Last night, W's ex deputy CIA Director admitted W and Cheney lied us into war....

[RichardPeterJohnson]

Host Chris Matthews asked Morell about a statement Cheney made in 2003: "We know he [Saddam Hussein] has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." Here's the conversation that followed:

MATTHEWS: Was that true?

MORELL: We were saying—

MATTHEWS: Can you answer that question? Was that true?

MORELL: That's not true.

MATTHEWS: Well, why'd you let them get away with it?

MORELL: Look, my job Chris—

MATTHEWS: You're the briefer for the president on intelligence, you're the top person to go in and tell him what's going on. You see Cheney make this charge he's got a nuclear bomb and then they make subsequent charges he knew how to deliver it…and nobody raised their hand and said, "No that's not what we told him."

MORELL: Chris, Chris Chris, what's my job, right? My job—

MATTHEWS: To tell the truth.

MORELL: My job—no, as the briefer? As the briefer?

MATTHEWS: Okay, go ahead.

MORELL: As the briefer, my job is to carry CIA's best information and best analysis to the president of the United States and make sure he understands it. My job is to not watch what they're saying on TV.

The discussion went on:

MATTHEWS: So you're briefing the president on the reasons for war, they're selling the war, using your stuff, saying you made that case when you didn't. So they're using your credibility to make the case for war dishonestly, as you just admitted.

MORELL: Look, I'm just telling you—

MATTHEWS: You just admitted it.

MORELL: I'm just telling you what we said—

MATTHEWS: They gave a false presentation of what you said to them.

MORELL: On some aspects. On some aspects.

So, there you have it...more proof that you dumbass wingnuts choose to ignore.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/05/michael-morell-bush-cheney-iraq-war

 

[Keyser76]

Destabilized the entire middle east. But hey who cares? Hillary used her private email.

 

[Mntneer]

LOL.... that's proof?

 

[Mntneer]

Destabilized the entire middle east. But hey who cares? Hillary used her private email.

Yeah... it was sooooo stable to begin with.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

Host Chris Matthews asked Morell about a statement Cheney made in 2003: "We know he [Saddam Hussein] has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." Here's the conversation that followed:

MATTHEWS: Was that true?

MORELL: We were saying—

MATTHEWS: Can you answer that question? Was that true?

MORELL: That's not true.

MATTHEWS: Well, why'd you let them get away with it?

MORELL: Look, my job Chris—

MATTHEWS: You're the briefer for the president on intelligence, you're the top person to go in and tell him what's going on. You see Cheney make this charge he's got a nuclear bomb and then they make subsequent charges he knew how to deliver it…and nobody raised their hand and said, "No that's not what we told him."

MORELL: Chris, Chris Chris, what's my job, right? My job—

MATTHEWS: To tell the truth.

MORELL: My job—no, as the briefer? As the briefer?

MATTHEWS: Okay, go ahead.

MORELL: As the briefer, my job is to carry CIA's best information and best analysis to the president of the United States and make sure he understands it. My job is to not watch what they're saying on TV.

The discussion went on:

MATTHEWS: So you're briefing the president on the reasons for war, they're selling the war, using your stuff, saying you made that case when you didn't. So they're using your credibility to make the case for war dishonestly, as you just admitted.

MORELL: Look, I'm just telling you—

MATTHEWS: You just admitted it.

MORELL: I'm just telling you what we said—

MATTHEWS: They gave a false presentation of what you said to them.

MORELL: On some aspects. On some aspects.

So, there you have it...more proof that you dumbass wingnuts choose to ignore.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/05/michael-morell-bush-cheney-iraq-war

Just so I'm clear on the rules here, we're allowed to quote portions of interviews from O'Rielly and Hannity as they bulldoze an interviewee in a 60 second spot and that should and will be accepted by you and the other left leaning members of this board? I just want to make sure I know the ground rules as you are posting the equivalent here and expecting us to accept it. I'm willing to accept Chris Matthews and MSNBC's interview of Morrell if you will honor the same.

Is it your belief and position Congress was not provided the same intel? Are you further stating had public opinion been different Congress would have made a different vote regardless of the intel they were receiving?

And, as someone who actually fought there, multiple times, I still feel regardless of WMD, Saddam needed to be ousted. This is my personal opinion though. They could have told me Uday and Kusay were kicking puppies and that would have been enough for me. After 4 years of peace time military and endless training, I paid zero attention to the reasoning and was fine with whatever it took for the mob to be manipulated into us transitioning into combat mode.

 

[WVPATX]

Host Chris Matthews asked Morell about a statement Cheney made in 2003: "We know he [Saddam Hussein] has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." Here's the conversation that followed:

MATTHEWS: Was that true?

MORELL: We were saying—

MATTHEWS: Can you answer that question? Was that true?

MORELL: That's not true.

MATTHEWS: Well, why'd you let them get away with it?

MORELL: Look, my job Chris—

MATTHEWS: You're the briefer for the president on intelligence, you're the top person to go in and tell him what's going on. You see Cheney make this charge he's got a nuclear bomb and then they make subsequent charges he knew how to deliver it…and nobody raised their hand and said, "No that's not what we told him."

MORELL: Chris, Chris Chris, what's my job, right? My job—

MATTHEWS: To tell the truth.

MORELL: My job—no, as the briefer? As the briefer?

MATTHEWS: Okay, go ahead.

MORELL: As the briefer, my job is to carry CIA's best information and best analysis to the president of the United States and make sure he understands it. My job is to not watch what they're saying on TV.

The discussion went on:

MATTHEWS: So you're briefing the president on the reasons for war, they're selling the war, using your stuff, saying you made that case when you didn't. So they're using your credibility to make the case for war dishonestly, as you just admitted.

MORELL: Look, I'm just telling you—

MATTHEWS: You just admitted it.

MORELL: I'm just telling you what we said—

MATTHEWS: They gave a false presentation of what you said to them.

MORELL: On some aspects. On some aspects.

So, there you have it...more proof that you dumbass wingnuts choose to ignore.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/05/michael-morell-bush-cheney-iraq-war

Below is the National Intelligence Estimate on the subject. But let me first provide a quote from Morells' book:

“The view that hardliners in the Bush administration forced the intelligence community into its position on WMD is just flat wrong,” he writes. “No one pushed. The analysts were already there and they had been there for years, long before Bush came to office.”

Keep in mind, the NIE is the broad assessment from all intelligence branches, not just the CIA.

FAS Note: The following excerpts from an October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate were declassified on July 18, 2003 and presented at a White House background briefing on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The declassified NIE document in its original format is here.
Key Judgments [from October 2002 NIE]

Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction
We judge that Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade. (See INR alternative view at the end of these Key Judgments.)
We judge that we are seeing only a portion of Iraq's WMD efforts, owing to Baghdad's vigorous denial and deception efforts. Revelations after the Gulf war starkly demonstrate the extensive efforts undertaken by Iraq to deny information. We lack specific information on many key aspects of Iraq's WMD programs.
Since inspections ended in 1998, Iraq has maintained its chemical weapons effort, energized its missile program, and invested more heavily in biological weapons; in the view of most agencies, Baghdad is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.

• Iraq's growing ability to sell oil illicitly increases Baghdad's capabilities to finance WMD programs; annual earnings in cash and goods have more than quadrupled, from $580 million in 1998 to about $3 billion this year.
• Iraq has largely rebuilt missile and biological weapons facilities damaged during Operation Desert Fox and has expanded its chemical and biological infrastructure under the cover of civilian production.
• Baghdad has exceeded UN range limits of 150 km with its ballistic missiles and is working with unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), which allow for a more lethal means to deliver biological and, less likely, chemical warfare agents.
• Although we assess that Saddam does not yet have nuclear weapons or sufficient material to make any, he remains intent on acquiring them. Most agencies assess that Baghdad started reconstituting its nuclear program about the time that UNSCOM inspectors departed--December 1998.

How quickly Iraq will obtain its first nuclear weapon depends on when it acquires sufficient weapons-grade fissile material.

• If Baghdad acquires sufficient fissile material from abroad it could make a nuclear weapon within several months to a year.
• Without such material from abroad, Iraq probably would not be able to make a weapon until 2007 to 2009, owing to inexperience in building and operating centrifuge facilities to produce highly enriched uranium and challenges in procuring the necessary equipment and expertise.
  • Most agencies believe that Saddam's personal interest in and Iraq's aggressive attempts to obtain high-strength aluminum tubes for centrifuge rotors--as well as Iraq's attempts to acquire magnets, high-speed balancing machines, and machine tools--provide compelling evidence that Saddam is reconstituting a uranium enrichment effort for Baghdad's nuclear weapons program. (DOE agrees that reconstitution of the nuclear program is underway but assesses that the tubes probably are not part of the program.)
  • Iraq's efforts to re-establish and enhance its cadre of weapons personnel as well as activities at several suspect nuclear sites further indicate that reconstitution is underway.
  • All agencies agree that about 25,000 centrifuges based on tubes of the size Iraq is trying to acquire would be capable of producing approximately two weapons' worth of highly enriched uranium per year.
  • In a much less likely scenario, Baghdad could make enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon by 2005 to 2007 if it obtains suitable centrifuge tubes this year and has all the other materials and technological expertise necessary to build production-scale uranium enrichment facilities.

• We assess that Baghdad has begun renewed production of mustard, sarin, GF (cyclosarin), and VX; its capability probably is more limited now than it was at the time of the Gulf war, although VX production and agent storage life probably have been improved.
  • An array of clandestine reporting reveals that Baghdad has procured covertly the types and quantities of chemicals and equipment sufficient to allow limited CW agent production hidden within Iraq's legitimate chemical industry.
  • Although we have little specific information on Iraq's CW stockpile, Saddam probably has stocked at least 100 metric tons (MT) and possibly as much as 500 MT of CW agents--much of it added in the last year.
  • The Iraqis have experience in manufacturing CW bombs, artillery rockets, and projectiles. We assess that they possess CW bulk fills for SRBM warheads, including for a limited number of covertly stored Scuds, possibly a few with extended ranges.
  We judge that all key aspects--R&D, production, and weaponization--of Iraq's offensive BW program are active and that most elements are larger and more advanced than they were before the Gulf war.
  • We judge Iraq has some lethal and incapacitating BW agents and is capable of quickly producing and weaponizing a variety of such agents, including anthrax, for delivery by bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers, and covert operatives.
    • Chances are even that smallpox is part of Iraq's offensive BW program.
    • Baghdad probably has developed genetically engineered BW agents.
    • Baghdad has established a large-scale, redundant, and concealed BW agent production capability.
      • Baghdad has mobile facilities for producing bacterial and toxin BW agents; these facilities can evade detection and are highly survivable. Within three to six months [Corrected per Errata sheet issued in October 2002] these units probably could produce an amount of agent equal to the total that Iraq produced in the years prior to the Gulf war.
  • Iraq maintains a small missile force and several development programs, including for a UAV probably intended to deliver biological warfare agent.
    • Gaps in Iraqi accounting to UNSCOM suggest that Saddam retains a covert force of up to a few dozen Scud-variant SRBMs with ranges of 650 to 900 km.
    • Iraq is deploying its new al-Samoud and Ababil-100 SRBMs, which are capable of flying beyond the UN-authorized 150-km range limit; Iraq has tested an al-Samoud variant beyond 150 km--perhaps as far as 300 km.
    • Baghdad's UAVs could threaten Iraq's neighbors, U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf, and if brought close to, or into, the United States, the U.S. Homeland.
      • An Iraqi UAV procurement network attempted to procure commercially available route planning software and an associated topographic database that would be able to support targeting of the United States, according to analysis of special intelligence.
      • The Director, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance, U.S. Air Force, does not agree that Iraq is developing UAVs primarily intended to be delivery platforms for chemical and biological warfare (CBW) agents. The small size of Iraq's new UAV strongly suggests a primary role of reconnaissance, although CBW delivery is an inherent capability.
      • Iraq is developing medium-range ballistic missile capabilities, largely through foreign assistance in building specialized facilities, including a test stand for engines more powerful than those in its current missile force.
    • We have low confidence in our ability to assess when Saddam would use WMD.
      • Saddam could decide to use chemical and biological warfare (CBW) preemptively against U.S. forces, friends, and allies in the region in an attempt to disrupt U.S. war preparations and undermine the political will of the Coalition.
      • Saddam might use CBW after an initial advance into Iraqi territory, but early use of WMD could foreclose diplomatic options for stalling the US advance.
      • He probably would use CBW when be perceived he irretrievably had lost control of the military and security situation, but we are unlikely to know when Saddam reaches that point.
      • We judge that Saddam would be more likely to use chemical weapons than biological weapons on the battlefield.
      • Saddam historically has maintained tight control over the use of WMD; however, he probably has provided contingency instructions to his commanders to use CBW in specific circumstances.
      Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or CBW against the United States, fearing that exposure of Iraqi involvement would provide Washington a stronger cause for making war.
      Iraq probably would attempt clandestine attacks against the U.S. Homeland if Baghdad feared an attack that threatened the survival of the regime were imminent or unavoidable, or possibly for revenge. Such attacks--more likely with biological than chemical agents--probably would be carried out by special forces or intelligence operatives.
      • The Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) probably has been directed to conduct clandestine attacks against US and Allied interests in the Middle East in the event the United States takes action against Iraq. The US probably would be the primary means by which Iraq would attempt to conduct any CBW attacks on the US Homeland, although we have no specific intelligence information that Saddam's regime has directed attacks against US territory.
      Saddam, if sufficiently desperate, might decide that only an organization such as al-Qa'ida--with worldwide reach and extensive terrorist infrastructure, and already engaged in a life-or-death struggle against the United States--could perpetrate the type of terrorist attack that he would hope to conduct.
      • In such circumstances, he might decide that the extreme step of assisting the Islamist terrorists in conducting a CBW attack against the United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him.
      State/INR Alternative View of Iraq's Nuclear Program
      The Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research (INR) believes that Saddam continues to want nuclear weapons and that available evidence indicates that Baghdad is pursuing at least a limited effort to maintain and acquire nuclear weapons-related capabilities. The activities we have detected do not, however, add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing what INR would consider to be an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquire nuclear weapons. Iraq may be doing so, but INR considers the available evidence inadequate to support such a judgment. Lacking persuasive evidence that Baghdad has launched a coherent effort to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program, INR is unwilling to speculate that such an effort began soon after the departure of UN inspectors or to project a timeline for the completion of activities it does not now see happening. As a result, INR is unable to predict when Iraq could acquire a nuclear device or weapon.
      In INR's view Iraq's efforts to acquire aluminum tubes is central to the argument that Baghdad is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program, but INR is not persuaded that the tubes in question are intended for use as centrifuge rotors. INR accepts the judgment of technical experts at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) who have concluded that the tubes Iraq seeks to acquire are poorly suited for use in gas centrifuges to be used for uranium enrichment and finds unpersuasive the arguments advanced by others to make the case that they are intended for that purpose. INR considers it far more likely that the tubes are intended for another purpose, most likely the production of artillery rockets. The very large quantities being sought, the way the tubes were tested by the Iraqis, and the atypical lack of attention to operational security in the procurement efforts are among the factors, in addition to the DOE assessment, that lead INR to conclude that the tubes are not intended for use in Iraq's nuclear weapon program.
      Confidence Levels for Selected Key Judgments in This Estimate
      High Confidence:
      • Iraq is continuing, and in some areas expanding, its chemical, biological, nuclear and missile programs contrary to UN resolutions.
      • We are not detecting portions of these weapons programs.
      • Iraq possesses proscribed chemical and biological weapons and missiles.
      • Iraq could make a nuclear weapon in months to a year once it acquires sufficient weapons-grad fissile material
      Moderate Confidence:
      • Iraq does not yet have a nuclear weapon or sufficient material to make one but is likely to have a weapon by 2007 to 2009. (See INR alternative view, page 84).
      Low Confidence
      • When Saddam would use weapons of mass destruction.
      • Whether Saddam would engage in clandestine attacks against the US Homeland.
      • Whether in desperation Saddam would share chemical or biological weapons with al-Qa'ida.
      [NIE page 24]
      [...]
      Uranium Acquisition. Iraq retains approximately two-and-a-half tons of 2.5 percent enriched uranium oxide, which the IAEA permits. This low-enriched material could be used as feed material to produce enough HEU for about two nuclear weapons. The use of enriched feed material also would reduce the initial number of centrifuges that Baghdad would need by about half. Iraq could divert this material -- the IAEA inspects it only once a year -- and enrich it to weapons grade before a subsequent inspection discovered it was missing. The IAEA last inspected this material in late January 2002.
      Iraq has about 500 metric tons of yellowcake1 and low enriched uranium at Tuwaitha, which is inspected annually by the IAEA. Iraq also began vigorously trying to procure uranium ore and yellowcake; acquiring either would shorten the time Baghdad needs to produce nuclear weapons.
      • A foreign government service reported that as of early 2001, Niger planned to send several tons of "pure uranium" (probably yellowcake) to Iraq. As of early 2001, Niger and Iraq reportedly were still working out arrangements for this deal, which could be for up to 500 tons of yellowcake. We do not know the status of this arrangement.
      • Reports indicate Iraq also has sought uranium ore from Somalia and possibly the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
      We cannot confirm whether Iraq succeeded in acquiring uranium ore and/or yellowcake from these sources. Reports suggest Iraq is shifting from domestic mining and milling of uranium to foreign acquisition. Iraq possesses significant phosphate deposits, from which uranium had been chemically extracted before Operation Desert Storm. Intelligence information on whether nuclear-related phosphate mining and/or processing has been reestablished is inconclusive, however.
      • 
        1 A refined form of natural uranium.
      [...]
      [NIE page 84]
      Annex A
      Iraq's Attempts to Acquire Aluminum Tubes(This excerpt from a longer view includes INR's position on the African uranium issue)
      INR's Alternative View: Iraq's Attempts to Acquire Aluminum Tubes
      Some of the specialized but dual-use items being sought are, by all indications, bound for Iraq's missile program. Other cases are ambiguous, such as that of a planned magnet-production line whose suitability for centrifuge operations remains unknown. Some efforts involve non-controlled industrial material and equipment -- including a variety of machine tools -- and are troubling because they would help establish the infrastructure for a renewed nuclear program. But such efforts (which began well before the inspectors departed) are not clearly linked to a nuclear end-use. Finally, the claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are, in INR's assessment, highly dubious.

 

[Keyser76]

Yeah... it was sooooo stable to begin with.

When I served in Irbil and Zakho , we had the no fly zone in the North and South, Saddaam was contained and we didn't even have to carry weapons all the time, so you tell me. Or you could look at the casualty numbers from the first gulf war and the Provide Comfort operation and compare. Or you could post a rolling smiley face emoticon, Lol. Why debate it on here?

 

[Mntneer]

Who's debating... I'm pointing out the hilarity of the arguments.

 

[rog1187]

Below is the National Intelligence Estimate on the subject. But let me first provide a quote from Morells' book:

“The view that hardliners in the Bush administration forced the intelligence community into its position on WMD is just flat wrong,” he writes. “No one pushed. The analysts were already there and they had been there for years, long before Bush came to office.”

Keep in mind, the NIE is the broad assessment from all intelligence branches, not just the CIA.

FAS Note: The following excerpts from an October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate were declassified on July 18, 2003 and presented at a White House background briefing on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The declassified NIE document in its original format is here.
Key Judgments [from October 2002 NIE]

Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction
We judge that Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade. (See INR alternative view at the end of these Key Judgments.)
We judge that we are seeing only a portion of Iraq's WMD efforts, owing to Baghdad's vigorous denial and deception efforts. Revelations after the Gulf war starkly demonstrate the extensive efforts undertaken by Iraq to deny information. We lack specific information on many key aspects of Iraq's WMD programs.
Since inspections ended in 1998, Iraq has maintained its chemical weapons effort, energized its missile program, and invested more heavily in biological weapons; in the view of most agencies, Baghdad is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.

• Iraq's growing ability to sell oil illicitly increases Baghdad's capabilities to finance WMD programs; annual earnings in cash and goods have more than quadrupled, from $580 million in 1998 to about $3 billion this year.
• Iraq has largely rebuilt missile and biological weapons facilities damaged during Operation Desert Fox and has expanded its chemical and biological infrastructure under the cover of civilian production.
• Baghdad has exceeded UN range limits of 150 km with its ballistic missiles and is working with unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), which allow for a more lethal means to deliver biological and, less likely, chemical warfare agents.
• Although we assess that Saddam does not yet have nuclear weapons or sufficient material to make any, he remains intent on acquiring them. Most agencies assess that Baghdad started reconstituting its nuclear program about the time that UNSCOM inspectors departed--December 1998.

How quickly Iraq will obtain its first nuclear weapon depends on when it acquires sufficient weapons-grade fissile material.

• If Baghdad acquires sufficient fissile material from abroad it could make a nuclear weapon within several months to a year.
• Without such material from abroad, Iraq probably would not be able to make a weapon until 2007 to 2009, owing to inexperience in building and operating centrifuge facilities to produce highly enriched uranium and challenges in procuring the necessary equipment and expertise.
  • Most agencies believe that Saddam's personal interest in and Iraq's aggressive attempts to obtain high-strength aluminum tubes for centrifuge rotors--as well as Iraq's attempts to acquire magnets, high-speed balancing machines, and machine tools--provide compelling evidence that Saddam is reconstituting a uranium enrichment effort for Baghdad's nuclear weapons program. (DOE agrees that reconstitution of the nuclear program is underway but assesses that the tubes probably are not part of the program.)
  • Iraq's efforts to re-establish and enhance its cadre of weapons personnel as well as activities at several suspect nuclear sites further indicate that reconstitution is underway.
  • All agencies agree that about 25,000 centrifuges based on tubes of the size Iraq is trying to acquire would be capable of producing approximately two weapons' worth of highly enriched uranium per year.
  • In a much less likely scenario, Baghdad could make enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon by 2005 to 2007 if it obtains suitable centrifuge tubes this year and has all the other materials and technological expertise necessary to build production-scale uranium enrichment facilities.

• We assess that Baghdad has begun renewed production of mustard, sarin, GF (cyclosarin), and VX; its capability probably is more limited now than it was at the time of the Gulf war, although VX production and agent storage life probably have been improved.
  • An array of clandestine reporting reveals that Baghdad has procured covertly the types and quantities of chemicals and equipment sufficient to allow limited CW agent production hidden within Iraq's legitimate chemical industry.
  • Although we have little specific information on Iraq's CW stockpile, Saddam probably has stocked at least 100 metric tons (MT) and possibly as much as 500 MT of CW agents--much of it added in the last year.
  • The Iraqis have experience in manufacturing CW bombs, artillery rockets, and projectiles. We assess that they possess CW bulk fills for SRBM warheads, including for a limited number of covertly stored Scuds, possibly a few with extended ranges.
  We judge that all key aspects--R&D, production, and weaponization--of Iraq's offensive BW program are active and that most elements are larger and more advanced than they were before the Gulf war.
  • We judge Iraq has some lethal and incapacitating BW agents and is capable of quickly producing and weaponizing a variety of such agents, including anthrax, for delivery by bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers, and covert operatives.
    • Chances are even that smallpox is part of Iraq's offensive BW program.
    • Baghdad probably has developed genetically engineered BW agents.
    • Baghdad has established a large-scale, redundant, and concealed BW agent production capability.
      • Baghdad has mobile facilities for producing bacterial and toxin BW agents; these facilities can evade detection and are highly survivable. Within three to six months [Corrected per Errata sheet issued in October 2002] these units probably could produce an amount of agent equal to the total that Iraq produced in the years prior to the Gulf war.
  • Iraq maintains a small missile force and several development programs, including for a UAV probably intended to deliver biological warfare agent.
    • Gaps in Iraqi accounting to UNSCOM suggest that Saddam retains a covert force of up to a few dozen Scud-variant SRBMs with ranges of 650 to 900 km.
    • Iraq is deploying its new al-Samoud and Ababil-100 SRBMs, which are capable of flying beyond the UN-authorized 150-km range limit; Iraq has tested an al-Samoud variant beyond 150 km--perhaps as far as 300 km.
    • Baghdad's UAVs could threaten Iraq's neighbors, U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf, and if brought close to, or into, the United States, the U.S. Homeland.
      • An Iraqi UAV procurement network attempted to procure commercially available route planning software and an associated topographic database that would be able to support targeting of the United States, according to analysis of special intelligence.
      • The Director, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance, U.S. Air Force, does not agree that Iraq is developing UAVs primarily intended to be delivery platforms for chemical and biological warfare (CBW) agents. The small size of Iraq's new UAV strongly suggests a primary role of reconnaissance, although CBW delivery is an inherent capability.
      • Iraq is developing medium-range ballistic missile capabilities, largely through foreign assistance in building specialized facilities, including a test stand for engines more powerful than those in its current missile force.
    • We have low confidence in our ability to assess when Saddam would use WMD.
      • Saddam could decide to use chemical and biological warfare (CBW) preemptively against U.S. forces, friends, and allies in the region in an attempt to disrupt U.S. war preparations and undermine the political will of the Coalition.
      • Saddam might use CBW after an initial advance into Iraqi territory, but early use of WMD could foreclose diplomatic options for stalling the US advance.
      • He probably would use CBW when be perceived he irretrievably had lost control of the military and security situation, but we are unlikely to know when Saddam reaches that point.
      • We judge that Saddam would be more likely to use chemical weapons than biological weapons on the battlefield.
      • Saddam historically has maintained tight control over the use of WMD; however, he probably has provided contingency instructions to his commanders to use CBW in specific circumstances.
      Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or CBW against the United States, fearing that exposure of Iraqi involvement would provide Washington a stronger cause for making war.
      Iraq probably would attempt clandestine attacks against the U.S. Homeland if Baghdad feared an attack that threatened the survival of the regime were imminent or unavoidable, or possibly for revenge. Such attacks--more likely with biological than chemical agents--probably would be carried out by special forces or intelligence operatives.
      • The Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) probably has been directed to conduct clandestine attacks against US and Allied interests in the Middle East in the event the United States takes action against Iraq. The US probably would be the primary means by which Iraq would attempt to conduct any CBW attacks on the US Homeland, although we have no specific intelligence information that Saddam's regime has directed attacks against US territory.
      Saddam, if sufficiently desperate, might decide that only an organization such as al-Qa'ida--with worldwide reach and extensive terrorist infrastructure, and already engaged in a life-or-death struggle against the United States--could perpetrate the type of terrorist attack that he would hope to conduct.
      • In such circumstances, he might decide that the extreme step of assisting the Islamist terrorists in conducting a CBW attack against the United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him.
      State/INR Alternative View of Iraq's Nuclear Program
      The Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research (INR) believes that Saddam continues to want nuclear weapons and that available evidence indicates that Baghdad is pursuing at least a limited effort to maintain and acquire nuclear weapons-related capabilities. The activities we have detected do not, however, add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing what INR would consider to be an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquire nuclear weapons. Iraq may be doing so, but INR considers the available evidence inadequate to support such a judgment. Lacking persuasive evidence that Baghdad has launched a coherent effort to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program, INR is unwilling to speculate that such an effort began soon after the departure of UN inspectors or to project a timeline for the completion of activities it does not now see happening. As a result, INR is unable to predict when Iraq could acquire a nuclear device or weapon.
      In INR's view Iraq's efforts to acquire aluminum tubes is central to the argument that Baghdad is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program, but INR is not persuaded that the tubes in question are intended for use as centrifuge rotors. INR accepts the judgment of technical experts at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) who have concluded that the tubes Iraq seeks to acquire are poorly suited for use in gas centrifuges to be used for uranium enrichment and finds unpersuasive the arguments advanced by others to make the case that they are intended for that purpose. INR considers it far more likely that the tubes are intended for another purpose, most likely the production of artillery rockets. The very large quantities being sought, the way the tubes were tested by the Iraqis, and the atypical lack of attention to operational security in the procurement efforts are among the factors, in addition to the DOE assessment, that lead INR to conclude that the tubes are not intended for use in Iraq's nuclear weapon program.
      Confidence Levels for Selected Key Judgments in This Estimate
      High Confidence:
      • Iraq is continuing, and in some areas expanding, its chemical, biological, nuclear and missile programs contrary to UN resolutions.
      • We are not detecting portions of these weapons programs.
      • Iraq possesses proscribed chemical and biological weapons and missiles.
      • Iraq could make a nuclear weapon in months to a year once it acquires sufficient weapons-grad fissile material
      Moderate Confidence:
      • Iraq does not yet have a nuclear weapon or sufficient material to make one but is likely to have a weapon by 2007 to 2009. (See INR alternative view, page 84).
      Low Confidence
      • When Saddam would use weapons of mass destruction.
      • Whether Saddam would engage in clandestine attacks against the US Homeland.
      • Whether in desperation Saddam would share chemical or biological weapons with al-Qa'ida.
      [NIE page 24]
      [...]
      Uranium Acquisition. Iraq retains approximately two-and-a-half tons of 2.5 percent enriched uranium oxide, which the IAEA permits. This low-enriched material could be used as feed material to produce enough HEU for about two nuclear weapons. The use of enriched feed material also would reduce the initial number of centrifuges that Baghdad would need by about half. Iraq could divert this material -- the IAEA inspects it only once a year -- and enrich it to weapons grade before a subsequent inspection discovered it was missing. The IAEA last inspected this material in late January 2002.
      Iraq has about 500 metric tons of yellowcake1 and low enriched uranium at Tuwaitha, which is inspected annually by the IAEA. Iraq also began vigorously trying to procure uranium ore and yellowcake; acquiring either would shorten the time Baghdad needs to produce nuclear weapons.
      • A foreign government service reported that as of early 2001, Niger planned to send several tons of "pure uranium" (probably yellowcake) to Iraq. As of early 2001, Niger and Iraq reportedly were still working out arrangements for this deal, which could be for up to 500 tons of yellowcake. We do not know the status of this arrangement.
      • Reports indicate Iraq also has sought uranium ore from Somalia and possibly the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
      We cannot confirm whether Iraq succeeded in acquiring uranium ore and/or yellowcake from these sources. Reports suggest Iraq is shifting from domestic mining and milling of uranium to foreign acquisition. Iraq possesses significant phosphate deposits, from which uranium had been chemically extracted before Operation Desert Storm. Intelligence information on whether nuclear-related phosphate mining and/or processing has been reestablished is inconclusive, however.
      • 
        1 A refined form of natural uranium.
      [...]
      [NIE page 84]
      Annex A
      Iraq's Attempts to Acquire Aluminum Tubes(This excerpt from a longer view includes INR's position on the African uranium issue)
      INR's Alternative View: Iraq's Attempts to Acquire Aluminum Tubes
      Some of the specialized but dual-use items being sought are, by all indications, bound for Iraq's missile program. Other cases are ambiguous, such as that of a planned magnet-production line whose suitability for centrifuge operations remains unknown. Some efforts involve non-controlled industrial material and equipment -- including a variety of machine tools -- and are troubling because they would help establish the infrastructure for a renewed nuclear program. But such efforts (which began well before the inspectors departed) are not clearly linked to a nuclear end-use. Finally, the claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are, in INR's assessment, highly dubious.

Yeah but this was on Chris "my leg is tingling" Matthews.

 

[mneilmont]

When I served in Irbil and Zakho , we had the no fly zone in the North and South, Saddaam was contained and we didn't even have to carry weapons all the time, so you tell me. Or you could look at the casualty numbers from the first gulf war and the Provide Comfort operation and compare. Or you could post a rolling smiley face emoticon, Lol. Why debate it on here?

Are you suggesting that it is not worthy of discussion? If not, please share with us the items/objects/subjects worthy of our time and expertise. I honestly do not know what is more worthy of a subject to be discussed.

 

[rog1187]

Host Chris Matthews asked Morell about a statement Cheney made in 2003: "We know he [Saddam Hussein] has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." Here's the conversation that followed:

MATTHEWS: Was that true?

MORELL: We were saying—

MATTHEWS: Can you answer that question? Was that true?

MORELL: That's not true.

MATTHEWS: Well, why'd you let them get away with it?

MORELL: Look, my job Chris—

MATTHEWS: You're the briefer for the president on intelligence, you're the top person to go in and tell him what's going on. You see Cheney make this charge he's got a nuclear bomb and then they make subsequent charges he knew how to deliver it…and nobody raised their hand and said, "No that's not what we told him."

MORELL: Chris, Chris Chris, what's my job, right? My job—

MATTHEWS: To tell the truth.

MORELL: My job—no, as the briefer? As the briefer?

MATTHEWS: Okay, go ahead.

MORELL: As the briefer, my job is to carry CIA's best information and best analysis to the president of the United States and make sure he understands it. My job is to not watch what they're saying on TV.

The discussion went on:

MATTHEWS: So you're briefing the president on the reasons for war, they're selling the war, using your stuff, saying you made that case when you didn't. So they're using your credibility to make the case for war dishonestly, as you just admitted.

MORELL: Look, I'm just telling you—

MATTHEWS: You just admitted it.

MORELL: I'm just telling you what we said—

MATTHEWS: They gave a false presentation of what you said to them.

MORELL: On some aspects. On some aspects.

So, there you have it...more proof that you dumbass wingnuts choose to ignore.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/05/michael-morell-bush-cheney-iraq-war

So you will or won't be voting for sHrillary in 2016:
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical- and biological-weapons stock, his missile-delivery capability and his nuclear program. ... If left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

 

[mneilmont]

So you will or won't be voting for sHrillary in 2016:
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical- and biological-weapons stock, his missile-delivery capability and his nuclear program. ... If left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

Totally without shame, he blasts Fox News and then offers MSNBC(Matthews) and Mother Jones as his sources . Now, that takes set that could knock up a bull elephant. Little bit hard to engage that kind of reasoning. That is a bit demented.

 

[WVPATX]

Totally without shame, he blasts Fox News and then offers MSNBC(Matthews) and Mother Jones as his sources . Now, that takes set that could knock up a bull elephant. Little bit hard to engage that kind of reasoning. That is a bit demented.

More importantly, Tingles only asked him about nuclear weapons. But WMD was much more than just nuclear, including biological and chemical. The CIA may not have agreed that Hussein was trying to acquire nukes, but the NIE report clearly makes that claim. Tingles is just trying to stir up the conspiracy crew and the low information voters.

 

[RichardPeterJohnson]

Totally without shame, he blasts Fox News and then offers MSNBC(Matthews) and Mother Jones as his sources . Now, that takes set that could knock up a bull elephant. Little bit hard to engage that kind of reasoning. That is a bit demented.

Really? It was an interview. The man answered the questions and spoke the words. No editorializing. No spin. Just the facts. Reluctantly though. He said in no uncertain terms that the W admin distorted the truth (ie lied) about what the CIA told them. And this man was the one delivering the PDB to W. You morons will never accept the truth. Richard Clarke, a republican who worked for 3 different GOP Presidents, wrote a book describing how W and Cheney lied us into war. And you jackasses didn't believe that either. Why won't you people open your eyes?

 

[WVPATX]

Really? It was an interview. The man answered the questions and spoke the words. No editorializing. No spin. Just the facts. Reluctantly though. He said in no uncertain terms that the W admin distorted the truth (ie lied) about what the CIA told them. And this man was the one delivering the PDB to W. You morons will never accept the truth. Richard Clarke, a republican who worked for 3 different GOP Presidents, wrote a book describing how W and Cheney lied us into war. And you jackasses didn't believe that either. Why won't you people open your eyes?

I don't know if you don't read or you simply don't care to question your beliefs. Morell said:

“The view that hardliners in the Bush administration forced the intelligence community into its position on WMD is just flat wrong,” he writes. “No one pushed. The analysts were already there and they had been there for years, long before Bush came to office.”

The Matthews' interview was about nukes, not about chemical and biological weapons. The NIE report makes clear that Hussein was trying to get nukes. Perhaps the CIA disagreed, but the NIE is a much braoder assessment of intelligence than just he CIA. But the intelligence community was in agreement, Hussein had WMD.

 

[Snow Sled Baby]

Host Chris Matthews asked Morell about a statement Cheney made in 2003: "We know he [Saddam Hussein] has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." Here's the conversation that followed:

MATTHEWS: Was that true?

MORELL: We were saying—

MATTHEWS: Can you answer that question? Was that true?

MORELL: That's not true.

MATTHEWS: Well, why'd you let them get away with it?

MORELL: Look, my job Chris—

MATTHEWS: You're the briefer for the president on intelligence, you're the top person to go in and tell him what's going on. You see Cheney make this charge he's got a nuclear bomb and then they make subsequent charges he knew how to deliver it…and nobody raised their hand and said, "No that's not what we told him."

MORELL: Chris, Chris Chris, what's my job, right? My job—

MATTHEWS: To tell the truth.

MORELL: My job—no, as the briefer? As the briefer?

MATTHEWS: Okay, go ahead.

MORELL: As the briefer, my job is to carry CIA's best information and best analysis to the president of the United States and make sure he understands it. My job is to not watch what they're saying on TV.

The discussion went on:

MATTHEWS: So you're briefing the president on the reasons for war, they're selling the war, using your stuff, saying you made that case when you didn't. So they're using your credibility to make the case for war dishonestly, as you just admitted.

MORELL: Look, I'm just telling you—

MATTHEWS: You just admitted it.

MORELL: I'm just telling you what we said—

MATTHEWS: They gave a false presentation of what you said to them.

MORELL: On some aspects. On some aspects.

So, there you have it...more proof that you dumbass wingnuts choose to ignore.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/05/michael-morell-bush-cheney-iraq-war

people say Oreilly interrupts guests and won't let them finish their thoughts......he must have learned that from Mr Wallace

 

[mneilmont]

Really? It was an interview. The man answered the questions and spoke the words. No editorializing. No spin. Just the facts. Reluctantly though. He said in no uncertain terms that the W admin distorted the truth (ie lied) about what the CIA told them. And this man was the one delivering the PDB to W. You morons will never accept the truth. Richard Clarke, a republican who worked for 3 different GOP Presidents, wrote a book describing how W and Cheney lied us into war. And you jackasses didn't believe that either. Why won't you people open your eyes?

Interview, really? that usually takes the form of question and answer. Matthews handles both question and answer. If you like that interrogation, you must be a big fan of Billy O, Hannity, Maulkin and that long stringy haired blond.

It amazes me that you have the audacity of accusing others of what you are doing at the time. Do you not get confused with the application of that logic? Or, do you just never think about what you are saying?

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

Really? It was an interview. The man answered the questions and spoke the words. No editorializing. No spin. Just the facts. Reluctantly though. He said in no uncertain terms that the W admin distorted the truth (ie lied) about what the CIA told them. And this man was the one delivering the PDB to W. You morons will never accept the truth. Richard Clarke, a republican who worked for 3 different GOP Presidents, wrote a book describing how W and Cheney lied us into war. And you jackasses didn't believe that either. Why won't you people open your eyes?

I would accept what you're saying if it were accurate. The fact is, Congress voted us into war. They also had access to the same intelligence Bush and Cheney did via the Intel Oversight Committee and Committee on Armed Services (Hillary was a member and voted for the war). Was she also complicit in lying us into war?

Or do you consider the "lying us into war" being the public? Of which you would then have to conclude that Congress knowingly voted a lie only because the polling supported it and they didn't have stones to tell the truth.

 

[RichardPeterJohnson]

I don't know if you don't read or you simply don't care to question your beliefs. Morell said:

“The view that hardliners in the Bush administration forced the intelligence community into its position on WMD is just flat wrong,” he writes. “No one pushed. The analysts were already there and they had been there for years, long before Bush came to office.”

The Matthews' interview was about nukes, not about chemical and biological weapons. The NIE report makes clear that Hussein was trying to get nukes. Perhaps the CIA disagreed, but the NIE is a much braoder assessment of intelligence than just he CIA. But the intelligence community was in agreement, Hussein had WMD.

MATTHEWS: They gave a false presentation of what you said to them.

MORELL: On some aspects. On some aspects.

So they distorted the truth. Plain and simple. As to nukes vs other wmd...it was Cheney, W and Condi crisscrossing the country talking about mushroom clouds if we didn't invade. That's a fact. Without the nuke threat, there was no sale to Congress or the American people. You people are hilarious with your heads in the sand. But that's where you stay most of the time.

 

[WVPATX]

MATTHEWS: They gave a false presentation of what you said to them.

MORELL: On some aspects. On some aspects.

So they distorted the truth. Plain and simple. As to nukes vs other wmd...it was Cheney, W and Condi crisscrossing the country talking about mushroom clouds if we didn't invade. That's a fact. Without the nuke threat, there was no sale to Congress or the American people. You people are hilarious with your heads in the sand. But that's where you stay most of the time.

I take it you don't read. The NIE report clearly states that the intelligence assessment was that Hussein wanted nukes and could reconstitute the program in a very short period of time. Bush did NOT say that nukes weree the sole reason for taking on Iraq. It was the concern over WMD. Again, the NIE is much broader than the CIA.

 

[RichardPeterJohnson]

I take it you don't read. The NIE report clearly states that the intelligence assessment was that Hussein wanted nukes and could reconstitute the program in a very short period of time. Bush did NOT say that nukes weree the sole reason for taking on Iraq. It was the concern over WMD. Again, the NIE is much broader than the CIA.

Bullshit. They floated out the nuke threat for months knowing full well that they had no proof. They used the tubes which was bogus. They ignored their own experts who said the tubes weren't conducive to nuke development. They used the phrase "mushroom cloud" repeatedly. Why? Because that scared the hell out of people. They used the "yellow cake" claim that, again, their own experts said was bogus. They manipulated the intel and shaped it to achieve their intended goal. You are a dumbass and you are like talking to a wall.

 

[WVPATX]

Bullshit. They floated out the nuke threat for months knowing full well that they had no proof. They used the tubes which was bogus. They ignored their own experts who said the tubes weren't conducive to nuke development. They used the phrase "mushroom cloud" repeatedly. Why? Because that scared the hell out of people. They used the "yellow cake" claim that, again, their own experts said was bogus. They manipulated the intel and shaped it to achieve their intended goal. You are a dumbass and you are like talking to a wall.

Name calling seems to be your forte. I have been told that when a lib resorts to name calling you have won the debate. The NIE report lays this all out. You jus't don't want to know.

 

[RichardPeterJohnson]

I would accept what you're saying if it were accurate. The fact is, Congress voted us into war. They also had access to the same intelligence Bush and Cheney did via the Intel Oversight Committee and Committee on Armed Services (Hillary was a member and voted for the war). Was she also complicit in lying us into war?

Or do you consider the "lying us into war" being the public? Of which you would then have to conclude that Congress knowingly voted a lie only because the polling supported it and they didn't have stones to tell the truth.

Hey Einstein, where does the Intel Cmmte gets it's intel? Do you actually think that Congress has it's own intel agency....the "Congress Intelligence Agency"...the other CIA? Really? You keep spouting the nonsense that "everyone had the same intel" yet fail to consider the origin of the intel. I've pointed out repeatedly that various intel agencies disputed the claims made by the admin. Clearly the admin said whatever they felt would make the best case to invade despite their own experts disagreeing. Those are facts.

 

[WVPATX]

Hey Einstein, where does the Intel Cmmte gets it's intel? Do you actually think that Congress has it's own intel agency....the "Congress Intelligence Agency"...the other CIA? Really? You keep spouting the nonsense that "everyone had the same intel" yet fail to consider the origin of the intel. I've pointed out repeatedly that various intel agencies disputed the claims made by the admin. Clearly the admin said whatever they felt would make the best case to invade despite their own experts disagreeing. Those are facts.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/laurence-h-silberman-the-dangerous-lie-that-bush-lied-1423437950

You may want to read this, if you in fact read. This is from one of the co-authors of the bipartisan investigation looking into Iraq WMD. Then do yourself a big favor and read the NIE Report. You will sleep better at night.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

Hey Einstein, where does the Intel Cmmte gets it's intel? Do you actually think that Congress has it's own intel agency....the "Congress Intelligence Agency"...the other CIA? Really? You keep spouting the nonsense that "everyone had the same intel" yet fail to consider the origin of the intel. I've pointed out repeatedly that various intel agencies disputed the claims made by the admin. Clearly the admin said whatever they felt would make the best case to invade despite their own experts disagreeing. Those are facts.

They get it from the same place the administration was getting theirs and in same classified memos and briefings. Even Matthew's interrogatory with Morell that you originally posted suggests this. He said, his job was to provide the intel. What they said after that was not his concern. Congress gets the same intel from the same source. As I already pointed out, HRC was a member on the committee for Armed Services which receives the reports, as does the Intel Services committee. She was beating the drum, was she a liar as well that drug us into war?

It's easy to sit back after the fact and say we shouldn't have gone in. Since we haven't found WMD to any substantial quantity, I would agree, the premise sold to the public was faulty. The public was lied to, coerced, misinformed intentionally or otherwise, etc. and Congress was as complicit in the lie and still voted for it. Hillary gets a pass from you I guess?

Pretty typical. Carry on with your conspiracy. I'm bowing out as it's clear you cannot accept anything other than your little world.

 

[TarHeelEer]

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/05/michael-morell-bush-cheney-iraq-war

LOL!

 

[mneilmont]

They get it from the same place the administration was getting theirs and in same classified memos and briefings. Even Matthew's interrogatory with Morell that you originally posted suggests this. He said, his job was to provide the intel. What they said after that was not his concern. Congress gets the same intel from the same source. As I already pointed out, HRC was a member on the committee for Armed Services which receives the reports, as does the Intel Services committee. She was beating the drum, was she a liar as well that drug us into war?

It's easy to sit back after the fact and say we shouldn't have gone in. Since we haven't found WMD to any substantial quantity, I would agree, the premise sold to the public was faulty. The public was lied to, coerced, misinformed intentionally or otherwise, etc. and Congress was as complicit in the lie and still voted for it. Hillary gets a pass from you I guess?

Pretty typical. Carry on with your conspiracy. I'm bowing out as it's clear you cannot accept anything other than your little world.

They get it from the same place the administration was getting theirs and in same classified memos and briefings. Even Matthew's interrogatory with Morell that you originally posted suggests this. He said, his job was to provide the intel. What they said after that was not his concern. Congress gets the same intel from the same source. As I already pointed out, HRC was a member on the committee for Armed Services which receives the reports, as does the Intel Services committee. She was beating the drum, was she a liar as well that drug us into war?

It's easy to sit back after the fact and say we shouldn't have gone in. Since we haven't found WMD to any substantial quantity, I would agree, the premise sold to the public was faulty. The public was lied to, coerced, misinformed intentionally or otherwise, etc. and Congress was as complicit in the lie and still voted for it. Hillary gets a pass from you I guess?

Pretty typical. Carry on with your conspiracy. I'm bowing out as it's clear you cannot accept anything other than your little world.

This is all BS. Saddam was in violation of the treaty resolutions placed upon him and he accepted. Clinton did not do much to enforce the treaty. Bush was intent on enforcing. Total access was required for UN and IAEA inspectors. Failure to comply called for "dire consequences". Saddam started playing a game of comply and then block access.

Bush was promising consequences for non-compliance and started building forces to enforce the resolutions. The country was about 85% ready for something. Dems wanted to support because of support of the country. Dems were the ones to bring up WMD and mass destruction to give themselves a shield. Bush was sticking to the defiance of the resolutions. Dems kept the WMD and Bush finally went along with the popular support. Dems were on Senate Floor speaking of the need to rid the country of Saddam. The rest of the free world(and some not free) were speaking of the need to remove Saddam.

Dems turned tail as soon as no WMD (nuclear) were found. Bush didn't have that kind of maneuverability available after invasion. There were cache of chemical weapons found. And Saddam was still in hiding. The war progressed. The rest is the story is pretty well documented.

 

[bornaneer]

Hey Einstein, where does the Intel Cmmte gets it's intel? Do you actually think that Congress has it's own intel agency....the "Congress Intelligence Agency"...the other CIA? Really? You keep spouting the nonsense that "everyone had the same intel" yet fail to consider the origin of the intel. I've pointed out repeatedly that various intel agencies disputed the claims made by the admin. Clearly the admin said whatever they felt would make the best case to invade despite their own experts disagreeing. Those are facts.

Colin Powell believed they had WMDs. Surely he did not lie.

 

[mule_eer]

I don't think that Matthews interview proves much, and I'll tell you why. Someone else already pointed out that Matthews was asking and answering the questions. On Matlock, he's be accused of badgering the witness. I have a lot of respect for Matthews intelligence in the political arena - his resume is pretty impressive. I don't care for him as a "journalist". He has no more business in that field than Hannity. They are opinion guys - great if you want to hear their opinions, but horrible at giving you information that allows you to make up your own mind.

 

[Mntneer]

I don't think that Matthews interview proves much, and I'll tell you why. Someone else already pointed out that Matthews was asking and answering the questions. On Matlock, he's be accused of badgering the witness. I have a lot of respect for Matthews intelligence in the political arena - his resume is pretty impressive. I don't care for him as a "journalist". He has no more business in that field than Hannity. They are opinion guys - great if you want to hear their opinions, but horrible at giving you information that allows you to make up your own mind.

I used to watch Matthews regularly, but then over time I got tired of his schtick, he and Hannity just get annoying after the first few minutes of their shows.