Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Senate Finds Pre-War Bush Claims Exaggerated, False
WASHINGTON - Claims by U.S. President George W. Bush and other top administration officials before the 2003 invasion of Iraq regarding Baghdad's ties to al Qaeda and its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programmes were generally not supported by the evidence that the U.S. intelligence community had at the time, according to a major new report by the Senate Intelligence Committee released Thursday.
The long-awaited report, the last in a series published over the past several years by the committee, found that Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, in particular, frequently made assertions in the run-up to the war that key intelligence agencies could not substantiate or about which there was substantial disagreement within the intelligence community.
"In making the case for war, the administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent," the Committee chairman, Sen. Jay Rockefeller, said on releasing the 172-page report. "As a result, the American people were led to believe that the threat from Iraq was much greater than actually existed."
"There is no question we all relied on flawed intelligence," he added. "But, there is a fundamental difference between relying on incorrect intelligence and deliberately painting a picture to the American people that you know is not fully accurate."
The Committee also released a second report Thursday on a series of initially secret meetings in Rome and Paris between neo-conservative Pentagon officials and alleged Iranian dissidents, including a notorious Iranian arms dealer, Manucher Ghobanifar who played a key role in the so-called Iran-Contra affair of the mid-1980s.
The report found that the meetings, which also included another Iran-Contra player, Michael Ledeen of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), were authorised by then-Deputy National Security Advisor (currently National Security Adviser) Stephen Hadley and Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz who, it concluded, failed to keep relevant intelligence agencies and the State Department informed.
"The report found that the clandestine meetings...were inappropriate and mishandled from beginning to end" and that "senior Defence Department officials cut short internal investigations of the meetings..." after they became known, a press release issued by the committee stated.
Both reports were signed by 10 members of the Committee, including two Republicans, Sens. Olympia Snowe and Chuck Hagel. Five members -- all Republicans -- issued a strong dissent, arguing that the minority had been "entirely cut out of the process" and charging that the Democrats had "twisted policy makers' statements and cherry-picked the intelligence in order to reach their misleading conclusions." The ranking Republican on the committee, Sen. Christopher "Kit" Bond, called the report "political theatre".
The timing of the report's release, as well as its conclusions, however, is likely to fuel the ongoing political debate over the Iraq war at a critical moment in the presidential election campaign. This is particularly so with this week's securing of the Democratic nomination by Sen. Barack Obama, whose outspoken opposition to invading Iraq before the war is seen as a major reason for his victory over Sen. Hillary Clinton, who voted in favour of the Congressional authorisation to go to war in the fall of 2002.
Obama now faces Republican Sen. John McCain, who, as honourary chairman of the Committee to Liberate Iraq in the run-up to the invasion, not only endorsed the claims that were being made by Bush and Cheney at the time, but also helped to propagate them.
The new reports also tend to bolster the charges made in a new book by former White House spokesman Scott McClellan, a long-time Bush aide who was considered part of the president's inner circle during the same period.
"Bush and his advisers knew that the American people would almost certainly not support a war launched primarily for the ambitious purpose of transforming the Middle East," according to McClellan's memoir, 'What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception'.
"Over that summer of 2002, top Bush aides had outlined a strategy for carefully orchestrating the coming campaign to aggressively sell the war" in part through "innuendo and implication" and "intentional ignoring of intelligence" that contradicted or cast doubt on their justifications for going to war, McClellan wrote.
The book, which skyrocketed to the top of the best-seller list even before it was officially released, has drawn considerable media attention over the last two weeks.
The two new reports are the last to be issued by the Committee on the use of intelligence by the administration before the war. Last year, the same Committee issued a report on the administration's failure to heed warnings by the intelligence community, including two major reports by the National Intelligence Council (NIC), that an invasion of Iraq and its subsequent occupation would likely benefit al Qaeda, boost political Islam throughout the region, and give rise to possibly violent conflict between various sectarian and ethnic groups within Iraq -- all conclusions that were downplayed or ignored by senior administration officials at the time.
The latest report was focused on comparing statements made by top administration officials, particularly Bush and Cheney, between August 2002 and the actual invasion in March 2003 with intelligence reports that were available to them at the time.
It found that the White House consistently exaggerated ties between al Qaeda and Iraq by repeatedly suggesting or outright asserting that the two forged an operational relationship that included the provision of weapons training and possibly WMD expertise. The report found that these allegations "were not substantiated by the intelligence" at the time they were made.
The report also found that the intelligence also contradicted the White House's assertions that Saddam Hussein "was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attack against the United States."
And it said that the intelligence community never confirmed the allegation, made repeatedly by Cheney in particular, that one of the 9/11 organisers, Mohammed Atta, met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official in Prague several months before the attack.
"The president and his advisors undertook a relentless public campaign in the aftermath of the (9/11) attacks to use the war against al Qaeda as a justification for overthrowing Saddam Hussein," Rockefeller said. "Representing to the American people that the two had an operational partnership and posed a single, indistinguishable threat was fundamentally misleading and led the nation to war on false premises."
The intelligence community, according to the report, was also considerably more sceptical about the state of Iraq's chemical weapons programme and especially its alleged nuclear weapons programme than was indicated by top administration officials at the time. Testimony by then-Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld that the Iraqi government hid WMD in facilities buried deep underground did not reflect any of the intelligence held by the intelligence community at the time.
Jim Lobe's blog on U.S. foreign policy, and particularly the neo-conservative influence in the Bush administration, can be read at http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/.
© 2008 Inter Press Service

119 Comments so far
Show Allhttp://intelligence.senate.gov/080605/phase2a.pdf -- the Report
The most frightening thing about this is that it will come as news to too many people.
Wow. The sky is blue and grass is green.
This story and McClellan's book could be fine assets to Obama's campaign.
I'll just cut out a lot of crap here and reply with Cheney's words ....SO?
Tsk! Tsk! BAD boys...No supper for you tonight! But, you can watch TV and eat pretzels if you promise to never do this again!
But impeachment is still "off the table", right Nancy ?
The Senate couldn't find its ass if it was on fire.
george w. bush June 6th, 2008 12:05 pm
The Senate couldn't find its ass if it was on fire.
you do realize that its all scripted and they're just playing their role right? going thru the motions as it were. the entire once free world is all bought and owned and in the pocket of the Bush Crime Family. And until someone removes the head vampires head from the rest of his body the infection will only continue to spread. okay thats a bit satirical, but you get the gist. unless everyone has been bought off how can anyone explain how inept the congress has been?
I have to agree with some of the sentiment here. Issuing this report is meaningless unless the congress now presses forward with criminal charges.
One important point, if you take the title of this article and search for it in Google news, you will find that no papers ran this story. This is most often the case. Yes, viewers of Common Dreams see the story and maybe a few others but no 'mainstream' corporate media picks it up. So it can be claimed that the press reported the story, yet the public at large is kept ignorant.
This makes the report even less worthwhile. The congress publishes the report, its not disseminated to the public at large, so there will never be any pressure to act on the reports findings.
So, as no surprise to readers here, the media is not providing the watchdog function so desperately needed, but is instead merely a propaganda machine. In the U.S. the propaganda machine is pretty sophisticated. Think about it, we here, know about this report and we may blow of some steam about it. Yet the public at large has no idea whats going on so our outrage will not resonate with enough people to force action.
I have had a little success in turning people on to Common Dreams, I suppose we must increase our efforts to get people to log onto Common Dreams so that more people become aware of whats happening.
-RD
That horse left the barn a long time ago.
Look at those "innocent faces"..and Vader's pudgy little body. Sure hope "Bruce" in cell block D finds them just as appealing.
Well, I think all of the posters here pretty much have summed up the discussion. I agree.
It's not dangerous to us if Cheney says, "So?"
It IS dangerous to us if sufficient numbers of voters do. And, as of now, the churches are full of such people who will do exactly that because they STILL see abortion as the only issue. They LOVE McCain for his promise to appoint more in the mold of Roberts and Alito. Everything (EVERY THING) else is "So?".
These are the people who must be swayed by convincing them that 25-year beer dealers are not "family values" people and that "God cannot possibly be calling them to vote for the McCains" as a result.
Obama-lovers,
What is your dream candidate doing about this? NOTHING. Furthermore,
What has he done to bring the Bush-regime to accountability? NOTHING
What has he done to stop funding the illegal war? NOTHING.
What has he done to stop pandering to colonial, racist and genocidal Israel? NOTHING.
Want my vote? Dream on.
Start here ...
http://www.prosecutionofbush.com/video.php
I agree. Let's see if this wakes up the voters. The Repugs sure managed to stall the report's issuance long enough.
I don't think Obama's masters will let him address this issue. It would detract from his scandalous conduct at AIPAC where he figuratively kissed their ___ and dropped to his knees and offered a ________.
McCain will ignore the report as well.
What else have the illustrious senators 'found' - lately? That the earth is not flat perhaps....
Perhaps more importantly; What have people 'found' out about their senators???
"claims exaggerated? misleading? unsubstantiated? flawed intelligence? incorrect? not fully accurate? contradictory? innuendo and implication?
How about lying to commit mass murder and war profiteering?
Why can't there be more pundits, newies, and poiticos with GUTS like Keith Olberman and call a LIE a LIE!!!
There were 5 Republicans who tried to suppress this report.
I know 3 names...
Senator Christopher Bond of Missouri
Saxby Chambliss, of Georgia
Orin Hatch of Utah
Who were the other two?
And imo these particular Republicans look like traitors. They are hiding crimes that have been committed against the US ...namely the lies of the bush administration used to send the US into a war for profit for some of the corporations.
Two Republicans, Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine supported the committee report. They are good Americans.
Impeach, indict, imprison...it's pretty f&%$#g simple!
Citizen1,
Obama, including yourself and all of us on Common Dreams have done nothing to politically stop Bush because, Bush ignores everyone who is against his policies.
Only a new president who has a chance to win can do anything to change.
Now since it is obvious that only Obama is the candidate left in the race who has the guts to oppose any of this and the willingness to listen and learn, he is our best shot.
It is time for solidarity if you want change! Instead, you sound like you will vote for helping keep the same and make it worse, and if McSame wins, you can blame yourself and the rest of our budding political scabs who spout the same crap.
Who do you love who has got a chance for change and a chance to win?
And now Bush is recycling Bush's lies replacing the word "Iraq" with "Iran". Sadly, 75% of Americans favor invading Iran based on these lies.
Pete Seeger: "When will they ever learn?".
Winston Churchill: "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.".
of course, the really interesting article is about McCain's knowledge of the deception as he promoted the invasion.
Ken,
Here is another good one:
Even though you can't expect to defeat the absurdity of the world, you must make that attempt. That's morality, that's religion. That's art. That's life.
Phil Ochs
Come On "Bush Crime Family"
Give me a break . . . . This corporate and Corporate Profit at work.
so what this report and so many others here are saying is that the United Nations stance that the US should not invade Iraq (for the second time) was in effect the correct one given the US's reason's presented to the U.N. for the justification of the invasion...this is important to note..whilst worrying about protecting democracy...that in effect the United Nations..that much maligned organisation...maligned by the US (it's again important to note not the rest of the world)..actualy had the US's best interests at heart when it was arriving at it's collective democratic decision...
"Two Republicans, Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine supported the committee report. They are good Americans."
No they're not Hagel was the first to be elected to office through manipulated electronic voting years ago, and Snow has not done all she can to expose the criminality of the Bush regime. Yeah they voted for the report, and they are both up for re-selection.
This "report", should have come out 4 years ago, and we'd be looking at John Kerry's second term starting next January.
Citizen1, how about offering something constructive? All you do is rant and criticize people who post here...what are you FOR?
Casualties in Iraq
The Human Cost of Occupation
Edited by Margaret Griffis :: Contact
American Military Casualties in Iraq
Date
Total
In Combat
American Deaths
Since war began (3/19/03): 4092 3333
Since "Mission Accomplished" (5/1/03) (the list)
3953
3225
Since Capture of Saddam (12/13/03): 3631 3027
Since Handover (6/29/04): 3233 2700
Since Election (1/31/05): 2655 2437
American Wounded Official Estimated
Total Wounded: 30333 23000 - 100000
Ken Mitchell----
I don't know where you got Churchill as the source of that quote on history, but it is generally attributed to George Santayana, and the word "condemned" is substituted for "doomed."
As for something like 70 percent of Americans favoring an attack on Iran, not only are they condemning themselves to repeat history but they are condemning the entire planet. There is no militaristice solution in Iraq, and no militaristic solution for Israeli interests in our attacking Iran. You don't like $4 gas? Try $10 gasoline, or not even enough gas to mow your frigging lawn. All for the aggrandizement of our "War President." Bush is an economic Terrorist and a Serial Liar. Impeach.
-30-
Obama's VP needs to be part Judge Roy Bean and part Vlad The Impaler to clean up this mess.
Impeach!
It's amazing how slow the Senate is. They are JUST NOW finding this out? Gee whiz. So many of us have known for years that it was BS. It was confirmed in the Downing Street memos as well. Any intelligent person should have known that bush was not a viable candidate for president after it was discovered that Iraq had no WMD. At that point the entire war was a sham and the US stood embarassed before the world. bush should have been immediately impeached and tried for waging a war of aggression.
Instead, 62,040,610 FOOLS went out and cast a vote for him.
Most still think voting for him was a good idea. Of course, those are people that most likely couldn't even spell the name of the town they live in.
The cost of the war is up to $526,016,525,214. Since 62,040,610 people voted for the war in 2004, they should each be sent a "War Bill" for $8,478.58 (the amount of American taxpayer money they have wasted) and be sent a monthly bill thereafter for "War Cost". That'll clear up the debt right away. Furthermore, anyone that voted for the bush/Cheney ticket in 2004 (male or female) that is of age to serve in the military should be immediately conscripted into service and sent to Iraq. All their names are on record so they can be located and drafted easily.
It's time to start holding people accountable. Since there's no accountability at the top we'll just use the trickle down effect. I'm tired of paying for other people's stupidity.
What a bunch of goddamn dolts. They should be prosecuted. It is utterly inexcusable that 100 senators can be so incompetent - more than a million dead, a trillion dollars wasted...Oops?
I do not recommend violent revolution. But it would put a smile on my face.
Actually, a total economic and political collapse is looming - and I reckon it a good thing. Nothing will change in this country until there is no money left to pay the pigs of Homeland Security and the pigs of the local militarized police forces.
Only when the money is gone and the pigs stay home will people be allowed to rebuild a new society. Between now and the collapse, we can expect nothing but social repression and continued government criminality.
So do all you can to hasten the coming collapse. There is no other way out of this horrible mess.
Senate Finds Pre-War Bush Claims Exaggerated, False
If this is not an impeachable offence than what is.....
Why was Bill Clinton nearly impeached over ML case. I guess it ok to lie and kill people as long as you are a Republican.
Maybe the we need to apologise to President Nixon for the watergate. Compared to these guys he was a saint....
Accountability is only for those of us that can be held accountable. Impeachment seems to be the answer but no one seems to enlighten us with where, when and how? I have written to all of the U.S. Senators in my State and all I get back are canned answers.
TheLorax, I love the way you think!
CITIZEN 1; YOU SOUND LIKE THAT OTHER BUNCH OF A-HOLES THAT WE'VE BEEN HEARING SPOUT LIES AND INUENDO (BUSH, CHENEY ET AL) FOR 8 YEARS. YOU PROBABLY NEVER HAD AN ORIGINAL THOUGHT IN YOUR FEEBLE MIND. ROCK OFF, BUE!!!!!
Jim Glover June 6th, 2008 12:59 pm
"... because, Bush ignores everyone who is against his policies...."
Congress ignores people like me because they are accountable to big money, corporations and the Israeli lobby. Therefore Bush can afford to ignore me/us.
"..Only a new president who has a chance to win can do anything to change.."
Aren't you confusing two separate issues? Of course Obama has the chance to win. But a totally separate issue is, based on what he has done and said so far, what is the chance that he will do the right thing? ZERO. Some people say that once he is elected he will do the right thing. Call me a skeptic but this doesn't wash with me. We can call ourself lucky if a politician keeps half the promises he/she makes before getting elected. And you are suggesting that after being elected Obama will do the "right thing"? As I said before, dream on...
=============================================
#
baruch June 6th, 2008 1:54 pm
"Citizen1, how about offering something constructive? All you do is rant and criticize people who post here…what are you FOR?"
Good question. First of all, I am trying to expose the reality, which is: the Democratic Party (together with its candidates) is the problem, and not the solution. Take Bill Clinton's 8 years and the following 8 years of the Dems as the "opposition party" (you note I put it in quotes). Nothing, I repeat, nothing, that has happened during the Bush regime could have happened without the Dems' complicity. That's one reason why Bush will not be held accountable. So I am FOR helping others see the reality.
Next, not supporting the problem (both the dems and the repubs) is what I am FOR. You may say we do not have an alternative. Of course if you don't ask for an alternative you'll never get one. So I am FOR supporting (almost) any candidate other than from the two parties.
Wake up. The establishment (that's the DemRepub Party, the Congress-military-industrial-complex, and the Israeli lobby) wants you to think that you do not have an alternative. I am FOR creating that alternative - by supporting any candidate that goes against the two party system. If you all, instead of criticizing me, stopped supporting the Dems (= complicit party) then we might have an alternative.
So, what are you FOR? For continued support of the complicit party, in spite o f the overwhelming evidence?
ROCKIN ROB June 6th, 2008 3:05 pm
Not worth responding..... (however, if you can read, read my previous post)
Oh, by the way, every country gets the government it deserves. Your message supports the above statement.
Salman - "Why was Bill Clinton nearly impeached over ML case. I guess it ok to lie and kill people as long as you are a Republican."
Clinton didn't have all those massive groups behind him that Bush has - like the ones keeping us from hearing anything in the media about what's going on.
Rene. This is the type of article that the citizens of "The Excited States of Paranoia" should send to everyone in thier mailbox! Ron.
This is a list of Republicans that I consider traitorous.
They are the ones who tried to suppress the report about the lies used to send the US into a war of choice:
Christopher Bond, Missouri, up in 2010;
Richard Burr, North Carolina, up in 2010;
Saxby Chambliss, Georgia, up in 2008;
Orrin Hatch, Utah, up in 2012; and
John Warner, Virginia, up in 2008 (not seeking reelection)
The Downing Street Memo was released when? In 2002. It stated categorically, that the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.
Jay Rockefeller and all of the reticent and complicit bastards, these so called representatives in Washington can shove that 172-page report right up their kester.
These people are as usless as tits on a bull.
Rene and Ron R
The NY Times ran an editorial about this Senate Report today
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/06/opinion/06fri1.html?
The Truth About the War
and if you get a chance take a look at reader's comments...almost every comment could appear here at CommonDreams
The criticism many had is that the Times stopped short of calling for impeachment...
And, the action the Senate is taking is .....?
Lying to lead the country into war is one of many items that have been listed as impeachable offenses. And the Senate, especially the Senate Democrats are doing exactly what? Especially given that they all publicly took oaths to uphold and defend the Constitution. So, the Senate is doing exactly what about this?
Nothing new here that we don't already know... In fact, the report downplays the actions of the Bush administration and doesn't call it as it is... one big LIE... not an unintentional misuse of intelligence, or faulty intelligence... it was LIES... plain and simple. No amount of language legerdemain is going to make any difference to the facts.
Obama is on record as saying he's against impeachment. In the article I found, he specifically said that he thought impeachment should be reserved for 'serious offenses'. Given that the Downing St memo came out years before this statement, its interesting that Mr. Obama doesn't regard lying to start an illegal war, which leads to death of more Americans than who died on 9-11 and the deaths of probably hundreds of thousands if not millions of other people .... as a 'serious offense'.
Maybe this official Senate report would make him change that stance, but I'm not holding my breath. Obama's been fully on board and supportive of this war since joining the Senate.
All of which makes me curious why people think 'a new President' is going to do anything about this. I can't think of any statement Obama has made where he promises to take criminal legal action against anyone who's involved.
So, what you'll see with a new President ...
-- there will be some token withdrawals of troops.
-- Obama has promised that American troops will still be in Iraq at the end of this term, so its a certainty that we won't totally withdraw.
-- Obama will keep us fighting in Iraq, but with somewhere between 35,000 and 70,000 troops (instead of the current 140,000). The bloodshed will continue. But with fewer troops what we'll see is increasing air attacks which means greater indiscriminate killing of civilians will increase.
-- Obama's only criticism of current policy is that we should be fighting more in other places around the middle east. He repeatedly uses the Democratic language of fighting on the wrong battlefield. So, expect the troops withdrawn from Iraq to be fighting in Afghanistan or Pakistan or maybe Iran.
-- Obama will make lots of pretty speaches that sound great but which do nothing to change any of the above.
Since the economy is bound to the war... and since no elected officials are putting a stop to this tomorrow... I think we should form a townhall meeting to discuss how to put the brakes on the wartime economy.
I suggest we hold the meeting in our cars on our interstate highway system during morning rush hour. Just pull up to the fast lane, and the next lane, and the next lane.... put your car in park and we will call the meeting to order.
fakedemocracy June 6th, 2008 4:09 pm.... Now, there is one hell of an idea!
Passive resistance. Shut down the whole MACHINE before it shuts us down.