What comes to light in the future will reveal flaws in what they thought they knew.

What’s ridiculous is the charge that Bush distorted reality to take us to war. It is the Ds who are distorting reality right now by forgetting what they said and believed. It’s so incredibly lame an argument it’s hard to believe anyone thinks it needs refuting.

What I find simply mind-boggling, is that no one in the Admin had doubts about the intel, that the “individuals” and “entire agencies” with “dissenting opinions” didnt reach Bush, Cheney, Powell, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Tenet. When it comes to ending or extending sanctions and bombing aspirin factories from 35K feet – its a no brainer; but, a preemptive war, dismantle a country, not to mention an islamic country, not to mention a centerpiece of struggle with the west? Sorry, “dissenting opinions” must have some worth. Were these dissenting opinions shared with the Congress? If not, how can ANYONE claim the Congress was looking at the same intel as the White House.

I want to know how far up the chain the intel went and who decided what intel was “reliable” and what was not.

I am tired of the naysayers exclaiming this is water over the dam, just move on, we have more important issues on our agenda. It is that philosophy that leads us down the road to war, time after time. If the Admin (meaning the Executive Branch) has too much wiggle room to start a war, we really need to reevaluate the govt (that would mean the weenies in Congress who gave away that power).

from http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/28/sotu.transcript/

Bush “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”

As Power Lunch reveals:

The report also said Wilson provided misleading information to The Washington Post last June [That would be June 2003 – since this report is dated July 2004]. He said then that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based on documents that had clearly been forged because “the dates were wrong and the names were wrong.”
“Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the ‘dates were wrong and the names were wrong’ when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports,” the Senate panel said. Wilson told the panel he may have been confused and may have “misspoken” to reporters. The documents — purported sales agreements between Niger and Iraq — were not in U.S. hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger [that would be 8 months after Feb 2002 or October 2002 before the Bush Jan 2003 SU Address].

By June 2004, the “Niger” junk mail was in the US for 8 months. What is interesting to note is that Wilson went to Niger NOT on the basis of the British documents received by US officials in october 2002, but on the basis of some other evidence that the CIA was privy too. You should read Henry Waxman’s synopsis (very partisan but offers up some striking questions):

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0306/S00270.htm

Power lunch forgot to mention that the Bush Admin immediately backpedaled on the 16 dribbles:
Condi on CNN 07/14/03
And a whole bivvy of other cuts:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bush's_16_words

Character assasination is really not worth the discussion. If you want to know the how, who, when and where – go straight to the horse’s mouth (taken with a truckload of salt):
http://www.politicsoftruth.com/

Read both sides – the truth usually lies somewhere in the middle.

Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.

You should read the Carnegie endowment report:

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1435&prog=zgp&proj=znpp

The unclassified July 2003 report on Iraq stated their were “dissenting opinions” within the govt especially regarding the aluminum tubes. “… entire agencies, not just some individuals, dissented on the aluminum tubes and on a number of other key issues.”

Off the Carnegie report look up Table 3 (nukes) for a broad summary.

Bush “Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.”

Well, being a monday morning quarterbacker – looks like Lucy did splain it to you Ricky.

Bush “The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary, he is deceiving.”

Deceive, yes. http://fas.org/news/un/iraq/s/990125/

Disarm. Err, yes, that too, with a little help from his friends.
http://www.seeingtheforest.com/archives/2005/11/for_the_record.htm

Dont forget our ol’ pal Hans Blix:
http://www.iraqwatch.org/un/unmovic/unmovic-blix-notes-121902.htm

And under the “say its not true” category:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/unmovic/2002/1222theft.htm

Bush “The dictator who is assembling the world’s most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or disfigured.”

“Assembling” being the operative word – NOT!

Bush “The United States will ask the U.N. Security Council to convene on February the 5th to consider the facts of Iraq’s ongoing defiance of the world. Secretary of State Powell will present information and intelligence about Iraqi’s — Iraq’s illegal weapons programs, its attempts to hide those weapons from inspectors and its links to terrorist groups.” and-

“We will consult, but let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm for the safety of our people, and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him.”

Let me see…
State of the Union January 28…
Invasion “started” March 19…
So we sanctioned the shit outta Iraq for 10+ years, bombed them, and then gave them 50 days to satisfy George W Bush?

Maybe Im cynical, but I dont think George was really going to “consult”.