Wasn't the 45 minute "speech" was more damaging than Niger.....?

[cthrumatrix]

If the Niger comments were bogus ..which it appears that the WH on some level has stated they "lied".

What about their continous mention of 45 minutes and "mushroom cloud". Why can't they ask about "misleading" the public in this area. A clear majority in the Congress/Senate said THIS was the main reason they let Bush have his way.

Where the hell is accountability ... they admit they don't read intelligence reports...but fight like hell to get their views of "imminent danger"... and they will "smear" anyone who get's in their way.

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. that is next

the 16 words are... just the tip of the iceberg

I encourage you to email your congress critter and
the press.

It is time to keep the pressure up, very much so.

[liberalnurse]

3. I live in a repug controlled area....

I am not sure it makes any difference. What do you think?

[displacedtexan]

4. you might be surprised

the no. 1 goal of repukes in congress is to get re-elected.

[tpub]

5. that's where it makes the most difference

there are probably plenty of people around you who are afraid to speak up or think, like you, that it might not make a difference. it does not hurt to try and you might find you have lots of company

[punpirate]

2. Actually, most of the people in Congress...

... cited the evidence of obtaining uranium from Niger as the sole most important reason for authorizing war (certainly the "mushroom cloud" metaphor contributed to the Niger claims), based on the fact that they were briefed on that during the House and Senate Intelligence Committee hearings. To them, that was the _prima facie_ evidence that corroborated the rest of the rather wild-assed claims. Graham confirmed a few months ago that much was made of the Iraq/Niger claim in those closed hearings.

Quite simply, Congress just rolled over. Bush sent his guys to shout "fire" in a crowded Congress, and then ushered all the scared legislators out through the door of the administration's choosing. Not many of them said, "wait a minute, I don't smell any smoke."

Virtually all the ostensible reasons given for war were bogus.

Cheers.

[AP]

6. The 45 minute claim was about chemical weapons, not nuclear.

Here's the kind of stuff you have to address (from Kelly's testimony to Parliament) if you want to address the vicissitudes of 45 minutes:

Q133 Richard Ottaway: In a throwaway line to a question just now you said you did have a view as to why weapons of
mass destruction were not used in 45 minutes. Would you like to elaborate on that?

Dr Kelly: I did not say I had a view as to why they were not used in 45 minutes, what I said was that I had a view
as to why weapons were not used during the conflict.

Q134 Richard Ottaway: What was that?

Dr Kelly: Basically early on in the war the weather conditions were such that you could not possibly consider the
use of chemical and biological weapons and later in the conflict command and control had collapsed to such a state
that you still would not be able to use them.

Q135 Richard Ottaway: So they could not have been deployed in 45 minutes?

Dr Kelly: That is a separate discussion as to what the 45 minutes means. Basically it would be very difficult to
see how Iraq could deploy in 45 minutes.

Q136 Richard Ottaway: The original statement was that "employed within 45 minutes" meant they could be got up to -
I think the word was - the utility within 45 minutes, which implied some sort of holding camp or base camp. Do you
agree with that?

Dr Kelly: I do not remember that statement being made, it does not actually make sense to me.

Q137 Richard Ottaway: You are quite an expert on this. Do you actually think that biological and chemical weapons
could have been deployed within 45 minutes?

Dr Kelly: It depends what you mean by "deployment".

Q138 Richard Ottaway: From Saddam Hussein saying "use them" to delivery on the battlefield, to actually being
fired at enemy troops, allied troops?

Dr Kelly: It makes a number of assumptions, that the weapons were all ready to go in the right place with whatever
system was being used with the right tracking to attack, and that is very unlikely. We are talking in terms of Iraq,
in terms of what we knew ten years ago, a country which filled its weapons to use them, it did not maintain a
stockpile of filled weapons, with the exception of mustard gas. It is actually quite a long and convoluted process
to go from having bulk agent and munitions to actually getting them to the bunker for storage and then issue them
and subsequently deploy them.

Q139 Richard Ottaway: Do you think on September 24 2002 there were weapons that could be deployed within 45
minutes?

Dr Kelly: I have no idea whether there were weapons or not at that time.

Q140 Richard Ottaway: Is it possible that that was not the case?

Dr Kelly: It is possible it was not the case, it is possible that there were weapons. Whether they were weapons
that could be deployed within 45 minutes is a separate issue.

Chairman: I think we are getting close to being outside the terms of reference.

Q141 Richard Ottaway: I am talking about the 45 minutes which was the central part of Mr Gilligan's report. My
final question is what sort of threat do you feel Iraq posed to the rest of the world in September 2002?

Dr Kelly: I think I would quote the dossier, that it was a serious and a current threat.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmselect/cmfaff/uc1025-i/uc102502.htm