[timgreyuvcz]

As more and more comes out about the Democrat party's attempts to falsely portray the President as a "liar", the Dems,amazingly, continue to voice the same chants over and over rather than admit to the facts.

It will be necessary to keep pointing out the facts to them, as long as this goes on. The Democrats may choose to ignore them. But the American people won't.

-------------------------------

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/blo...l.php?id=10252

How Quickly Democrats Forget About Prewar Intel

by Robert B. Bluey
Posted Nov 11, 2005
05:01 PM

As Democrats squawk that the Bush Administration manipulated prewar intelligence about WMD in Iraq—forcing National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley into action yesterday—it’s worth remembering that Democrats, just like their Republican counterparts, came to essentially the same conclusions before the U.S. invaded Iraq.

If Democrats simply took the time to read the reports they helped create, they might not be so aggressive these days attacking President Bush. But that’s probably too optimistic for anyone to expect.

Let’s first have a look at the July 9, 2004, report of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on the “U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq.” This report was issued by a committee consisting of nine Republicans and eight Democrats.

Conclusion 83 (on Page 284) says this:

“The Committee did not find any evidence that Administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction capabilities.”

Conclusion 84 (on Page 285) adds:

“The Committee found no evidence that the Vice President’s visits to the Central Intelligence Agency were attempts to pressure analysts, were perceived as intended to pressure analysts by those who participated in the briefings on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs, or did pressure analysts to change their assessments.

Who are these Democrats who sat the committee, you ask?

Senators John D. Rockefeller IV (W.Va.), Carl Levin (Mich.), Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), Ron Wyden (Ore.), Dick Durbin (Ill.), Evan Bayh (Ind.), John Edwards (N.C.) Barbara Mikulski (Calif.).

In addition to the Senate Intelligence Committee report, there’s also a 600-page report released March 31, 2005, by the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Here’s the relevant paragraph (which can be found on Page 188):

“The Commission has found no evidence of "politicization" of the Intelligence Community's assessments concerning Iraq's reported WMD programs. No analytical judgments were changed in response to political pressure to reach a particular conclusion. The Commission has investigated this issue closely, querying in detail those analysts involved in formulating pre-war judgments about Iraq's WMD programs.”

It should be noted that this commission was actually headed by a Democrat: former Sen. Chuck Robb of Virginia, who was co-chairman.

Why have the Democrats changed their tune? Maybe because they know the mainstream media won’t call them on it.


(Full text of the article can be read at the above URL)

[plantBanceper]

I see your only capable of spaming. Great.

[stutnerman]

I see your only capable of spaming. Great.

I see you're incapable of replying to the truth. Even better.

.

[Suvaxal]

I don't think an editorial qualifies as 'Breaking News in Politics'.

[Ettiominiw]

a stupid thread but i will respond anyways.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by
the President to—
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security
Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq
and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security
Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay,
evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies
with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. did the security council give the US the nod? nope

(a) AUTHORIZATION.—The President is authorized to use the
Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary
and appropriate in order to—
(1) defend the national security of the United States against
the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.—In connection with the
exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force
the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter
as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising
such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of
Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his
determination that—
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic
or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately
protect the national security of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead
to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent
with the United States and other countries continuing to take
the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist
organizations, including those nations, organizations, or
persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist
attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
© WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS.—
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION.—Consistent with
section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress
declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory
authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the
War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS.—Nothing in
this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War
Powers Resolution. and what does the war powers resolution say?

SEC. 3. The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations. there was no vote reguarding the War Powers Resolution. Congress did not vote to go to war, they voted to give the president the power to go to war should the UN agree which they did not.

[actrisski]

How is posting something from 2004 answering the news item that came out last week that said the CIA determined in Feb 2002 that their source of the "myth" that Saddam supported Al Queada was not reliable.

Did the Senate committee have that information in 2004?

Doesn't the fact that ALL the prewar intelligence turned out to be bogus say something?
Doesn't the fact that Ahmad Chalabi is still welcome in Washington, after supplying alot of bogus intelligence say something?

We think Bush was lying, we think the war was a campaign gimmick, trade a little american blood for some electoral votes, well worth it to protect America from Kerry, at least that's the justification we think got made.

[Bromymbollile]

Well, it should be more than obvious to all on this board, that pre-war intelligence even during the Clinton administration was believed. Clinton has repeatedly stated "while he was President", that Sadam was trying to posess WMD, based on the intelligence during his time. Al Gore, while vice-President, confirmed those beliefs through his statements, based on their intelligence sources.

There is no difference between intelligence between the Clinton & Bush administrations, & everyone believed it. So we have had 3 different bi-partisan investigations now over intelligence. And the only thing they have come up with, is that the intelligence was bad. We all know that. The 3 bi-partisan senate committee hearing never stated that anyone was politically pressured by the Bush adminstration for WMD evidence to go to war.

Why would anyone with a sane brain think that? Again, as I mentioned in the first paragraph, Clinton sure believed it, based on the exact same intelligence sources when he was President.

[Fainnamoony]

and yet clinton never went to war with iraq on that intelligence

[ViaplyVuple]

and yet clinton never went to war with iraq on that intelligence

Clinton never had to deal with a 9/11 either. And if Clinton would have insisted that UN inspectors stay in Iraq, when Sadam kicked them out in 1997 we certainly would not be there today, now would we?

[VIDEOHITE]

9/11 and iraq - whats the connection? there was none. try again

[Freeptube]

I don't care if the Democrats knew the same info as Bush or not. The WAR is the problem and who started what is meaningless.

Some people here seem to think everyone who is against this fiasco is a Democrat or a liberal. That's B-S and saying the Democrats knew what Bush did, regardless of whether it is true or not doesn't cover up the fact that this was a huge mistake and a badly executed one at that.

[dayclaccikere]

I don't care if the Democrats knew the same info as Bush or not. The WAR is the problem and who started what is meaningless.

Some people here seem to think everyone who is against this fiasco is a Democrat or a liberal. That's B-S and saying the Democrats knew what Bush did, regardless of whether it is true or not doesn't cover up the fact that this was a huge mistake and a badly executed one at that.

Good point ...only ONE person made the final decision to invade Iraq.