operation......

<h3>...Some note that al Qaida in Iraq did not exist until the U.S. invasion -- and argue that it is a problem of our own making. </h3>The

argument follows the flawed logic that terrorism is caused by American actions. Iraq is not the reason that the terrorists are at

war with us. We were not in Iraq when the terrorists bombed the World Trade Center in 1993. We were not in Iraq when they attacked

our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. We were not in Iraq when they attacked the USS Cole in 2000. And we were not in Iraq on

September the 11th, 2001....

...Thanks for letting me come by today. I've explained the connection between al Qaida and its Iraqi affiliate. I presented

intelligence that clearly establishes this connection. The facts are that al Qaida terrorists killed Americans on 9/11, they're

fighting us in Iraq and across the world, and they are plotting to kill Americans here at home again.....

http://www.cpa-iraq.org/bios/zarqawi_bio.html
(Near the top of the page..)
....Long before the Iraq war, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell was aware of a poisons and explosives training center in

northeastern Iraq that the al-Zarqawi network was running....

http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=130169
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=130169&page=1

<h3>Bush Calls Off Attack on Poison Gas Lab
Calls Off Operation to Take Out Al Qaeda-Sponsored Poison Gas Lab</h3>
By John McWethy

W A S H I N G T O N, Aug. 20 (2002)

President Bush called off a planned covert raid into northern Iraq late last week that was aimed at a small group of al Qaeda

operatives who U.S. intelligence officials believed were experimenting with poison gas and deadly toxins, according to

administration officials.

The experiments were being run under orders from a senior al Qaeda official who was providing money and guidance from elsewhere in

the region.

U.S. officials familiar with the joint CIA and Pentagon operation said they were concerned they might be dealing with what could

have been a budding chemical weapons laboratory.

Intelligence sources said the al Qaeda operatives were under the protection of a small radical Kurdish group called Ansar al

Islam. It is a radical Islamic faction closely allied with al Qaeda that operates in a part of northern Iraq controlled by Kurds.

Since the Persian Gulf War, the United States has operated a so-called no-fly zone over much of northern Iraq to protect the Kurds

from Saddam Hussein's periodic crackdowns. <h3>U.S. officials say they have no evidence Saddam's government had any knowledge of

the

al Qaeda operation.</h3>

Most of the experiments, sources say, involved a poison called ricin, a byproduct of the widely available castor bean plant.

"It is quite toxic, probably seven times more toxic than phosgene, which was a chemical weapon used in World War I," said Jonathan

Tucker, director of the Chemical and Biological Weapons Nonproliferation Program at the Monterrey Institute of International

Studies.

Once a person is exposed to sufficient quantities, by inhalation or ingestion, ricin is deadly. "There is currently no treatment

and no vaccine for ricin exposure," Tucker explained.

It is especially appealing to a terrorist group because it is relatively easy to make, easy to handle and is not expensive.

As a potential weapon of terror, ricin is considered most deadly in a closed room or building, where nearly everyone could die.

In World War I, the British experimented by putting ricin in artillery shells and bombs, but they never used it on the

battlefield.

Tested on a Man

Intelligence sources told ABCNEWS there is evidence the terrorists tested ricin in water, as a powder and as an aerosol. They used

it to kill donkeys, chickens and at one point allegedly exposed a man in an Iraqi market.

They then followed him home and watched him die several days later, sources said.

As U.S. surveillance intensified, officials concluded the operation was not a major threat to the United States and definitely not

a sophisticated laboratory.

Instead, it appeared to be a few terrorists with relatively small amounts of poisons who were being encouraged to experiment by al

Qaeda managers elsewhere in the region.

<h3>In the final analysis, the White House, Pentagon and CIA concluded it was not worth risking American lives to go after these

people and not worth the adverse publicity that would surely follow any U.S. operation inside Iraq.</h3>

But as part of this operation, intelligence analysts did discover that al Qaeda money was again flowing, that new people had

stepped in to manage and encourage far-flung projects like this one offering glimpses of a terrorist network trying to put

itself back together again.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?

res=9C07E6D7103EF934A3575AC0A9649C8B63&scp=1&sq=Bush+Aides+Set+Strategy+to+Sell+Policy+on+Iraq&st=nyt
September 7, 2002
TRACES OF TERROR: THE STRATEGY; Bush Aides Set Strategy to Sell Policy on Iraq
By ELISABETH BUMILLER

White House officials said today that the administration was following a meticulously planned strategy to persuade the public, the

Congress and the allies of the need to confront the threat from Saddam Hussein.

The rollout of the strategy this week, they said, was planned long before President Bush's vacation in Texas last month. It was

not hastily concocted, they insisted, after some prominent Republicans began to raise doubts about moving against Mr. Hussein and

administration officials made contradictory statements about the need for weapons inspectors in Iraq.

The White House decided, they said, that even with the appearance of disarray it was still more advantageous to wait until after

Labor Day to kick off their plan.

''From a marketing point of view,'' said Andrew H. Card Jr., the White House chief of staff who is coordinating the effort,

<h3>''you don't introduce new products in August.''</h3>

A centerpiece of the strategy, White House officials said, is to use Mr. Bush's speech on Sept. 11 to help move Americans toward

support of action against Iraq, which could come early next year. ....

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0021007-8.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
October 7, 2002

President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat
Remarks by the President on Iraq
Cincinnati, Ohio

....Members of the Congress of both political parties, and members of the United Nations Security Council, agree that Saddam

Hussein is a threat to peace and must disarm. We agree that the Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America and the

world with horrible poisons and diseases and gases and atomic weapons. Since we all agree on this goal, the issues is : how can we

best achieve it?....

...First, some ask why Iraq is different from other countries or regimes that also have terrible weapons. While there are many

dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone -- because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place.

....

...This same tyrant has tried to dominate the Middle East, has invaded and brutally occupied a small neighbor, has struck other

nations without warning, and holds an unrelenting hostility toward the United States.....

....Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with

time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to

confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?.....

....Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles -- far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel,

Turkey, and other nations -- in a region where more than 135,000 American civilians and service members live and work. We've also

discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to

disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for

missions targeting the United States. And, of course, sophisticated delivery systems aren't required for a chemical or biological

attack; all that might be required are a small container and one terrorist or Iraqi intelligence operative to deliver it......

.... We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America. We know that Iraq

and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These

include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with

planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and

deadly gases. And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on

America.

Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. ....

...The dictator of Iraq is a student of Stalin, using murder as a tool of terror and control, within his own cabinet, within his

own army, and even within his own family.

On Saddam Hussein's orders, opponents have been decapitated, wives and mothers of political opponents have been systematically

raped as a method of intimidation, and political prisoners have been forced to watch their own children being tortured. .....

...Later this week, the United States Congress will vote on this matter. I have asked Congress to authorize the use of America's

military, if it proves necessary, to enforce U.N. Security Council demands.....

.... Members of Congress are nearing an historic vote. I'm confident they will fully consider the facts, and their duties.

The attacks of September the 11th showed our country that vast oceans no longer protect us from danger. Before that tragic date,

we had only hints of al Qaeda's plans and designs. Today in Iraq, we see a threat whose outlines are far more clearly defined, and

whose consequences could be far more deadly. Saddam Hussein's actions have put us on notice, and there is no refuge from our

responsibilities. ....

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0021014-4.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
October 14, 2002

Remarks by the President in Michigan Welcome

.....September the 11th changed the equation, changed our thinking
. It also changed our thinking when we began to realize that one of the most dangerous things that can happen in the modern era is

for a deceiving dictator who has gassed his own people, who has weapons of mass destruction to team up with an organization like

al Qaeda.

As I said -- I was a little more diplomatic in my speech, but we need to --
we need to think about Saddam Hussein using al Qaeda to do his dirty work, to not leave fingerprints behind.....

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0021107-2.html
or Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
November 7, 2002

President Outlines Priorities
Presidential Hall

.... Q With Iraq.

THE PRESIDENT: Oh, okay.

Q Your CIA Director told Congress just last month that it appears that Saddam Hussein "now appears to be drawing a line short of

conducting terrorist attacks against the United States." But if we attacked him he would "probably become much less constrained."

Is he wrong about that?

THE PRESIDENT: No. I think that -- I think that if you would read the full -- I'm sure he said other sentences. Let me just put it

to you, I know George Tenet well. I meet with him every single day. He sees Saddam Hussein as a threat. I don't know what the

context of that quote is. I'm telling you, the guy knows what I know, that he is a problem and we must deal with him.

And, you know, it's like people say, oh, we must leave Saddam alone; otherwise, if we did something against him, he might attack

us. Well, if we don't do something, he might attack us, and he might attack us with a more serious weapon. The man is a threat,

Hutch, I'm telling you. He's a threat not only with what he has, he's a threat with what he's done. He's a threat because he is

dealing with al Qaeda.....

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...es+iraq&st=nyt
THREATS AND RESPONSES: DIPLOMACY; POWELL, IN EUROPE, NEARLY DISMISSES U.N.'S IRAQ REPORT

By MARK LANDLER AND ALAN COWELL
Published: January 27, 2003

....Bringing the case for military action to a deeply skeptical audience of political, business and religious leaders at a

conference in the Swiss Alps, Mr. Powell said Saddam Hussein of Iraq had ''repeatedly violated the trust of the United Nations,

his people and his neighbors.'' He renewed an administration contention that Mr. Hussein had ties to Al Qaeda terrorists.

[Excerpts, Page A8.]....

...Asked for evidence to back up Mr. Powell's assertion that Mr. Hussein has ''clear ties'' to Al Qaeda and other terrorist

groups, Andrew H. Card Jr., the White House chief of staff, said on ''Fox News Sunday'' that the Iraqi leader ''has had a history

of a relationship with terrorist organizations in the past, and it would be horrible if his weapons of mass destruction got into

the hands of terrorists.''....

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...030128-19.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
January 28, 2003

President Delivers "State of the Union"
The U.S. Capitol

HE PRESIDENT:

...Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein

aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his

hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses

and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this

time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror

like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes. (Applause.)

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions,

politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all

words, and all recriminations would come too late. ...

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...sh+said&st=nyt
January 29, 2003
STATE OF THE UNION: COLLECTING PROOF; Bush's Speech Puts New Focus On State of Intelligence Data
By JAMES RISEN

...Officials at the White House and the Pentagon have pointed to links between the Bagdhad government and an extremist group in

northern Iraq known as Ansar al-Islam, which had members train in Al Qaeda's camps in Afghanistan before Sept. 11. Administration

officials have asserted that the terror group has been supported by Mr. Hussein.

But American intelligence has been sharply divided over whether Mr. Hussein controls Ansar or uses it as a channel to Al Qaeda.

According to some intelligence officials, there has been a long-running debate within the intelligence community about the nature

of the relationship between Iraq and Ansar. The Iraqi government clearly tolerates the existence of the extremist group, which has

fought Mr. Hussein's opponents, the Kurds, in northern Iraq.

Mr. Hussein's government may have provided some support for the terror group over the years as well. Recently, the administration

has argued that the presence in Baghdad of one senior Qaeda leader, Abu Mussab al Zarqawi, indicated a more direct link to Al

Qaeda, and that Mr. Zarqawi, a Jordanian, had received medical treatment in Iraq for wounds supposedly suffered in Afghanistan. He

is reported to have left Iraq afterward. ...

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...sh+said&st=nyt
January 31, 2003
THREATS AND RESPONSES: THE PROOF; U.S. May Give The U.N. Data On Iraqi Labs
By JAMES DAO

.... In his presentation to the United Nations next week on Iraq's concealment of weapons, administration officials indicate,

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell will provide three major categories of intelligence: on Iraq's mobile biological weapons labs;

on its purchase of materials for making chemical, biological and nuclear arms; and on its ties to terrorist groups.

In addition, two senior State Department officials told senators today that there was ''clear evidence'' that Iraq is hiding

biological and chemical weapons, harassing weapons inspectors and harboring members of Al Qaeda.

One of the officials, Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage, said Mr. Powell was working ''feverishly'' to have

photographs, communications interceptions and other intelligence relating to Iraq's weapons programs and ties to Al Qaeda

declassified to make the administration's case more powerful. In particular, Mr. Powell is hoping to present convincing

intelligence -- possibly satellite photos -- that Iraq has been hiding mobile biological weapons labs, Mr. Armitage told the

Foreign Relations Committee.

Mr. Powell ''is going to be showing some new intelligence and some new information,'' Mr. Armitage said, adding, ''No one will be

able to evade the absolute conclusion about Saddam Hussein's denial, deception, his absolute lack of willingness to show any sign

of a disarmament motive in his mind.''

Other administration officials said that Mr. Powell would probably present intelligence, much of it gathered from detainees held

at the Guantánamo Bay in Cuba, indicating that Qaeda members had sought training in chemical weapons in Iraq. Some intelligence

officials have said they have been unable to corroborate the detainees' reports.

In a remarkably candid moment, Mr. Armitage, a blunt-spoken former Navy officer, <h3>also acknowledged that the administration had

on occasion tried to build its case against Iraq on ambiguous intelligence</h3>, and he pledged that Mr. Powell would bring only

the most compelling, clear-cut data available to the United Nations.

As an example of such ambiguous information, Democrats today cited the administration's assertion, repeated by President Bush in

his State of the Union address, that Iraq had bought aluminum tubes to restart its nuclear weapons program. The head of the

International Atomic Energy Agency, Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, has said the tubes can just as easily be used to build nonnuclear

rockets. ..

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...es+iraq&st=nyt
THREATS AND RESPONSES: TERROR LINKS; Split at C.I.A. and F.B.I. On Iraqi Ties to Al Qaeda

By JAMES RISEN AND DAVID JOHNSTON
Published: February 2, 2003

The Bush administration's efforts to build a case for war against Iraq using intelligence to link it to Al Qaeda and the

development of prohibited weapons has created friction within United States intelligence agencies, government officials said.

Some analysts at the Central Intelligence Agency have complained that senior administration officials have exaggerated the

significance of some intelligence reports about Iraq, particularly about its possible links to terrorism, in order to strengthen

their political argument for war, government officials said.

At the Federal Bureau of Investigation, <h3>some investigators said they were baffled by the Bush administration's insistence on a

solid link between Iraq and Osama bin Laden's network.</h3> ''We've been looking at this hard for more than a year and you know

what, we just don't think it's there,'' a government official said.

The tension within the intelligence agencies comes as Secretary of State Colin L. Powell is poised to go before the United Nations

Security Council on Wednesday to present evidence of Iraq's links to terrorism and its continuing efforts to develop chemical,

biological and nuclear weapons and long-range missiles.

Interviews with administration officials revealed divisions between, on one side, the Pentagon and the National Security Council,

which has become a clearinghouse for the evidence being prepared for Mr. Powell, and, on the other, the C.I.A. and, to some

degree, the State Department and agencies like the F.B.I.

In the interviews, two officials, Paul D. Wolfowitz, deputy defense secretary, and Stephen J. Hadley, deputy national security

adviser, were cited as being most eager to interpret evidence deemed murky by intelligence officials to show a clearer picture of

Iraq's involvement in illicit weapons programs and terrorism. Their bosses, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and the national

security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, have also pressed a hard line, officials said.

A senior administration official said discussions in preparation for Mr. Powell's presentation were intense, but not rancorous,

and said there was little dissension among President Bush's top advisers about the fundamental nature of President Saddam

Hussein's government. ''I haven't detected anyone who thinks this a not compelling case,'' the official said.

Mr. Bush asserted in his State of the Union address this week that Iraq was protecting and aiding Qaeda operatives, but American

intelligence and law enforcement officials said the evidence was fragmentary and inconclusive.

''It's more than just skepticism,'' said one official, describing the feelings of some analysts in the intelligence agencies. ''I

think there is also a sense of disappointment with the community's leadership that they are not standing up for them at a time

when the intelligence is obviously being politicized.''

Neither George J. Tenet, the director of central intelligence, nor the F.B.I. director, Robert S. Mueller III, have publicly

engaged in the debate about the evidence on Iraq in recent weeks, even as the Bush administration has intensified its efforts to

build the case for a possible war.

The last time Mr. Tenet found himself at the center of the public debate over intelligence concerning Iraq was in October, when

the Senate declassified a brief letter Mr. Tenet wrote describing some of the C.I.A.'s assessments about Iraq.

His letter stated that the C.I.A. believed that Iraq had, for the time being, probably decided not to conduct terrorist attacks

with conventional or chemical or biological weapons against the United States, but the letter added that Mr. Hussein might resort

to terrorism if he believed that an American-led attack was about to begin.

Alliances within the group of officials involved have strengthened the argument that Mr. Bush should take a firm view of the

evidence. ''Wolfowitz and Hadley are very compatible,'' said one administration official. ''They have a very good working

relationship.''

There were some signs that Mr. Powell might not present the administration's most aggressive case against Iraq when he speaks to

the United Nations, leaving such a final definitive statement to the president in some future address. .....

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...es+iraq&st=nyt
February 5, 2003
THREATS AND RESPONSES: BAGHDAD; Iraq Has No Banned Arms, Hussein Says in Interview
By DON VAN NATTA JR.

In a rare televised interview that was broadcast here tonight, Saddam Hussein denied that Iraq possessed any weapons of mass

destruction or had any links to the terror network Al Qaeda.

''If we had a relationship with Al Qaeda, and we believed in that relationship, we wouldn't be ashamed to admit it,'' Mr. Hussein

told the interviewer, Tony Benn, a retired left-wing member of the House of Commons who said he went to Baghdad to interview Mr.

Hussein in a last-ditch effort to prevent an American-led invasion of Iraq.

The Iraqi leader insisted that he still held out hope for peace, and accused the United States of hunting for a ''pretext for

aggression'' that would justify an invasion of Iraq to meet its goals of controlling the world's oil supply and, ultimately,

controlling the world.

Excerpts from the one-hour interview with Mr. Hussein were televised here tonight on Channel 4, on the eve of Secretary of State

Colin L. Powell's speech before the United Nations Security Council. Mr. Powell is expected to present evidence both that Iraq has

hidden enormous caches of weapons of mass destruction from inspectors and that it has ties to Al Qaeda. The interview, which was

Mr. Hussein's first with a foreign journalist since the most recent crisis began, was videotaped on Sunday evening at one of the

presidential palaces in Baghdad.

Mr. Hussein insisted that it was impossible to hide weapons of mass destruction from United Nations inspectors. ''These weapons do

not come in small pills that you can hide in your pocket,'' he said, motioning toward his suit jacket pocket. ''These are weapons

of mass destruction, and it is easy to work out if Iraq has them or not.''

Iraq now stands at the brink of an American-led invasion, Mr. Hussein said, despite a long record of cooperation with the

inspectors. He attributed this to the United States' desire to seize the world's oil reserves and ''control the world and spread

its hegemony.'' ....

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...030206-17.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
February 6, 2003

President Bush: "World Can Rise to This Moment"
Statement by the President

... Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al

Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al

Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training.

We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network, headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner. The network runs a poison

and explosive training center in northeast Iraq, and many of its leaders are known to be in Baghdad. The head of this network

traveled to Baghdad for medical treatment and stayed for months. Nearly two dozen associates joined him there and have been

operating in Baghdad for more than eight months. ....

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...=&pagewanted=2
February 9, 2003
THREATS AND RESPONSES: WHITE HOUSE MEMO; War Public Relations Machine Is Put on Full Throttle
By ELISABETH BUMILLER

It was right before Christmas, in a Saturday meeting in the Oval Office, that President Bush first heard the intercepted

conversations between Iraqi military officers that became a centerpiece of Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's presentation this

week to the United Nations Security Council.

On that day, Dec. 21, Mr. Bush sat with George J. Tenet, the director of central intelligence, and Condoleezza Rice, his national

security adviser, and listened to the recordings of Iraqis talking about ''nerve agents'' and apparent efforts to hide

incriminating material from United Nations arms inspectors.

That presentation, given to the president so he could consider whether to make the classified recordings and other intelligence

public, was the beginning of what the White House is calling its 2003 campaign to move Americans toward support of war with Iraq.

The public relations campaign, coordinated by the White House communications office and the National Security Council, has

included carefully timed speeches by Mr. Bush and his war council, a close monitoring of public opinion polls and the use of

television in crucial markets to spread the administration's message across the country.

On Thursday, the same day Mr. Bush appeared in the Roosevelt Room to say ''the game is over'' and put his imprimatur on Mr.

Powell's United Nations remarks, the White House directed the top two officials at the Pentagon to give an unusual series of

interviews underscoring Mr. Powell's case.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld spoke to anchors at the ABC television affiliate in Los Angeles, the Fox affiliate in

Chicago, the NBC affiliate in Seattle and the CBS affiliate in Minneapolis. The No. 2 official at the Pentagon, Paul D. Wolfowitz,

one of the administration's biggest hawks on Iraq, gave interviews to local television anchors in New York, Cleveland and San

Francisco. On Wednesday night, Ms. Rice made the case in appearances on CNN's ''Larry King Live'' and ABC's ''Nightline.''

''We knew there was going to have to be a steady escalation of public appearances and speeches and comments about the nature of

the threat,'' said Dan Bartlett, the White House communications director.

Matthew Dowd, the Republican strategist who oversees polling for the White House, said there had been no overnight poll by the

White House or Republican National Committee to gauge reaction to Mr. Powell. But he said he was encouraged by other polls showing

a rise in support for action to oust Saddam Hussein, with 60 percent or more favoring a war with Iraq.

''The one-nights were all good,'' Mr. Dowd said in an interview. ''But it's one night, and I would have expected there to be a

jump up. I think what matters is where it is a week from now.''

The White House campaign has nonetheless suffered numerous stumbles and setbacks. A debate continued among Mr. Bush's top national

security aides until the night before Mr. Powell's testimony over how much information to declassify, reflecting the tension

between trying to convince the public of the threat of Mr. Hussein and fears that the sources of the intelligence would be

compromised.

Administration officials were also alarmed when the French foreign minister said at the United Nations on Jan. 20 that ''nothing,

nothing'' justifies war. In that same period, the United Nations weapons inspectors were asking for many more months to complete

their work.

The developments prompted some White House officials to murmur among themselves, as one put it, that it was beginning to feel ''a

lot like August'' -- a reference to last summer, when Mr. Bush stayed largely silent on Iraq at his Texas ranch as a debate over

the war raged among leading Republicans and on the opinion pages of newspapers.

But the White House soon moved to take control of the agenda with a precisely coordinated series of speeches. On Jan. 21, Richard

L. Armitage, the deputy secretary of state, gave a speech in Washington, saying that it was ''ludicrous'' to think that Mr.

Hussein would remain ''in his box.'' Mr. Wolfowitz followed on Jan. 23 in New York, telling the Council on Foreign Relations that

Mr. Hussein had ordered any Iraqi scientist who cooperated in an interview with inspectors to be killed, along with his family.

Mr. Powell, until then the administration's strongest advocate for weapons inspections, continued the campaign on Jan. 26 in

Davos, Switzerland, indicating that he thought the inspections were useless.

White House officials leaned on Hans Blix, the chief United Nations weapons inspector, to be tough when he gave his Jan. 27 report

to the United Nations on Iraq's cooperation. Mr. Blix was issuing a broadly negative report that gave Mr. Bush the opening he

needed in his State of the Union address the next day to move the argument forward by adding that Iraq had ties to Al Qaeda. Mr.

Bush also promised that the secretary of state would provide the details of these links in his presentation to the United Nations

last Wednesday.

The State of the Union address, Mr. Bartlett said, was ''not the appropriate forum'' to present what became Mr. Powell's 90-minute

brief against Mr. Hussein. Mr. Powell also happens to be the administration's most respected figure worldwide, with polls showing

his favorability ratings higher than those of the president. ''The bottom line is, he's a strategic asset,'' a senior

administration official said.

The brief, which had been in large part assembled by Stephen J. Hadley, the deputy national security adviser, was closely

monitored at the White House. Mr. Bush missed the first half hour of Mr. Powell's presentation because of a meeting with Poland's

prime minister, but he watched the next hour live, over cheese and crackers and a Diet Coke, in his dining room off the Oval

Office. With him were Ms. Rice, Mr. Hadley and Ari Fleischer, the White House press secretary.

Mr. Bush was so familiar with Mr. Powell's presentation, Mr. Fleischer said, that he would signal to the group crucial parts of

the testimony.

''The president would say, 'This part's coming up,' '' Mr. Fleischer said. Afterward, Mr. Bush called Mr. Powell to congratulate

him.

On Friday, Mr. Blix is to report back to the United Nations on the progress of weapons inspections, an assessment expected to be

negative. Then Mr. Bush will press his case into late February or early March -- when Pentagon officials say they will be ready

for war. As the president said at the White House on Thursday, ''The game is over.''

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...=&pagewanted=3
THREATS AND RESPONSES: TERROR NETWORK; A Terror Lieutenant With a Deadly Past

By DON VAN NATTA JR. WITH DAVID JOHNSTON
Published: February 10, 2003

...The American officials acknowledged there were differences among analysts about whether the camp had any connection to Al Qaeda

or to Iraq. Ansar al-Islam's founder, Mullah Krekar, denied in an interview last week that his agency had ties to Mr. Zarqawi, Al

Qaeda or the Iraqi government.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...sh+said&st=nyt
THREATS AND RESPONSES: WASHINGTON; TOP U.S. OFFICIALS PRESS CASE LINKING IRAQ TO AL QAEDA

By DAVID JOHNSTON
Published: February 12, 2003

Senior Bush administration officials intensified the effort to make the case for military action against Saddam Hussein today,

with testimony by Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and the director of central intelligence, George J. Tenet, linking Iraq and

Al Qaeda....

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...sh+said&st=nyt
March 9, 2003
THREATS AND RESPONSES: THE TROOPS; C.I.A. Warning Of Terror Risk To G.I.'s in Iraq
By THOM SHANKER AND DAVID JOHNSTON

.....Critics of the administration's stance on Iraq have questioned its assertion that the Baghdad government has tolerated or

even supported the Qaeda terrorist network headed by Osama bin Laden.

A map accompanying the C.I.A. assessment states that a cell of up to two dozen Qaeda operatives had been set up in Baghdad,

echoing a charge made by Secretary of State Colin L. Powell in his speech on Feb. 5 at the United Nations.

The C.I.A. document identifies four Qaeda followers in Baghdad, described by one official as ''second- or third-tier leaders.''

American officials who discussed the assessment declined to name those Qaeda lieutenants. Smaller cells are also believed to be

operating in Mosul and Erbil, in northern Iraq, according to the analysis.

The C.I.A. report said those cells were organized by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a poisons expert and terror recruiter who in recent

weeks has been identified by Mr. Powell and other administration officials as an important link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. .....

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0030317-7.html
or Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
March 17, 2003

President Says Saddam Hussein Must Leave Iraq Within 48 Hours
Remarks by the President in Address to the Nation
The Cross Hall

....THE PRESIDENT:

........The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends. And

it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda....

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...1/ai_n14549543
Coalition claims evidence ties Iraqi group to al-Qaida
Oakland Tribune, Apr 1, 2003 by Dafna Linzer, Associated Press

and Borzou Daragahi

BIYARE, Iraq -- A U.S.-led assault on a compound controlled by an Iraqi-based extremist Islamic group has turned up a list of

names of suspected militants living in the United States and what may be the strongest evidence yet linking Ansar al-Islam to al-

Qaida, coalition commanders said Monday.

The cache of documents, including computer discs and foreign passports belonging to Arab fighters from around the Middle East,

could bolster the Bush administration's claims that the two groups are connected, although there was no indication any of the

evidence tied Ansar to Saddam Hussein as Washington has maintained.

There were indications, however, that the group has been getting help from inside neighboring Iran.....

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...=&pagewanted=2
A NATION AT WAR: BANNED WEAPONS; U.S. Search for Illegal Arms Narrowed to About 36 Sites

By DON VAN NATTA JR. AND DAVID JOHNSTON
Published: April 14, 2003

American military intelligence officials have also sought evidence that the Qaeda terror network had a presence in Iraq and ties

to Mr. Hussein's government. Here, too, they have come up empty....

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...030501-15.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
May 1, 2003

President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended
Remarks by the President from the USS Abraham Lincoln
At Sea Off the Coast of San Diego, California

....THE PRESIDENT: The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 -- and still goes

on....

....THE PRESIDENT: The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda,

and cut off a source of terrorist funding. And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction

from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more...

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...es+iraq&st=nyt
June 9, 2003
THREATS AND RESPONSES: C.I.A.; Captives Deny Qaeda Worked With Baghdad
By JAMES RISEN

Two of the highest-ranking leaders of Al Qaeda in American custody have told the C.I.A. in separate interrogations that the

terrorist organization did not work jointly with the Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein, according to several intelligence

officials.

Abu Zubaydah, a Qaeda planner and recruiter until his capture in March 2002, told his questioners last year that the idea of

working with Mr. Hussein's government had been discussed among Qaeda leaders, but that Osama bin Laden had rejected such

proposals, according to an official who has read the Central Intelligence Agency's classified report on the interrogation.

In his debriefing, Mr. Zubaydah said Mr. bin Laden had vetoed the idea because he did not want to be beholden to Mr. Hussein, the

official said.

Separately, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the Qaeda chief of operations until his capture on March 1 in Pakistan, has also told

interrogators that the group did not work with Mr. Hussein, officials said.

The Bush administration has not made these statements public, though it frequently highlighted intelligence reports that supported

its assertions of links between Iraq and Al Qaeda as it made its case for war against Iraq.

Since the war ended, and because the administration has yet to uncover evidence of prohibited weapons in Iraq, the quality of

American intelligence has come under scrutiny amid contentions that the administration selectively disclosed only those

intelligence reports that supported its case for war.

Bill Harlow, a spokesman for the Central Intelligence Agency, declined to comment on what the two Qaeda leaders had told their

questioners. A senior intelligence official played down the significance of their debriefings, explaining that everything Qaeda

detainees say must be regarded with great skepticism.

Other intelligence and military officials added that evidence of possible links between Mr. Hussein's government and Al Qaeda had

been discovered -- both before the war and since -- and that American forces were searching Iraq for more in Iraq.

Still, no conclusive evidence of joint terrorist operations by Iraq and Al Qaeda has been found, several intelligence officials

acknowledged, nor have ties been discovered between Baghdad and the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on Washington and New York.

Between the time of the attacks and the start of the war in Iraq in March, senior Bush administration officials spoke frequently

about intelligence on two fronts -- the possibility of links between Iraq and Al Qaeda, and Baghdad's drive to develop prohibited

weapons. President Bush described the war against Iraq as part of the larger war on terrorism, and argued that the possibility

that Mr. Hussein might hand over illicit weapons to terrorists posed a threat to the United States

.   click to show 

Several officials said Mr. Zubaydah's debriefing report was circulated by the C.I.A. within the American intelligence community

last year, but his statements were not included in public discussions by administration officials about the evidence concerning

Iraq-Qaeda ties.

Those officials said the statements by Mr. Zubaydah and Mr. Mohammed were examples of the type of intelligence reports that ran

counter to the administration's public case.

''I remember reading the Abu Zubaydah debriefing last year, while the administration was talking about all of these other reports,

and thinking that they were only putting out what they wanted,'' one official said.

Spokesmen at the White House, the State Department and the Pentagon declined to comment on why Mr. Zubaydah's debriefing report

was not publicly disclosed by the administration last year.

In recent weeks, the director of central intelligence, George J. Tenet, and other officials have defended the information and

analysis by the C.I.A. and other intelligence agencies in the months before the war. They said reports were not suppressed, and

were properly handled and distributed among the intelligence agencies.

The issue of the public presentation of the evidence is different from whether the intelligence itself was valid, and some

officials said they believed that the former might ultimately prove to be more significant, since the Bush administration relied

heavily on the release of intelligence reports to build its case, both with the American people and abroad.

''This gets to the serious question of to what extent did they try to align the facts with the conclusions that they wanted,'' an

intelligence official said. ''Things pointing in one direction were given a lot of weight, and other things were discounted.''

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0030917-7.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
September 17, 2003

Remarks by the President After Meeting with Members of the Congressional Conference Committee on Energy Legislation

..THE PRESIDENT: ,,,,King.

Q Mr. President, Dr. Rice and Secretary Rumsfeld both said yesterday that they have seen no evidence that Iraq had anything to do

with September 11th. Yet, on Meet the Press, Sunday, the Vice President said Iraq was a geographic base for the terrorists and he

also said, I don't know, or we don't know, when asked if there was any involvement. Your critics say that this is some effort --

deliberate effort to blur the line and confuse people. How would you answer that?

THE PRESIDENT: We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th. What the Vice President said was,

is that he has been involved with al Qaeda. And al Zarqawi, al Qaeda operative, was in Baghdad. He's the guy that ordered the

killing of a U.S. diplomat. He's a man who is still running loose, involved with the poisons network, involved with Ansar al-

Islam. <h3>There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties. </h3>...

Next: Jan., 2004, through December, 2007,

[host]

Part II: Bush et al deceptions intended to justify Iraq invasion and occupation,
2004 to 2007.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...sh+said&st=nyt
January 9, 2004
THE STRUGGLE FOR IRAQ: DIPLOMACY; Powell Admits No Hard Proof In Linking Iraq to Al Qaeda
By CHRISTOPHER MARQUIS

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell conceded Thursday that despite his assertions to the United Nations last year, he had no

''smoking gun'' proof of a link between the government of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and terrorists of Al Qaeda.

''I have not seen smoking-gun, concrete evidence about the connection,'' Mr. Powell said, in response to a question at a news

conference. ''But I think the possibility of such connections did exist, and it was prudent to consider them at the time that we

did.''

Mr. Powell's remarks on Thursday were a stark admission that there is no definitive evidence to back up administration statements

and insinuations that Saddam Hussein had ties to Al Qaeda, the acknowledged authors of the Sept. 11 attacks. Although President

Bush finally acknowledged in September that there was no known connection between Mr. Hussein and the attacks, the impression of a

link in the public mind has become widely accepted -- and something administration officials have done little to discourage.

Mr. Powell offered a vigorous defense of his Feb. 5 presentation before the Security Council, in which he voiced the

administration's most detailed case to date for war with Iraq. After studying intelligence data, he said that a ''sinister nexus''

existed ''between Iraq and the Al Qaeda terrorist network, a nexus that combines classic terrorist organizations and modern

methods of murder.''

Without any additional qualifiers, Mr. Powell continued, ''Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network, headed by Abu Musaab al

-Zarqawi, an associate and collaborator of Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda lieutenants.''

He added, ''Iraqi officials deny accusations of ties with Al Qaeda. These denials are simply not credible.''...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0040615-4.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
June 15, 2004

President Bush Meets with President Karzai of Afghanistan
Remarks by President Bush and President Karzai of Afghanistan in a Press Availability
The Rose Garden

.... Q Mr. President --

PRESIDENT BUSH: I'm getting distracted over here, there seems to = be some noise.

Q The Vice President, who I see standing over there, said yesterday that Saddam Hussein has long-established ties to al Qaeda. As

you know, this is disputed within the U.S. intelligence community. Mr. President, would you add any qualifiers to that flat

statement? And what do you think is the best evidence of it?

PRESIDENT BUSH: Zarqawi. Zarqawi is the best evidence of connection to al Qaeda affiliates and al Qaeda. He's the person who's

still killing. He's the person -- and remember the email exchange between al Qaeda leadership and he, himself, about how to

disrupt the progress toward freedom?

Saddam Hussein also had ties to terrorist organizations, as well.....

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0040617-3.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
June 17, 2004

President Discusses Economy, Iraq in Cabinet Meeting
Remarks by the President After Meeting with His Cabinet
The Cabinet Room

.... I'll be glad to answer a couple of questions. Deb, why don't you lead it off?

Q Mr. President, why does the administration continue to insist that Saddam had a relationship with al Qaeda, when even you have

denied any connection between Saddam and September 11th. And now the September 11th Commission says that there was no

collaborative relationship at all.

<h3>THE PRESIDENT: The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda, because there

was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda.</h3> This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between

Saddam and al Qaeda. We did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. For example, Iraqi intelligence

officers met with bin Laden, the head of al Qaeda, in the Sudan. There's numerous contacts between the two. ...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0040618-1.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
June 18, 2004

President Bush Salutes Soldiers in Fort Lewis, Washington
Remarks by the President to the Military Personnel
Fort Lewis, Washington

.....And we're beginning to see results of people stepping up to defend themselves. Iraqi police and Civil Defense Corps have

captured several wanted terrorists, including Umar Boziani. He was a key lieutenant of this killer named Zarqawi who's ordering

the suiciders inside of Iraq. By the way,
''he was the fellow who was in Baghdad at times prior to our arrival. He was operating out of Iraq. He was an Al Qaeda associate.

See, he was there before we came. He's there after we came. And we'll find him.''.....

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...=&pagewanted=2
THE REACH OF WAR: THE INVESTIGATION; Leaders of 9/11 Panel Ask Cheney for Reports That Would Support Iraq-Qaeda Ties

By PHILIP SHENON AND RICHARD W. STEVENSON
Published: June 19, 2004

...Mr. Bartlett said Mr. Bush had no specific plans at the moment to revisit the issue in a speech, but that he would raise it

when he had the opportunity in coming weeks.

''We'll continue to talk about how Saddam Hussein was a threat, and his ties to terrorism, and we will not give an inch on what

we've said in the past,'' Mr. Bartlett said.

One outside adviser to the White House said the administration expected the debate over Iraq's ties to Al Qaeda to be ''a regular

feature'' of the presidential campaign.

''They feel it's important to their long-term credibility on the issue of the decision to go to war,'' the adviser said. ''It's

important because it's part of the overall view that Iraq is part of the war on terror. If you discount the relationship between

Iraq and Al Qaeda, then you discount the proposition that it's part of the war on terror. If it's not part of the war on terror,

then what is it -- some cockeyed adventure on the part of George W. Bush?'' ....

*

http://web.archive.org/web/200503061...on/9836140.htm
Posted on Mon, Oct. 04, 2004

CIA review finds no evidence Saddam had ties to Islamic terrorists

By Warren P. Strobel, Jonathan S. Landay and John Walcott

Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - A new CIA assessment undercuts the White House's claim that Saddam Hussein maintained ties to al-Qaida, saying

there's no conclusive evidence that the regime harbored Osama bin Laden associate Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

The CIA review, which U.S. officials said Monday was requested some months ago by Vice President Dick Cheney, is the latest

assessment that calls into question one of President Bush's key justifications for last year's U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

The new assessment follows the independent Sept. 11 commission's finding that there was no "collaborative relationship" between

the former Iraqi regime and bin Laden's terrorist network.

While intelligence officials cautioned that information about al-Zarqawi remains incomplete, Bush, Cheney and other top officials

have publicly made al-Zarqawi the linchpin of their contention that Saddam's Iraq had ties to al-Qaida. Questions about whether

the president and other officials overstated the intelligence about Iraq and omitted contradictory information and analysis are

now at the center of the campaign debate over Iraq policy.

Since the Sept. 11 commission's judgment in June, Bush and Cheney have repeatedly said that al-Zarqawi was an associate of bin

Laden and received safe haven from Saddam. But Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld backed away Monday from such claims,

apparently as a result of the new CIA assessment.

Bush and Cheney have charged that Saddam's regime allowed al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian native, to travel to Baghdad and to set up cells

of his Islamic terrorist network in the Iraqi capital. Al-Zarqawi is now a major figure who's directing part of the anti-U.S.

insurgency in Iraq. He has appeared in videos in which U.S. and other hostages are executed, often by beheading.

"Zarqawi's the best evidence of connection to al-Qaida affiliates and al-Qaida. He's the person who's still killing. He's the

person, remember the e-mail exchange between al-Qaida leadership and he himself about how to disrupt the progress toward freedom,"

Bush said in the Rose Garden in June.

Al-Zarqawi "was in and out of Baghdad. He ordered the killing of an American citizen from Baghdad - (U.S. Agency for International

Development official Laurence) Foley," Bush said Saturday in Ohio. "This is before ... we went in. Saddam Hussein had used weapons

of mass destruction. I understood - I understand today that the connection between weapons of mass destruction and the terrorist

network is the biggest threat we face."

According to a senior administration official and intelligence officials familiar with the review, at Cheney's request CIA

analysts spent several months reviewing new material gathered since Baghdad fell last year and re-examining earlier intelligence.

A U.S. official familiar with the new CIA assessment said intelligence analysts were unable to determine conclusively the nature

of the relationship between al-Zarqawi and Saddam.

"It's still being worked," he said. "It (the assessment) ... doesn't make clear-cut, bottom-line judgments" about whether Saddam's

regime was aiding al-Zarqawi.

He said the report contained new details of al-Zarqawi 's prewar activities in Iraq, including the arrests in late 2002 or early

2003 of three of his "associates" by the regime.

"This was brought to Saddam's attention and he ordered one of them released," he said, providing no further details.

"What is indisputable is that Zarqawi was operating out of Baghdad and was involved in a lot of bad activities," he said,

including ordering Foley's killing.

The report didn't conclude that Saddam's regime had provided "aid, comfort and succor" to al-Zarqawi, a senior administration

official said.

He added that there are now questions about earlier administration assertions that al-Zarqawi received treatment at a Baghdad

hospital in May 2002.

"The evidence is that Saddam never gave Zarqawi anything," another U.S. official said.

A congressional official said members of Congress had received an intelligence report in late August containing similar findings.

The officials who described the new assessment spoke on condition of anonymity because the matter is classified and because, as

one put it, "I don't want to get caught in the crossfire" between the White House and the CIA.

A CIA spokesman, Mark Mansfield, declined to comment on the subject or to confirm the existence of the new analysis.

The findings - delivered to Cheney last week - appear to put the Bush administration and the CIA on a collision course again over

intelligence regarding Iraq.

They could provide an early test of whether new CIA Director Porter Goss, a former Republican congressman, will protect his

analysts when they give conclusions that conflict with White House views or administration policy. In the past, some political

appointees have been angered by intelligence assessments that they thought undercut administration policy.

Rumsfeld appeared to refer to the new assessment during a public appearance Monday at which he also backed away from the

administration's broader claims that Saddam and al-Qaida were linked.

"To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two," Rumsfeld said during an appearance at the Council

on Foreign Relations, a Washington research center.

In September 2002, before the war, Rumsfeld had said the U.S. intelligence community had "bulletproof" evidence of such links.

Apparently referring to al-Zarqawi, the defense secretary said Monday: "I just read an intelligence report recently about one

person who's connected to al-Qaida who was in and out of Iraq and there's the most tortured description of why he might have had a

relationship and why he might not have had a relationship."

Officials said the highly classified document on al-Zarqawi was delivered to Bush, Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza

Rice and her deputy, Stephen Hadley.

There's no dispute that al-Zarqawi spent time in Iraq before the U.S. invasion, but virtually all that time was in a portion of

northeastern Iraq that wasn't under Saddam's control.

Some officials believe that Saddam's secular regime kept an eye on al-Zarqawi, an Islamic extremist, but didn't actively assist

him.

Al-Zarqawi 's ties to al-Qaida are in dispute. While he clearly shares much of al-Qaida's violent ideology and ran an al-Qaida

camp in Afghanistan, the Jordanian has his own organization, acts independently and hasn't sworn fealty to bin Laden.

Secretary of State Colin Powell, in his Feb. 5, 2003, presentation on Iraq to the U.N. Security Council, said al-Zarqawi went to

Baghdad in May 2002 for medical treatment and stayed two months, during which time nearly two dozen extremists converged on the

Iraqi capital and established a base there.

Al-Zarqawi originally was reported to have had a leg amputated, a claim that officials now acknowledge was incorrect.

Much of the prewar intelligence on al-Zarqawi is reported to have come from eavesdropping by Jordan's security services.

The Bush administration has clashed repeatedly with the CIA and other intelligence community agencies over Iraq and terrorism.

Soon after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Pentagon civilians set up a small intelligence cell whose mission was to prove

that there were links between al-Qaida and secular Arab regimes such as Saddam's.

The group's analysis was presented to then-CIA Director George Tenet and his analysts, who rejected it.

In recent weeks, administration partisans have sharply criticized the U.S. intelligence community for a new analysis that offers a

pessimistic outlook on Iraq's future. They've attacked one of the report's authors, National Intelligence Council official Paul

Pillar, by name and accused the CIA of trying to undermine the president.

Bush called the report, known as a National Intelligence Estimate, a "guess," but later amended his remarks to call it an

"estimate."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20041006.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Vice President
October 6, 2004

Remarks of Vice President Cheney and Senator Edwards in Vice Presidential Debate
Veale Center
Case Western Reserve University
Cleveland, Ohio

9:03 P.M. EDT

MODERATOR: Good evening from Case Western Reserve University's Veale Center, here in Cleveland, Ohio. I'm Gwen Ifill of the

NewsHour and Washington Week on PBS....

....Donald Rumsfeld said he has not seen any hard evidence of a link between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. Was this the fruit of a

report that you requested, that you received a week ago that showed there was no connection between Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and

Saddam Hussein?...

THE VICE PRESIDENT:....And he had an established relationship with al Qaeda, specifically look at George Tenet, the CIA

Director's, testimony before the Committee on Foreign Relations two years ago when he talked about the 10-year relationship....

... MODERATOR: You have 30 seconds.

SENATOR EDWARDS: Yes. Mr. Vice President, there is no connection between the attacks of September 11th and Saddam Hussein. The

9/11 Commission has said it, your own Secretary of State has said it. And you've gone around the country suggesting that there is

some connection. There's not. And, in fact, the CIA is now about to report that the connection between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein

is tenuous, at best. And, in fact, the Secretary of Defense said yesterday that he knows of no hard evidence of the connection. We

need to be straight with the American people. ....

.....We went into Afghanistan and very quickly the administration made a decision to divert attention from that, and instead began

to plan for the invasion of Iraq. And these connections -- and I want the American people to hear this very clearly -- listen

carefully to what the Vice President is saying, because there is no connection between Saddam Hussein and the attacks of September

11th, period. The 9/11 Commission has said that's true, Colin Powell has said it's true, but the Vice President keeps suggesting

that there is. There is not, and in fact any connection with al Qaeda is tenuous at best....

.....MODERATOR: Mr. Vice President, you have 90 seconds to respond.

VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: The Senator has got his facts wrong. I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11. But

there's clearly an established Iraqi track record with terror. And the point is that that's the place where you're most likely to

see the terrorists come together with weapons of mass destruction, the deadly technologies that Saddam Hussein had developed and

used over the years. ....

... MODERATOR: New question, similar topic, because I want to circle back to a question which I'm not quite certain we got an

answer to, but I will direct it to you first, Senator Edwards, which is the question of American intelligence. If the FSC report

that we read about today is true, and if Vice President Cheney ordered it and asked about this, do you think that in the future

that your administration, or the Bush administration, would have sufficient and accurate enough intelligence to be able to make

decisions about where to go next?

SENATOR EDWARDS: Well, let me speak first to what the Vice President just said, and then I'll answer that question.

This, unfortunately, what the Vice President is telling people is inconsistent with everything they see every, single day. It's a

continuation of where there's a strong connection between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. It's not true. It's a continuation of at

least insinuating that there's some connection between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein. It's not true. ....


....MODERATOR: Mr. Vice President.

VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: Gwen, the story that appeared today about this report is one I asked for. I ask an awful lot of questions.

That's part of my job as Vice President. A CIA spokesman was quoted in that story as saying they'd not yet reached the bottom line

and there's still debate over this question of the relationship between Zarqawi and Saddam Hussein. The report also points out

that at one point some of Zarqawi's people were arrested, Saddam personally intervened to have them released, supposedly at the

request of Zarqawi.

But let's look at what we know about Mr. Zarqawi. We know he was running a terrorist camp, training terrorists in Afghanistan

prior to 9/11. We know that when we went into Afghanistan that he then migrated to Baghdad. He set up shop in Baghdad, where he

oversaw the poisons facility up at Kurmal, where the terrorists were developing ricin and other deadly substances to use. We know

he's still in Baghdad today. He is responsible for most of the major car bombings that have killed or maimed thousands of people.

He's the one you will see on the evening news beheading hostages. He is, without question, a bad guy. He is, without question, a

terrorist. He was, in fact, in Baghdad before the war, and he's in Baghdad now after the war. The fact of the matter is that this

is exactly the kind of track record we've seen over the years. We have to deal with Zarqawi by taking him out, and that's exactly

what we'll do....

.... MODERATOR: Senator Edwards.

SENATOR EDWARDS: Well, the Vice President talks about there being a member -- or someone associated with al Qaeda in Iraq. There

are 60 countries who have members of al Qaeda in them. How many of those countries are we going to invade? Not only that, he talks

about Iran. The reality about Iran is Iran has moved forward with their nuclear weapons program on their watch. .....

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/09/politics/09intel.html
December 9, 2005
Qaeda-Iraq Link U.S. Cited Is Tied to Coercion Claim
By DOUGLAS JEHL

Editors' Note Appended

WASHINGTON, Dec. 8 - The Bush administration based a crucial prewar assertion about ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda on detailed

statements made by a prisoner while in Egyptian custody who later said he had fabricated them to escape harsh treatment, according

to current and former government officials.

The officials said the captive, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, provided his most specific and elaborate accounts about ties between Iraq

and Al Qaeda only after he was secretly handed over to Egypt by the United States in January 2002, in a process known as

rendition.

The new disclosure provides the first public evidence that bad intelligence on Iraq may have resulted partly from the

administration's heavy reliance on third countries to carry out interrogations of Qaeda members and others detained as part of

American counterterrorism efforts. The Bush administration used Mr. Libi's accounts as the basis for its prewar claims, now

discredited, that ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda included training in explosives and chemical weapons.

The fact that Mr. Libi recanted after the American invasion of Iraq and that intelligence based on his remarks was withdrawn by

the C.I.A. in March 2004 has been public for more than a year. But American officials had not previously acknowledged either that

Mr. Libi made the false statements in foreign custody or that Mr. Libi contended that his statements had been coerced.

A government official said that some intelligence provided by Mr. Libi about Al Qaeda had been accurate, and that Mr. Libi's

claims that he had been treated harshly in Egyptian custody had not been corroborated.

A classified Defense Intelligence Agency report issued in February 2002 that expressed skepticism about Mr. Libi's credibility on

questions related to Iraq and Al Qaeda was based in part on the knowledge that he was no longer in American custody when he made

the detailed statements, and that he might have been subjected to harsh treatment, the officials said. They said the C.I.A.'s

decision to withdraw the intelligence based on Mr. Libi's claims had been made because of his later assertions, beginning in

January 2004, that he had fabricated them to obtain better treatment from his captors.

At the time of his capture in Pakistan in late 2001, Mr. Libi, a Libyan, was the highest-ranking Qaeda leader in American custody.

A Nov. 6 report in The New York Times, citing the Defense Intelligence Agency document, said he had made the assertions about ties

between Iraq and Al Qaeda involving illicit weapons while in American custody....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...uAs&refer=home
Hussein's Prewar Ties To Al-Qaeda Discounted
Pentagon Report Says Contacts Were Limited

By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, April 6, 2007; Page A01

Captured Iraqi documents and intelligence interrogations of Saddam Hussein and two former aides "all confirmed" that Hussein's

regime was not directly cooperating with al-Qaeda before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, according to a declassified Defense Department

report released yesterday.

The declassified version of the report, by acting Inspector General Thomas F. Gimble, also contains new details about the

intelligence community's prewar consensus that the Iraqi government and al-Qaeda figures had only limited contacts, and about its

judgments that reports of deeper links were based on dubious or unconfirmed information. The report had been released in summary

form in February.....

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0060320-7.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
March 20, 2006

President Discusses War on Terror and Operation Iraqi Freedom
Renaissance Cleveland Hotel
Cleveland, Ohio

...THE PRESIDENT: That's a great question. (Applause.) First, just if I might correct a misperception. I don't think we ever said

-- at least I know I didn't say that there was a direct connection between September the 11th and Saddam Hussein. We did say that

he was a state sponsor of terror -- by the way, not declared a state sponsor of terror by me, but declared by other

administrations. <h3>We also did say that Zarqawi, the man who is now wreaking havoc and killing innocent life, was in Iraq</h3>.

And so the state sponsor of terror was a declaration by a previous administration. But I don't want to be argumentative, but I was

very careful never to say that Saddam Hussein ordered the attacks on America....

....Your question, however, the part that's really important is, how do we regain credibility when it comes to intelligence?......

....And so what I did was <h3>I called together the Silberman-Robb Commission</h3> -- Laurence Silberman and former Senator Chuck

Robb -- to take a full look at what went right and what went wrong on the intelligence, and how do we structure an intelligence

network that makes sure there's full debate among the analysts? How do we make sure that there's a full compilation of data points

that can help decision-makers like myself feel comfortable in the decision we make?....

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0060321-4.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
March 21, 2006

Press Conference of the President
James S. Brady Briefing Room

,,,THE PRESIDENT: I say that I'm talking realistically to people. We have a plan for victory and it's important we achieve that

plan. Democracy -- first of all, this is a global war on terror and Iraq is a part of the war on terror. Mr. Zarqawi and al Qaeda,

the very same people that attacked the United States, have made it clear that they want to drive us out of Iraq so they can plan,

plot, and attack America again. ,,,,

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20060821.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
<h3>August 21, 2006</h3>

Press Conference by the President
White House Conference Center Briefing Room

......Q Quick follow-up. A lot of the consequences you mentioned for pulling out seem like maybe they never would have been there

if we hadn't gone in. How do you square all of that?

THE PRESIDENT: I square it because, imagine a world in which you had Saddam Hussein who had the capacity to make a weapon of mass

destruction, who was paying suiciders to kill innocent life, who would --who had relations with Zarqawi.....

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...w092811D33.DTL
By JIM ABRAMS, AP Writer Fri Sep 8, 12:17 PM ET

WASHINGTON - There's no evidence
Saddam Hussein had a relationship with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his Al-Qaida associates, according to a Senate report on prewar

intelligence on
Iraq. Democrats said the report undercuts
President Bush's justification for going to war.....

.....It discloses for the first time an October 2005
CIA assessment that prior to the war Saddam's government "did not have a relationship, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi

and his associates."......

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0060912-2.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
<h3>September 12, 2006</h3>

Press Briefing by Tony Snow

...Q Well, one more, Tony, just one more. Do you believe -- does the President still believe that Saddam Hussein was connected to

Zarqawi or al Qaeda before the invasion?

MR. SNOW: The President has never said that there was a direct, operational relationship between the two, and this is important.

Zarqawi was in Iraq.

Q There was a link --

MR. SNOW: Well, and there was a relationship -- there was a relationship in this sense: Zarqawi was in Iraq; al Qaeda members were

in Iraq; they were operating, and in some cases, operating freely from Iraq. Zarqawi, for instance, directed the assassination of

an American diplomat in Amman, Jordan. But they did they have a corner office at the Mukhabarat? No. Were they getting a line item

in Saddam's budget? No. There was no direct operational relationship, but there was a relationship. They were in the country, and

I think you understand that the Iraqis knew they were there. That's the relationship.

<h2>Q Saddam Hussein knew they were there; that's it for the relationship?

MR. SNOW: That's pretty much it......</h2>

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14824384/site/newsweek/
Atta in Prague
The story that the ‘intelligence community’ doesn’t want you to hear.

WEB EXCLUSIVE
By Mark Hosenball
Newsweek
Updated: 7:48 p.m. ET Sept. 13, 2006

Sept. 13, 2006 - The claim that terrorist leader Mohamed Atta met in Prague with an Iraqi spy a few months before 9/11 was never

substantiated, but that didn’t stop the White House from trying to insert the allegation in presidential speeches, according to

classified documents.......

.......According to two sources familiar with the blacked-out portions of the Senate report that discuss the CIA cable's contents,

the document indicates that White House officials had proposed mentioning the supposed Atta-Prague meeting in a Bush speech

scheduled for March 14, 2003. Originated by Czech intelligence shortly after 9/11, the tendentious claim was that in April 2001,

Atta, the 9/11 hijack leader, had met in Prague with the local station chief for Iraqi intelligence. The sources said that upon

learning of the proposed White House speech, the CIA station in Prague sent back a cable explaining in detail why the agency

believed the anecdote was ill-founded.

According to one of the sources familiar with the Senate report's censored portions, who asked for anonymity due to the

sensitivity of the subject, the tone of the CIA cable was “strident” and expressed dismay that the White House was trying to

shoehorn the Atta anecdote into the Bush speech to be delivered only days before the U.S. invasion of Iraq. The source said the

cable also suggested that policymakers had tried to insert the same anecdote into other speeches by top administration

officials..........

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0060915-2.html
<h3>Sept. 15, 2006</h3>

......MARTHA: Mr. President, you have said throughout the war in Iraq and building up to the war in Iraq that there was a

relationship between Saddam Hussein and Zarqawi and al Qaeda. A Senate Intelligence Committee report a few weeks ago said there

was no link, no relationship, and that the CIA knew this and issued a report last fall. And yet a month ago, you were still saying

there was a relationship. Why did you keep saying that? Why do you continue to say that? And do you still believe that?

BUSH: The point I was making to Ken Herman’s question was that Saddam Hussein was a state sponsor of terror, and that Mr. Zarqawi

was in Iraq. He had been wounded in Afghanistan, had come to Iraq for treatment. He had ordered the killing of a U.S. citizen in

Jordan. <h2>I never said there was an operational relationship.....</h2>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...040601116.html

Cheney Sticks to His Delusions

By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Friday, April 6, 2007; 1:20 PM

Faced with overwhelming evidence to the contrary, even President Bush has backed off his earlier inflammatory assertions about

links between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.

But Vice President Cheney yesterday, in an interview with right-wing talk radio host Rush Limbaugh, continued to stick to

Cheney told Limbaugh that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was leading al-Qaeda operations in Iraq before the U.S. invasion in March 2003...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0070405-3.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Vice President
April 5, 2007

Interview of the Vice President by Rush Limbaugh, The Rush Limbaugh Show
Via Telephone

1:07 P.M. EDT

Q It's always a great privilege to have the Vice President, Dick Cheney, with us. Mr. Vice President, welcome once again to our

program.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, thank you, Rush. It's good to be back on......

.....Q It may not just be Iraq. Yesterday I read that Ike Skelton, who chairs -- I forget the name of the committee -- in the next

defense appropriations bill for fiscal '08 is going to actually remove the phrase "global war on terror," because they don't think

it's applicable. They want to refer to conflicts as individual skirmishes. But they're going to try to rid the defense

appropriation bill -- and, thus, official government language -- of that term. Does that give you any indication of their

motivation or what they think of the current plight in which the country finds itself?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Sure -- well, it's just flawed thinking. I like Ike Skelton; I worked closely with Ike when I was Secretary of

Defense. He's Chairman of the Armed Services Committee now. Ike is a good man. He's just dead wrong about this, though. Think

about -- <b>just to give you one example, Rush, remember Abu Musab al Zarqawi, a Jordanian terrorist, al Qaeda affiliate; ran a

training camp in Afghanistan for al Qaeda, then migrated -- after we went into Afghanistan and shut him down there, he went to

Baghdad, took up residence there before we ever launched into Iraq; organized the al Qaeda operations inside Iraq before we even

arrived on the scene,</b> and then, of course, led the charge for Iraq until we killed him last June. He's the guy who arranged

the bombing of the Samarra Mosque that precipitated the sectarian violence...

As you can read, in the preceding quote box, as recently as in April, 2007, Cheney was still claiming that al Zarqawi was the "al-Qaeda" link to Saddam's Iraq, long a totally disproved falsehood. Read the 2004 VP debate excerpt near the beginning of the post. John Edwards knew what Cheney was doing, and he told him to his face. Cheney kept spewing the same BS, for three more years. Soros's fortune and his political causes didn;t put all these quotes oin white house web pages, or influence the news reporting. Blatant lies, whether you leave the intellectual safety of your own world view, or not.

[aceventura3]

Host,

You no longer have to prove your case for "lies" or what I may call misstatements/exaggeration/ hyperbole. I am more interested in if those statements were material to Congressional support for the war, your support for the war or anyone's support for the war. Bush's speeches or his administration's appearances on Meet the Press had 0% influence on me.

I am also confused by the seeming desire by some to re-write history. Sure we took preemptive military action. But at least Bush had Congressional authority. Did Clinton when he bombed Iraq? Why do you give him a pass? He thought Sadaam was a threat.

CLINTON: Good evening.

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stori...s/clinton.html