Fred Thompson knew too -- and didn't say anything

[donsu]

Fred was a member of the Sen. Intel. Comm.

http://counterpunch.com/zeese05022007.html


Democratic Senators Knew the Iraq War was Built on Lies -- Did Nothing, Said Nothing

Durbin Gives Edwards More to Apologize For


-long snip-

The same questions come up for former Senator Fred Thompson the potential Republican candidate. He has not made any apology for his vote for the war -- a vote based on information he knew was false. Indeed, his current view on the war is that it is wrong to set a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq because he believes that the U.S. should leave on "our terms and not al-Qaeda's." Talk about bad judgment!

Last week I participated in a dramatic demonstration in the Senate Hart office building. The demonstration had several parts, ending with a ceremonial "Funeral for the Next Soldier." Two banners were dropped one was a message to Congress about their failure to hold President Bush accountable and their failure to end the war. Now, it seems the sign also applies to their failure to stop the war from starting:

YOUR SILENCE
YOUR LEGACY
----------------------------

[indepat]

1. And MF Thompson voted to convict Clinton on some of the articles of impeachment so that

makes MF Thompson a hypocrite of the highest magnitude imo.

[Clark2008]

2. And I don't suspect we're voting for him around here, either.

The point is that DEMOCRATS knew Bush was lying and they still voted for it. I don't care what the Republicans did. I'm not voting for them. Their base should hold them accountable.

[FrenchieCat]

3. Well, if Fred Thompson runs, that "should" be a question for him.....

What did he know, and when did he know it?...however, I don't expect any type of an honest answer from him....after all he was and is a Republican who supported the President to the hilt.

[Adelante]

4. Yes, that headline is unfair

There were two parties represented on that committee.

[donsu]

5. agree

nt

[TwilightGardener]

6. Of course Fred Thompson is a craven neocon asshole...is that a surprise?

The Dems may have blown it back then, but at least they are trying to stop the war now.

[Czolgosz]

7. What - exactly - did Fred know? What are the evidence and facts we are talking about? Why should

Fred have known "the Iraq was was built on lies"?

[TwilightGardener]

8. The point is that everyone on the Intelligence Committee should

have figured out that the intelligence to invade Iraq wasn't there--everyone here is bashing Dems for not stopping the war. The Republicans didn't either. That's pretty much the point. I don't think anyone really gives a rat's ass about FT--not even sure why he is brought up here.

[Czolgosz]

9. The committee should have figured it out based on what exactly?

[TwilightGardener]

10. Read all the Dick Durbin threads that have everybody all up in arms

here--I'm not interested enough to do so. Everyone is looking back to see who else is to blame for us going to war, after the Tenet book came out--I really don't care.

[Czolgosz]

11. I have. I cannot find the facts, evidence, or details in any of them.

[TwilightGardener]

12. What I gleaned from passing thru them is that Durbin made a "confession"

recently that everyone in the Senate Intelligence Committee was aware that the pre-war intelligence was bogus or insufficient. Durbin ended up voting against IWR, while Edwards, Rockefeller and others voted FOR it, apparently going along with what they knew was a shoddy reason to go to war. That's my take on it.

[FrenchieCat]

13. Here.....

Durbin says public was lied to about Iraq
WASHINGTON, April 27 (UPI) -- U.S. Sen. Richard J. Durbin, D-Ill., said on the floor of the Senate that he knew the American public was being misled in the run-up to the war in Iraq.
Durbin said he kept quiet because of his position on the Senate Intelligence Committee, The Washington Times reported.

"The information we had in the Intelligence Committee was not the same information being given to the American people. I couldn't believe it," Durbin said Wednesday.

"I was angry about it. (But) frankly, I couldn't do much about it because, in the Intelligence Committee, we are sworn to secrecy. We can't walk outside the door and say the statement made yesterday by the White House is in direct contradiction to classified information that is being given to this Congress."
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2007/04/27/durbin_says_public_was_lied_to_about_iraq/

---------------------
also...

Durbin: Intelligence Committee Knew the Administration lied About Iraq War
April 28 (EIRNS)--
Senator Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) told the Senate in a floor speech on April 25, that the classified information that the Senate Intelligence Committee, which he was a member of, was being given on Iraq in 2002 "was not the same information being given to the American people." At the time, he said, "Members of this administration were in active, heated debate over whether aluminum tubes really meant that the Iraqis were developing nuclear weapons. Some in the administration were saying, of course not, it's not the same kind of aluminum tube; at the same time, members of the administration were telling the American people to be fearful of mushroom-shaped clouds."
http://www.larouchepac.com/pages/breaking_news/2007/04/28/durbin.shtml

written in 2003:
Why are the thugs in the White House upset with Durbin? Because he told the truth about the uranium lie: the CIA had warned the White House that the Niger document was probably forged, but the White House went ahead and included it in Bush's speech anyway. (See: "Senator Accuses White House of Retaliation")

It doesn't matter that the White House has now been forced to admit that Durbin was right (See: "Bush Aides Disclose Warnings from the CIA"). Durbin embarrassed the White House by exposing their lie, and for that they are wreaking their thuggish revenge.
snip
Durbin is showing true grit. Not only is he condemning the efforts to have him removed from the Senate Intelligence Committee for telling the truth, he is calling for an investigation into the Bush Cartel outing of the CIA agent who specializes in WMD intelligence gathering.
http://www.buzzflash.com/editorial/03/07/23.html


Also:
http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/presspol/research_publications/papers/working_papers/2004_6.pdf
http://www.iraqsnuclearmirage.com/Serialization.html
http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iraq/IraqAluminumTubes12-5-03.pdf
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/wmdgate/FMJ_RedTeam.htm
http://edschultz.invisionzone.com/index.php?showtopic=27440
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/4/28/5550/66698
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2003_cr/s072203.html

[Czolgosz]

14. Exactly. Durbin says "The information we had in the Intelligence Committee was not the same

information being given to the American people. I couldn't believe it."

What extra information is he talking about?

What is his reason for not believing it?

What is the reason why we should believe that Senators Rockefeller (D-WV), Feinstein (D-CA), Bayh (D-IN), Edwards (D-NC) plus Representatives Bishop (D-GA), Harman (D-CA), Roemer (D-IN), Boswell (D-IA), Peterson (D-MN), and Cramer (D-AL) participated in a bad faith cover up instead of believing that they mistakenly gave the benefit of the doubt to Gen. Powell and the rest of the advisers who were providing that information to the committee?





Similarly, Durbin says "I was angry about it. (But) frankly, I couldn't do much about it because, in the Intelligence Committee, we are sworn to secrecy. We can't walk outside the door and say the statement made yesterday by the White House is in direct contradiction to classified information that is being given to this Congress."

What explanation has Durbin given about why he had to keep quiet about this "lie" he's been living with for four years and what specifically changed in the past month which freed him from his oath of secrecy which was so important that he kept quiet while over 3,000 US soldiers and almost a thousand times that many Iraqi civilians have been killed?

[FrenchieCat]

18. Read about the Aluminum Tubes, which I provided quite a few links

in reference to this.

That is just one specific....to which Durbin made statements about back in 2003......in where the CIA intelligence on this was mixed, but what was told the American people is that this was one of the indicators that Saddam had resumed his nuclear program. How do you think the whole Plame case came about? :shrug:

Read about the NIE--
http://yglesias.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/11/11/131029/55

In the late summer of 2002, Graham had requested from Tenet an analysis of the Iraqi threat. According to knowledgeable sources, he received a 25-page classified response reflecting the balanced view that had prevailed earlier among the intelligence agencies--noting, for example, that evidence of an Iraqi nuclear program or a link to Al Qaeda was inconclusive. Early that September, the committee also received the DIA's classified analysis, which reflected the same cautious assessments. But committee members became worried when, midway through the month, they received a new CIA analysis of the threat that highlighted the Bush administration's claims and consigned skepticism to footnotes. According to one congressional staffer who read the document, it highlighted "extensive Iraqi chem-bio programs and nuclear programs and links to terrorism" but then included a footnote that read, "This information comes from a source known to fabricate in the past." The staffer concluded that "they didn't do analysis. What they did was they just amassed everything they could that said anything bad about Iraq and put it into a document."

Graham and Durbin had been demanding for more than a month that the CIA produce an NIE on the Iraqi threat--a summary of the available intelligence, reflecting the judgment of the entire intelligence community--and toward the end of September, it was delivered. Like Tenet's earlier letter, the classified NIE was balanced in its assessments. Graham called on Tenet to produce a declassified version of the report that could guide members in voting on the resolution. Graham and Durbin both hoped the declassified report would rebut the kinds of overheated claims they were hearing from administration spokespeople. As Durbin tells TNR, "The most frustrating thing I find is when you have credible evidence on the intelligence committee that is directly contradictory to statements made by the administration."

On October 1, 2002, Tenet produced a declassified NIE. But Graham and Durbin were outraged to find that it omitted the qualifications and countervailing evidence that had characterized the classified version and played up the claims that strengthened the administration's case for war.

[Czolgosz]

19. I know about aluminum tubes. As you say, "the CIA intelligence on this was mixed." If the

intelligence was "mixed" who gets to say whether err on this side or that side of the debate based upon mixed evidence?

Moreover, the whole aluminum tube nonsense was debunked in 2002 and this debunking became widely disseminated in early 2003. See http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iraq/al_tubes.html

It is not as if there was only one side of the debate regarding aluminum tubes and only members of the select intelligence committee had access to the widely doubted aluminum tube bullshit that Bush blathered on about.

Your excerpt says "Graham called on Tenet to produce a declassified version of the report that could guide members in voting on the resolution. Graham and Durbin both hoped the declassified report would rebut the kinds of overheated claims they were hearing from administration spokespeople." Well guess what? Graham had his reservations BUT HE NEVERTHELESS VOTED FOR THE CONDITIONAL AUTHORITY FOR THE WAR IF THE DIPLOMACY FAILED.

Clearly, the Democrats who sat on the select intelligence committees were skeptical (as they should have been - I wish they had been more skeptical) but they made their best judgment at the time based on all the information they had (not just based the overheated aluminum tube nonsense which had already been debunked).

Sen. Rockefeller is a good Democrat who sat on the select intelligence committee with Sen. Durbin, and Rockefeller nevertheless reached the opposite judgment from Durbin. You can read Rockefeller's floor statements for yourself (I'll highlight some significant parts if you don't want to read the whole thing):

Mr. President, we are here today to debate one of the most difficult decisions I have had to make in my 18 years in the Senate. There is no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein is a despicable dictator, a war criminal, a regional menace, and a real and growing threat to the United States. The difficulty of this decision is that while Saddam Hussein represents a threat, each of the options for dealing with him poses serious risks, to America’s servicemembers, to our citizens, and to our role in the world.

It is clear that none of the options that confront us is easy or risk free.

For all of us, the upcoming vote on this critical issue will reflect our best judgment on which path will minimize the risk to our fellow Americans -- because we all know that the risk cannot be eliminated. And that judgment will, in turn, depend on a complex interaction of many factors, some of which we do not know and perhaps cannot know.

It is clear that military operations against Saddam Hussein, of the sort that are being discussed, pose serious risks, and we should all admit that. Any military campaign runs very serious risks to our servicemembers. On paper we surely have an overwhelming advantage against Saddam Hussein -- in the skill, technology, and, of course, dedication of our armed forces.

We defeated Saddam quickly and conclusively in 1991, and in the decade since, our force effectiveness has improved dramatically, while many of Saddam’s capabilities have deteriorated.

But a new battle against Saddam Hussein, if it comes to that, will be a different and more difficult battle. U.S. victory might be quick and painless -- one hopes so. But it might not. The American people need to know that a war against Saddam will have high costs, including loss of American lives.

Our confident assertions that Saddam Hussein will quickly be deposed by his own people have, in the past, been too optimistic. Presumably Saddam Hussein will be more determined to use all the weapons and tactics in his arsenal if he believes our ultimate goal is to remove him from power.

The Administration assures us our troops have equipment and uniforms that will protect them from that risk, should it arise. We can only hope to God they are right.

We also have to acknowledge that any military operations against Saddam Hussein pose potential risks to our own homeland, too. Saddam’s government has contact with many international terrorist organizations that likely have cells here in the United States.

Finally, we also need to recognize that should we go to war with Iraq, it could have a serious impact on America’s role in the world, and the way the rest of the world responds to American leadership.

We are told that if Saddam Hussein is overthrown, American soldiers will be welcomed into Baghdad with liberation parades. That may be true; in fact, the people who have suffered most at Saddam’s hands are his own citizens.

But for many people around the world, an American-led victory over Saddam would not be a cause for celebration.

No matter how strong our case, there will inevitably be some who will see U.S.-led action against Iraq as a cause for concern.

At its most extreme, that concern feeds the terrorist paranoia that drives their mission to hurt America. We can affect how deep that sentiment runs by how we conduct ourselves, whether we work with allies, whether we show ourselves to be committed to the reconstruction of Iraq and to reconciliation with the Arab world. But we ignore it at our peril!

So, clearly there are many risks associated with the resolution we are considering today.

But it is equally clear that doing nothing and preserving the status quo also pose serious risks. Those risks are less visible, and their time frame is less certain. But after a great deal of consultation and soul-searching, I have come to the conclusion that the risks of doing nothing -- for our citizens and for our nation -- are too great to bear.

There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.

When Saddam Hussein obtains nuclear capabilities, the constraints he feels will diminish dramatically, and the risk to America’s homeland, as well as to America’s allies, will increase even more dramatically. Our existing policies to contain or counter Saddam will become irrelevant.

Americans will return to a situation like that we faced in the Cold War, waking each morning knowing we are at risk from nuclear blackmail by a dictatorship that has declared itself to be our enemy. Only, back then, our communist foes were a rational and predictable bureaucracy; this time, our nuclear foe would be an unpredictable and often irrational individual, a dictator who has demonstrated that he is prepared to violate international law and initiate unprovoked attacks when he feels it serves his purposes to do so.

The global community -- in the form of the United Nations -- has declared repeatedly, through multiple resolutions, that the frightening prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam cannot come to pass. But the U.N. has been unable to enforce those resolutions. We must eliminate that threat now, before it is too late.

But this isn’t just a future threat. Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East.

And he could make those weapons available to many terrorist groups which have contact with his government, and those groups could bring those weapons into the U.S. and unleash a devastating attack against our citizens. I fear that greatly.

We cannot know for certain that Saddam will use the weapons of mass destruction he currently possesses, or that he will use them against us. But we do know Saddam has the capability. Rebuilding that capability has been a higher priority for Saddam than the welfare of his own people -- and he has ill-will toward America.

I am forced to conclude, on all the evidence, that Saddam poses a significant risk.

Some argue it would be totally irrational for Saddam Hussein to initiate an attack against the mainland United States, and they believe he would not do it. But if Saddam thought he could attack America through terrorist proxies and cover the trail back to Baghdad, he might not think it so irrational.

If he thought, as he got older and looked around an impoverished and isolated Iraq, that his principal legacy to the Arab world would be a brutal attack on the United States, he might not think it so irrational. And if he thought the U.S. would be too paralyzed with fear to respond, he might not think it so irrational.

Saddam has misjudged what he can get away with, and how the United States and the world will respond, many times before. At the end of the day, we cannot let the security of American citizens rest in the hands of someone whose track record gives us every reason to fear that he is prepared to use the weapons he has against his enemies.

As the attacks of September 11 demonstrated, the immense destructiveness of modern technology means we can no longer afford to wait around for a smoking gun. September 11 demonstrated that the fact that an attack on our homeland has not yet occurred cannot give us any false sense of security that one will not occur in the future. We no longer have that luxury.

September 11 changed America. It made us realize we must deal differently with the very real threat of terrorism, whether it comes from shadowy groups operating in the mountains of Afghanistan or in 70 other countries around the world, including our own.

There has been some debate over how "imminent" a threat Iraq poses. I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat, but I also believe that after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. It is in the nature of these weapons, and the way they are targeted against civilian populations, that documented capability and demonstrated intent may be the only warning we get. To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? We cannot!

The President has rightly called Saddam Hussein’s efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction a grave and gathering threat to Americans. The global community has tried but failed to address that threat over the past decade. I have come to the inescapable conclusion that the threat posed to America by Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction is so serious that despite the risks -- and we should not minimize the risks -- we must authorize the President to take the necessary steps to deal with that threat. And so I will vote for the Lieberman/McCain resolution.

This is a difficult vote, but I could not sleep knowing that faced with this grave danger to the people of my state and to all Americans, I had voted for nothing more than continuing the policies that have failed to address this problem in the past.

Two months ago, or even a month ago, I would have been reluctant to support this resolution. At the time, it appeared that the Administration’s principal goal was a unilateral invasion of Iraq, without fully exploring every option to resolve this peacefully, without trying to enlist the support of other countries, and without any limitation on the use of U.S. force in the Middle East region. The original use-of-force resolution the White House sent to the Congress was far too broad in its scope, and ignored the possibility that diplomatic efforts might just be able to resolve this crisis without bloodshed.

Moreover, it appeared the Administration planned to cut back its efforts in the war on terrorism and shift all its attention and resources to Iraq. That would be a tragic mistake.

I believe the war against global terrorist networks remains the greatest current threat to the security of the American homeland and to our forces overseas, as we have seen in Kuwait earlier this week. America cannot be diverted or distracted from our war on terrorism.

In the past month or so, we have begun to see an encouraging shift in the Administration’s approach. The President stated earlier this week that war is neither imminent nor unavoidable. The Administration has assured us that whatever action we take toward Iraq, it will not be permitted to divert resources or attention from the war on terrorism. And Secretary Powell has been working with the United Nations Security Council to put together a new resolution to make clear that Iraq must disarm or face the consequences.

We have already begun to see some encouraging movement on the issue of Iraqi disarmament. Other Security Council members (such as France and Russia), as well as other Arab states in the Middle East have begun to talk seriously about forcing Saddam to comply with the U.N. resolutions. And Saddam Hussein has begun to make offers on inspections and disarmament, offers that -- while inadequate, so far -- indicate he has at least begun to move off his hardline position against inspections.

Obviously, much important work remains to be done, and that will take tough negotiating with the other members of the United Nations, and a firm line with Iraq.

We need to be realistic about how best to move forward. Any headway we are making toward getting Saddam to disarm has not occurred in a vacuum. U.N. members did not just suddenly decide to debate a new resolution forcing Iraq to disarm; and Saddam Hussein did not just suddenly decide to re-invite U.N. inspectors and remove the roadblocks that had hindered their efforts in the past. Progress is occurring because the President told the United Nations General Assembly that if the U.N. is not prepared to enforce its resolutions on Iraqi disarmament, the United States will be forced to act.

At this point, America’s best opportunity to move the United Nations and Iraq to a peaceful resolution of this crisis is by making clear the U.S. is prepared to act on our own, if necessary, as one nation, indivisible. Sometimes the rest of the world looks to America not just for the diversity of our debate, or the vitality of our ideals, but for the firm resolve that the world’s leader must demonstrate if intractable global problems are to be solved.

And so, that is the context in which I am approaching this vote. This resolution does authorize the use of force if necessary.

Saddam Hussein represents a grave threat to the United States, and I have concluded we must use force to deal with him if all other means fail. That is the core issue, and whether we vote on it now, or in January, or in six months time, that is the issue we all have to confront.

War, if it comes to that, will cost money I dearly wish we could use for other domestic priorities, to address the very real needs that West Virginia and other states face in this tough economy. But ultimately, defending America’s citizens from danger is a responsibility whose costs we must bear.

But this is not just a resolution authorizing war; it is a resolution that could provide a path to peace.

I hope that by voting on this resolution now, while the negotiations at the United Nations are continuing, this resolution will show to the world that the American people are united in our resolve to deal with the Iraqi threat. And it will strengthen the hand of the Administration in making a final effort to try to get the U.N. to deal with this issue. Given the difficulty of trying to build a coalition in the United Nations, I could not, in good conscience, tie the President’s hands.

The Administration is in negotiations on which the safety and security of all Americans depend; I believe we must give the President the authority he will need if there is any hope to bring those negotiations to a successful conclusion.

So, Mr. President, I will vote for the Lieberman/McCain resolution. Preventing a war with Saddam Hussein -- whether now or later -- must be our top priority, and I believe this resolution will strengthen the president’s hand to resolve this crisis peacefully.

By my vote, I say to the United Nations and our allies that America is united in our resolve to deal with Saddam Hussein, and that the U.N. must act to eliminate his weapons of mass destruction. By my vote, I say to Saddam Hussein, "Disarm, or the United States will be forced to act."

September 11 has forever changed the world. We may not like it, but that is the world in which we live. When there is a grave threat to Americans’ lives, we have a responsibility to take action to prevent it.

http://rockefeller.senate.gov/news/2002/flrstmt0102002.html

These are not the comments of a Senator who is part of a campaign to mislead the American people. These are the comments of a Senator who made the mistake of trusting the president and the supposedly non-partisan officials who were charged with gathering information.

Those people who would call themselves Democrats but who would go beyond questioning whether the Democrats on the select intelligence committees made a mistake by trusting our lying president and his false minions and go so far as to suggest that they participated in a treasonous cover-up to mislead Americans are either foolish or liars as despicable as those in the Bush administration.

[FrenchieCat]

21. In response....

Fact 1: I wouldn't call the Aliminum Tubes "Nonsense".....just like I don't consider this war "Trivial". What is so strange.....is that even as the Senate and House deliberated (and the majority of Democrats voted against the IWR, if you look at the numbers), the evidence to support going to war was not at all strong.....yet 4 Democrats sitting on the Intel Committee members chose to vote for the IWR...which actually makes them look worse, not better for this. The alumninum Tubes story was doubted by many.....but obviously made not impact on those who chose to support Bush into war.

Evidence on Iraq Challenged
Experts Question if Tubes Were Meant for Weapons Program

By Joby Warrick
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, September 19, 2002
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A36348-2002Sep18?language=printer

In addition, those who had voted for the IWR, still weren't sorry by their vote anytime in 2003, 2004 and even into most of 2005.....even after revelations made time after time that the intelligence was wrong and had been fixed around the policy of war.


Fact 2: Your wrote, "Graham had his reservations BUT HE NEVERTHELESS VOTED FOR THE CONDITIONAL AUTHORITY FOR THE WAR IF THE DIPLOMACY FAILED.

Bob Graham voted AGAINST giving Bush authority via the IWR.

Fact 3: No matter what a "good" Democrat Rockerfeller was, he was totally wrong on this one, and his warning, "But this is not just a resolution authorizing war; it is a resolution that could provide a path to peace" that you highlighted shows just how wrong he was.

Sen. Rockerfeller was also wrong in voting for the IWR....just like others were. In fact, I am glad that Rockerfeller didn't choose to run for President twice, cause I wouldn't support him.

And as Rockerfeller later stated.....,"One year after the United States led the invasion of Iraq, the country remains extremely dangerous not only to our troops, but also to the stability of the world.".....so I'm not impressed by any of his statements (so why you would post his entire speech in your post, I don't know! :shrug: )

-------------------------
2004 ARTICLE:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/oct2004/wmde-o08.shtml

There was no active Iraqi nuclear weapons program. According to Duelfer, the ISG investigation “uncovered no indication that Iraq had resumed fissile material or nuclear weapons research and development activities since 1991.”

* Iraq imported aluminum tubes to use in producing small military rockets, as Iraqi officials had said, not as parts for centrifuges to enrich uranium.

* Iraq did not try to buy uranium overseas after 1991, and even rejected an offer of uranium from an African businessman, citing UN sanctions.

* The trailers that US officials claimed were mobile biological weapons laboratories were actually being used to make hydrogen for weather balloons, as the Iraqis said.

* There was no “red line” south of Baghdad, where Iraqi troops armed with chemical weapons were supposed to unleash WMD on invading US troops.

Duelfer, who spent six years as the deputy head of the UN weapons inspectors in Iraq, was selected to head the ISG by CIA Director George Tenet, and enjoyed the warmest relations with the Bush White House. Before taking the ISG post, he had said he was convinced that there was a connection between Iraq and the September 11 terrorist attacks. But when he appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee to present his report Wednesday, he told the panel, “We were almost all wrong” on Iraq.
----------
A NOVEMBER 11, 2005 NEWSHOUR INTERVIEW (aired around the same exact time that some REALIZED tbat THEY WERE SORRY TO HAVE MADE A MISTAKE with their vote)--

MARK SHIELDS: Well, Jim, the reality is, and Ray touched upon the polls -- the Wall Street Journal/NBC poll came out and there probably isn't a more respected poll than that one. And the question was asked: Do you think President Bush deliberately misled people to make the case for going to war? Three out of five American voters say yes, he did.

Do you think the president made the case for keeping American troops in Iraq? Three out of five say he hasn't and one out of three voters gives the president credit for being honest and straightforward at this point.

So the president is trying to redress the problem that he has. Before we went to war, to be very blunt about it, I mean, we had the president of the United States, the vice president, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Powell, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, CIA Director George Tenet telling us that 24/7, Saddam Hussein was stockpiling chemical weapons, that he was working on germ warfare devices and he was feverishly, around the clock working to produce nuclear bombs, and the vice president went on to suggest, to argue that he was connected with 9/11, that he was conspiring with al-Qaida.

All of those -- those were reasons for going to war. That was the case that was made.
SNIP

RICHARD LOWRY: You can make many criticisms of the war, not enough troops -- all the rest of it. But the idea that the Bush officials deliberately lied about Saddam's WMD I think is totally off base.

JIM LEHRER: But you suggest, Mark, whether or not it is off base or not, the American people now believe that.

MARK SHIELDS: Jim, they believe it. And the question is, Jim, were the U.S. officials, every one of them fooled by bad intelligence, I mean, the Senate Intelligence Committee the president referred to said that some of the foreign intelligence was fabricated and that the stuff they relied upon was dubious, at best. So were they, or was the deliberate hyping going on?

And the question, I think, rises to an important urgent level when you say the decision to go to war, there is no more important decision made. And was it made recklessly, negligent in doing it? Did they make sure that everything was in place? Or did they rush to war? And I don't think there's any question now -- you can argue it -- there was a rush to war.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/political_wrap/july-dec05/sl_11-11.html

[jillan]

15. Republican or Democrat

I hope everyone is exposed that knew about this.
Then I would hope they would make a public announcement explaining their silence, or their vote. Durbin is off the hook for me. He voted NO and made a compelling case before the Senate voted.

This is important to me as an American.

I want to know if other elected Representatives knew on other committees or if it was just limited to the Intel committee.

One thing I have learned in life, is that the truth always comes out.

[TwilightGardener]

16. Who was all on the Intel cmte in 2002? (R and D)

[jillan]

17. Here's the list

http://intelligence.senate.gov/members107thcongress.html

2001-2002

Democrats
Republicans

Bob Graham, Florida
Chairman Richard C. Shelby, Alabama
Vice Chairman

D's are listed first in each line

Carl Levin, Michigan Jon Kyl, Arizona
John D. Rockefeller IV , West Virginia James M. Inhofe, Oklahoma
Dianne Feinstein, California Orrin G. Hatch, Utah
Ron Wyden, Oregon Pat Roberts , Kansas
Richard Durbin, Illinois Mike DeWine, Ohio
Evan Bayh, Indiana Fred Thompson, Tennessee
John Edwards, North Carolina Richard G. Lugar, Indiana
Barbara A. Mikulski, Maryland

[Czolgosz]

20. There was also a House committee.

[FrenchieCat]

22. And who was on it, and how did they vote?

Thanks!