US Congress Investigates Bush's Claims

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
Congress Begins Hearings on Iraq Weapons

WASHINGTON - The Senate Intelligence Committee held its first hearing Thursday on Iraq (news - web sites)'s weapons of mass destruction, even as Democrats and Republicans remained divided about how to examine prewar intelligence on Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s weapons programs.

That estimate, which said Iraq had chemical and biological weapons and an active program to develop a nuclear weapon, served as part of the Bush administration's justification for war. Many of its assertions have not been validated by teams hunting for evidence in postwar Iraq.

Sen. Evan Bayh (news, bio, voting record), D-Ind., said after he left the hearing that it's too early to conclude there were no such weapons.

He said he has heard "nothing that would materially alter the conclusion" that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. But Bayh said greater emphasis could have been placed on the uncertainties inherently involved in this kind of intelligence.

Senators: More Time Needed to Judge Iraq WMD

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. intelligence analysts who testified at a closed Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on Thursday stood by their basic prewar assessment that Iraq (news - web sites) had weapons of mass destruction, two attendees said.


A controversy has erupted over whether the Bush administration exaggerated the threat from Iraq's alleged biological, chemical and nuclear weapons programs in making a case for war against Baghdad. No such weapons have been found.


Sen. Evan Bayh (news, bio, voting record), an Indiana Democrat, said there was "nothing that changes the bottom line" of prewar assessments that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and the capacity to create "voluminous quantities" of such weapons.


He and other Democrats who attended the hearing said either they could not make judgments about whether the Republican administration hyped the intelligence or they did not believe outright deceit had occurred.


Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts, a Kansas Republican, said no intelligence analysts have told the panel the administration pressured them to make a stronger case on the weapons assessment than was warranted.


"If there is anyone in the intelligence community -- former, current -- that thinks that their analytical product in any way was manipulated or coerced or intimidated, please come forward. We will keep it confidential. But we have yet to hear from the first one," Roberts told reporters.

 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
U.S.: Weapon search has barely begun Bush not worried by doubters, officials say

Although U.S. troops have been hunting for chemical and biological weapons since the war ended in April, officials say there are so many leads that most have yet to be investigated, and they expect more:

* Only 157 of 578 ''suspect sites'' in Iraq have been inspected. The Pentagon has said there may be thousands of weapons sites, but the administration considers the 578 to be the most promising.

* Of 255 top Iraqi officials who might know where weapons are, 69 are in custody. The rest are being sought. Only seven of 3,152 lower-ranking officials are in custody so far.

* Analysts have barely made a dent in ''tons and tons'' of Iraqi documents

Samuel Berger, who was a national security adviser to President Clinton, says there was ''convincing evidence'' that Iraq had active biological and chemical weapons programs. He says it's important to find out whether those weapons are ''in the wrong hands . . . or if the intelligence was wrong.''

A USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll taken this month found that 64% say Bush did not deliberately mislead the public about whether Iraq had weapons. Just more than half, 51%, support congressional hearings.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
It's not an investigation. Sen. Roberts (R-Kan) calls it an inquiry . . . he says investigations are what you do if you think something has gone wrong or someone has done something wrong. The absence of WMD is part of the war plan and every member of the Bush administration is about reproach . . .

Oh plus the gem from the White House today . . . was that the search for WMD has just started.
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
Originally posted by: Gaard
What kind of shell game is this turning into?

First it was 2,000 suspected sites.
Then it was 230.
Now it's 578.

Pick a card...any card.

if they are playing a game they are turning the numbers against themselves, why not leave it at 2,000.....
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
In my opinion, these hearings are a sham. The goal is to herd the sheeple back into compliance, not find the truth. It will be swept under the rug just like the 9/11 investigations, the secret energy meetings, Enron, Halliburton, and all of the other closed, back room dealings that are the hallmark of the Bush administration.

Finding the truth requires full, on-the-record public hearings. Anything less is smoke and mirrors, a ploy to bury the truth, not expose it.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,329
6,040
126
What's the matter with you Bowfinger, didn't you feel a thrill and jollies when we killed all those Iraqis. We got attacked on 9/11. We got scared. Scared makes me happy to kill. Who cares why. What's with you?
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,329
6,040
126
And think of the poor politicians. They know the people are screaming for blood, anybody's blood. You think they want to get up front and put on the breaks. Hell no, that would cost them votes. When it comes to votes, a Democratic politicial will kill just as readily as a Republican one, er damn near so.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
What's the matter with you Bowfinger, didn't you feel a thrill and jollies when we killed all those Iraqis. We got attacked on 9/11. We got scared. Scared makes me happy to kill. Who cares why. What's with you?
Yeah, I'm funny that way. I just can't lather up a good bloodlust for killing innocents as proxies for real villains. I mean, they live in the same part of the world, more or less, so they must be evil too, right? I must have been brought up wrong or something.

I promise to make amends by going out and torching ants with a magnifying glass for an hour or two. Will that be good enough?
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
And think of the poor politicians. They know the people are screaming for blood, anybody's blood. You think they want to get up front and put on the breaks. Hell no, that would cost them votes. When it comes to votes, a Democratic politicial will kill just as readily as a Republican one, er damn near so.
Quite an ethical dilemma. Do what's right, or pander to the voters? What's a politician to do? I'm sure that will require several nanoseconds of serious soul-searching.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,329
6,040
126
several nanoseconds
--------------------------
My, my, we're feeling generous today. :D
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
And think of the poor politicians. They know the people are screaming for blood, anybody's blood. You think they want to get up front and put on the breaks. Hell no, that would cost them votes. When it comes to votes, a Democratic politicial will kill just as readily as a Republican one, er damn near so.
Quite an ethical dilemma. Do what's right, or pander to the voters? What's a politician to do? I'm sure that will require several nanoseconds of serious soul-searching.

It will take more than several nano seconds to retrieve the latest polling data for their districts or state.. They will then pander... it is the way of the politico... they are us and we are them. Ethics hardly ever matter. Brave is the winner when there is no other place. Only the moon can alter the tide of public demand and he's not likely to interfere.