Dems: Iraq has WMD's

Virtually every major Democrat, as documented, below, publicy stated prior to the war in Iraq that Iraq is in possession of WMDs -- NOT that they "may" have been, but that they ARE.

They made these statements based upon their review of exactly the same intelligence reports as Bush had - namely, reports from the CIA detailing the available intelligence.

How can it be, then, that "BUSH LIED!!!" when HE said, based on these reports, that Iraq had WMDs, but the Democrats didn't lie when they said exactly the same thing based on exactly the same information?

Either Bush lied, in which case the Democrats did, too. Or the Democrats were merely mistaken in believing that Iraq had WMDs, in which case Bush was, too. It can't be both:

The Democrats and Weapons of Mass Destruction

(http://www.commondreams.org/news2004/0123-08.htm)

WASHINGTON - January 23 - While many have called on President Bush to offer an explanation for his false claims about Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction, several Democratic presidential candidates have made similar claims. Here are candidate statements made before the occupation of Iraq:

JOHN KERRY: "Why is Saddam Hussein attempting to develop nuclear weapons when most nations don't even try? According to intelligence, Iraq has chemical and biological weapons ... Iraq is developing unmanned aerial vehicles capable of delivering chemical and biological warfare agents..." (Oct. 9, 2002) [see: http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0826-03.htm, http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2002_1009.html]

WESLEY CLARK: "He [Hussein] does have weapons of mass destruction." When asked, "And you could say that categorically?" Clark responded: "Absolutely." (on CNN, Jan. 18, 2003). On finding the alleged weapons Clark said: "I think they will be found. There's so much intelligence on this." (on CNN, April 2, 2003) [see: http://www.fair.org/press-releases/clark-antiwar.html, http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0301/18/smn.05.html, www-cgi.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0304/02/lt.08.html]

HOWARD DEAN: "[He and others] have never been in doubt about the evil of Saddam Hussein or the necessity of removing his weapons of mass destruction." (March 17, 2003) [see: http://www.wtv-zone.com/Morgaine_OFaery/HDean4pres/deantrpswar.html]

JOSEPH LIEBERMAN: "Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." (August 4, 2002) [see: http://www.counterpunch.org/wmd05292003.html, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,59538,00.html]

JOHN EDWARDS: "We know that he [Hussein] has chemical and biological weapons." (Oct. 10, 2002) [see: http://www.senate.gov/~edwards/statements/20021010_iraq.html]

>How can it be, then, that "BUSH LIED!!!" when HE said,

>based on these reports, that Iraq had WMDs, but the Democrats

>didn't lie when they said exactly the same thing based on

>exactly the same information?

Who says they had exactly the same information? When the DIA produced a classified report in late 2002 stating that we simply did not know whether Saddam had WMD or not, it's reasonable to assume that Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, to whom DIA is responsible, knew about it. Did they conceal the report from their superiors, Bush and Cheney? If so, why? If not, then Bush and Cheney made public statements contrary to some of the intelligence reports they received. And was that report shown to any Democratic leaders in or out of Congress? If not, how would they know of it?

But was that report shown to Democratic leaders? If not, they can hardly be held responsible for knowing its conclusions.

That's because the Shrub Administration picked and chose what nuggets it was going to release to the Democrats and the American people.

Doubts, dissent stripped from public version of Iraq assessment

By JONATHAN S. LANDAY

Knight Ridder Newspapers

Published on: 02/10/04

WASHINGTON -- The public version of the U.S. intelligence community's key prewar assessment of Iraq's illicit arms programs was stripped of dissenting opinions, warnings of insufficient information and doubts about deposed dictator Saddam Hussein's intentions, a review of the document and its once-classified version shows.

As a result, the public was given a far more definitive assessment of Iraq's plans and capabilities than President Bush and other U.S. decision-makers received from their intelligence agencies.

The stark differences between the public version and the then top-secret version of the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate raise new questions about the accuracy of the public case made for a war that's claimed the lives of more than 500 U.S. service members and thousands of Iraqis.

The two documents are replete with differences. For example, the public version declared that "most analysts assess Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program" and says "if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon within this decade."

But it fails to mention the dissenting view offered in the top-secret version by the State Department's intelligence arm, the Bureau of Intelligence and Research, known as the INR.

That view said, in part, "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."

The alternative view further said "INR is unwilling to ... project a timeline for the completion of activities it does not now see happening."

Both versions were written by the National Intelligence Council, a board of senior analysts who report to CIA Director George Tenet and prepare reports on crucial national security issues. Stuart Cohen, a 30-year CIA veteran, was the NIC's acting chairman at the time.

The CIA didn't respond officially to requests to explain the differences in the two versions. But a senior intelligence official, speaking on condition of anonymity, explained them by saying a more candid public version could have revealed U.S. intelligence-gathering methods.

Last week, Tenet defended the intelligence community's reporting on Iraq, telling an audience at Georgetown University that differences over Iraq's capabilities "were spelled out" in the October 2002 intelligence estimate.

But while top U.S. officials may have been told of differences among analysts, those disputes were kept from the American public in key areas, including whether Saddam was stockpiling biological and chemical weapons and whether he might dispatch poison-spraying robot aircraft to attack the United States.

Both documents have been available to the public for months. The CIA released the public version, titled "Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs," in October 2002, when the Bush administration was making its case for war. The White House declassified and released portions of the NIE's key findings in July 2003.

Knight Ridder compared the documents in light of Tenet's speech and continuing controversy over the intelligence that President Bush used to justify the invasion last April. There are currently seven separate official inquiries into the issue.

What that comparison showed is that while the top-secret version delivered to Bush, his top lieutenants and Congress was heavily qualified with caveats about some of its most important conclusions about Iraq's illicit weapons programs, those caveats were omitted from the public version.

The caveats included the phases "we judge that," "we assess that" and "we lack specific information on many key aspects of Iraq's WMD (weapons of mass destruction) programs."

These phrases, according to current and former intelligence officials, long have been used in intelligence reports to stress an absence of hard information and underscore that judgments are extrapolations or estimates.

Among the most striking differences between the versions were those over Iraq's development of small, unmanned aircraft, also known as unmanned aerial vehicles.

The public version said Iraq's UAVs "especially if used for delivery of chemical and biological warfare (CBW) agents — could threaten Iraq's neighbors, US forces in the Persian Gulf, and the United States if brought close to, or into, the US Homeland."

The classified version showed there was major disagreement on the issue from the agency with the greatest expertise on such aircraft, the Air Force. The Air Force "does not agree that Iraq is developing UAVs primarily intended to be delivery platforms for chemical and biological warfare (CBW) agents," it said. "The small size of Iraq's new UAV strongly suggests a primary role of reconnaissance, although CBW delivery is an inherent capability."

There was substantial difference between the public version of the estimate and the classified version on the issue of Iraq's biological weapons program.

The public version contained the alarming warning that Iraq was capable of quickly developing biological warfare agents that could be delivered by "bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers, and covert operatives, including potentially against the US Homeland."

No such warning that Iraq's biological weapons could be delivered to United States appeared in the classified version.

In a section on chemical weapons, the top-secret findings said the intelligence community had "little specific information on Iraq's CW (chemical weapons) stockpile." That caveat was deleted from the public version.

The classified report went on to say that Iraq "probably has stocked at least 100 metric tons (MT) and possibly as much as 500 MT of CW agents — much of it added last year."

"Saddam probably has stocked a few hundred metric tons of CW agents," said the public report.

Deleted from the public version was a line in the classified report that cast doubt on whether Saddam was prepared to support terrorist attacks on the United States, a danger that Bush and his top aides raised repeatedly in making their case for war.

"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 with a stronger case for making war," the top-secret report said.

Also missing from the public report were judgments that Iraq would attempt "clandestine attacks" on the United States only if an American invasion threatened the survival of Saddam's regime or "possibly for revenge."

Dick Cheney gave his big Iraq speech in August -- then Scooter and John Hannah had to get the Intel Est. to line up to what he said.

Who cares -- they're both going to the slammer because of outing Valerie Plame according to a recent UPI article... yes -- Scooter did it!

>Who says they had exactly the same information? When the DIA

>produced a classified report in late 2002 stating that we

>simply did not know whether Saddam had WMD or not, it's

>reasonable to assume that Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, to whom DIA

>is responsible, knew about it.

Senators on the Intelligence Committee all receive full and unfettered access to the DIA as the President does. The Democrats in the Senate who read this intelligence concluded that Saddam had WMDs and told the American public that he has them.

You can't identify any information that Bush had that these Democratic Senators didn't have.

In addition to these Senators, the prior Administration had the same intelligence. Here is what they - as well as the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee -- had to say about Saddam's WMD capability, as was pointed out on the Senate floor(http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2004_cr/s020304e.html):

"There is no question about it not being a fully accurate estimate.

This is one of the areas where I think all of us would agree, we did

not have as good intelligence as we should have. We didn't have as good intelligence in the 1990s, when we should have. And President Clinton, on February 17, 1998, said:

If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force our

purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat

posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program.

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, a day later, said:

Iraq is a long way from here but what happens there matters

a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue

state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons

against us or our allies is the present greatest security

threat we face.

Sandy Berger, the National Security Adviser, said on that same day:

He will use those weapons of mass destruction again as he

has 10 times since 1983.

All of the people who are making these statements have access to the intelligence information that we as Senators get. We realize, based on what David Kay stated, that we badly underestimated the ballistic missile capability. As a matter of fact, Senator Graham of Florida was prescient in a letter he wrote. In a letter dated December 5, 2001, signed by many others, he said:

There is no doubt Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his

weapons program. Reports indicate biological, chemical and

nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to prewar

status. In addition Saddam continues to redefine ``delivery

system'' and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile

program to develop long range missiles that will threaten the

United States and our allies.

The ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee says there is NO DOUBT that Saddam is developing WMDs. The prior Administration repeatedly made clear that he had them.

DID THEY LIE????????????????

>That's because the Shrub Administration picked and chose what

>nuggets it was going to release to the Democrats and the

>American people.

This article says the opposite of what you claim it says. It is talking about distortions between the PRIVATE CIA REPORTS which the Democratic Senators who said that Saddam had WMDs did receive, and the statements made TO THE PUBLIC.

The Democratic Senators, particularly those on the Intelligence Committee, had EXACTLY THE SAME ACCESS TO EXACTLY THE SAME INTELLIGENCE as Bush had. Many of them said that Saddam had WMDs.

WERE THEY LYING???????????????????

>Who cares -- they're both going to the slammer because of

>outing Valerie Plame according to a recent UPI article... yes

>-- Scooter did it!

I love when liberals dispense with the pretense that they care about due process, presumption of innocence, or people's reputations.

Nobody has been charged, indicted or tried for any matters relating to Valerie Palme, let alone convicted. But you feel perfectly free to accuse people of having committed crimes, pronouncing them guilty, and then imposing the sentence of imprisonment.

It would be disgusting if it weren't so childish.

>The Democratic Senators, particularly those on the

>Intelligence Committee, had EXACTLY THE SAME ACCESS TO EXACTLY

>THE SAME INTELLIGENCE as Bush had. Many of them said that

>Saddam had WMDs.

>

>WERE THEY LYING???????????????????

First of all, they didn't have access to all the same information that Shrubya did. If they did, please provide a link to prove that was the case.

Secondly, Shrubya had every intention of invading Iraq well before the events of 9/11. He simply chose the intelligence that backed up his goal and discarded the rest.

So, if we dismiss the notion that he lied (which of course he did), we are left with the notion of Shrubya that we had before the events of 9/11. He is a dimwitted daddy's boi who is easily manipulated by his neo-con masters. Personally, I think he's both.

You'r right Doug that's the Republicians job.

Big Government

Big Deficits - Spend and Spend

Loss of States Right

Government Telling You What To Do

and the list goes on.....

The Democrates should be made as Hell... The Republicians took all their ideas and expanded them to the max.

And before you get your panties in a knot, I'm a independent, they all suck!!!!!!!!!!!

>You'r right Doug that's the Republicians job.

>

>Big Government

>Big Deficits - Spend and Spend

>Loss of States Right

>Government Telling You What To Do

>and the list goes on.....

>

>The Democrates should be made as Hell... The Republicians took

>all their ideas and expanded them to the max.

I agree with you completely. The GOP and the Democrats are equally guilty on every issue you just identified.

I don't claim otherwise, ever. I just can't stand the bitter partisans on either side brimming with unlimited intellectual dishonesty who pretend that their side has the monopoly on virtue and other side a monopoly on vice - or even that one side is better than the other. You have to be either brainwashed and stupid, or dishonest and deceitful, to claim that one side of the spectrum is better than the other with regard to any of these issues, and particularly with regard to issues of CHARACTER, HONESTY and POLITICAL PURITY.

It just so happens that THIS FORUM is brimming with cliched gay liberals, and so it's the "Liberals-are-Great-Conservatives-are-Evil" line that gets spewed here, and therefore, is the line that needs rebuttal. If this were a conservative forum filled with cliched conservatives spouting the opposite, I'd be just as vigorous in refuting those delusions.

>I'm a independent,

>they all suck!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm with you, Candyman (as usual). Right after I vote for Howard Dean in New York's primary on March 2, I'm switching back out.

>>Who says they had exactly the same information? When the

>DIA

>>produced a classified report in late 2002 stating that we

>>simply did not know whether Saddam had WMD or not, it's

>>reasonable to assume that Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, to whom

>DIA

>>is responsible, knew about it.

>Senators on the Intelligence Committee all receive full and

>unfettered access to the DIA as the President does.

Oh? How exactly would you know that? Is this part of your pattern of making assumptions for which you have no evidence and demanding we treat them as facts, or do you actually have evidence that this is true?

> The

>Democrats in the Senate who read this intelligence concluded

>that Saddam had WMDs and told the American public that he

>has them.

>

>You can't identify any information that Bush had that these

>Democratic Senators didn't have.

I just did identify a classified DIA report issued in September 2002. I have no idea whether anyone in Congress was allowed to read it. Do you? If not, why do you keep saying they were?

>In addition to these Senators, the prior Administration had

>the same intelligence.

Really? Would you care to explain how the prior administration, which ended in 2001, could have access to a report that was not issued until late 2002? I'd love to hear that one.

I called my congressman and according to his staff all of Congress would have had access to the unexpurgated October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate that George Tenet referred to his in his recent speech. BofN posted a pretty good article explaining the caveat filled original NIE and the one that was released to the public. If this is true everyone in Congress was at least exposed to the possiblity of no WMD's in Iraq.

They promise to send me a letter about this so I won't hold them to a definitve answer. I'll let you know what they say.

As for the DIA study you cited its highly likely that it was available to everyone on the Senate and House intel committees. If I get something def. one way or the other I'll follow up.

Jeff