Joining the offensive to correct history on the issue of pre-war intelligence is SecDef Donald Rumsfeld. As President Bush has noted in two recent speeches that Democrats have been trying to rewrite history, Rummy retraces the actual history.
In 1998, the U.S. Congress passed, and President Bill Clinton signed, the Iraq Liberation Act. That law specified 10 findings of Saddam Hussein's violations of international norms, and stated, 'It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.'
That legislation passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 360 to 38, and it passed the Senate without a single vote in opposition.
In December of that year – 1998 – President Clinton ordered military action in response to Iraq's decision to expel the UN weapon inspectors. In an address to the nation he stated, 'Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them … The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.'
Justifying President Clinton's decision, then-Vice President Gore asked, 'If you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons?'
Today, Democrats are singing a different tune. After warning us for years about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, they've recently decided, "Nahhh, he wasn't a threat." Democrats with access to intelligence even before George W. Bush became President were regularly warning us over several years. Now, even these Democrats will have a hard time claiming that George W. Bush, as governor of Texas, was manipulating intelligence back in the 1990's. But hey, maybe it was Karl Rove...
The then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said, 'Iraq is a long way from Ohio, but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.'
And the then-National Security Advisor Sandy Berger said, 'He will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983.'
Four years later, in October 2002, by a large margin, a bipartisan majority of the Congress authorized President Bush to use force if necessary to deal with the continued threat posed by Saddam Hussein. In the legislation, the U.S. Congress stated that Iraq, 'Poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States … [by] continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations.'
Rummy noted that foreign intelligence agencies all reached the same conclusion... "Great Britain, France, Germany and Russia, and by the United Nations Security Council in more than a dozen different Security Council resolutions between 1990 and the year 2002."
What happened? I think anyone can figure out what brought around the sudden changing minds of Democrats... Republicans won big in 2002, retaking their majority in the Senate, and increasing their majority in the House. The presidential elections were fast approaching, and the Democrats realized that they missed being in power, and would do anything to get it back... Even by politicizing intelligence. The success of anti-war candidate Howard Dean put other power hungry Democrats in the anti-war column and suddenly, the Democrats realized that the only message they had that resonated with their base was an anti-Bush message. So, opposition to the war, the Patriot Act, even No Child Left Behind—all things they previously supported—became their strategy.
Their attempts to rewrite history continued, even as it we regularly found out that Iraq was indeed in violation of U.N. Resolutions, as Rummy noted:
In early 2004, weapons inspector David Kay, while acknowledging he had not found weapons of mass destruction, testified that Iraq, 'Maintained programs and activities, and they certainly had the intentions at a point to resume their programs.'
Later that year, weapons inspector Charles Duelfer noted, 'Saddam Hussein … wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction when (the) sanctions were lifted.'
This is the history that brought us where we are today. These are simply facts.
Simply facts, but Democrats today still refuse to recognize the truth.
Posted by Matt at November 15, 2005 06:52 PM
Track
del.icio.us
digg it
IM
Facebook
Comments
Devastating article, Matt. The truth always wins out in the end.
Posted by: Freedom1 at November 15, 2005 07:17 PM
democrats & truth are like vinegar & oil.
Posted by: Geo at November 15, 2005 08:01 PM
Great reporting. Also, check out the video available at GOP.com:
http://www.gop.com/Default.aspx?s=video
Posted by:
DJ at November 15, 2005 09:15 PM
So let me get this straight.
Democrats called for regime change, and the Republicans think they meant BY FORCE? heh.
So, did Clinton actually send military forces into Iraq? Did they accomplish anything?
Let me get this straight.
The Bush government is following through on a CLINTON initiative? You think he got it RIGHT?
Enough.
The question was not what Saddam could do in 1999. The question was what could Saddam do in 2002. Castro was a threat in 1962. He wasn't in 1963.
The question was not whether Saddam had programs to create WMD. There are guys in Colorado with programs to build WMD. Did Saddam HAVE WMD?
And if not, has the US just spent billions of dollars and 2000+ lives to swat a BUG?
Posted by:
The Small Town Hick at November 15, 2005 09:26 PM
I love it when the foot continues every day to get a little closer to their mouths. looking forward to the top busting off of this one.
Posted by: bearmanUSMC at November 15, 2005 09:43 PM
Unbelievable. Do you really think all this garbage being spewed by the administration comes anywhere near the truth? I guess they are in panic mode now and will try to lay the blame for their mistakes at the feet of the opposition. The behavior of these so-called leaders is becoming more child-like every day.
Posted by: Canadian Observer at November 15, 2005 10:24 PM
And yet Bush's poll numbers continue to sink. With all these clear-cut facts surrounding the actions of the Bush Administration, the right must think the American people are really stupid to have been duped by the vast Left-Wing Conspiracy.
Posted by: Renne P at November 15, 2005 10:49 PM
And yet Bush's poll numbers continue to sink. With all these clear-cut facts surrounding the actions of the Bush Administration, the right must think the American people are really stupid to have been duped by the vast Left-Wing Conspiracy.
Posted by: Renne P at November 15, 2005 10:51 PM
And yet we care about polls why? We've seen how the media can skew polls or spout out whatever they want. Remember there are Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics. Sorry, Bush isn't up for Re-election so he shouldn't and probably doesn't care about polls.
Honestly you can look at RIGHT AFTER 9/11 or right up to the vote and right before the war and we can quote Dems who are now saying Bush lied who say the EXACT SAME FRIGGIN THING as Bush if not using stronger language. So stop thinking this is going to "get Bush" since it just makes the Dems look like Flip Floppers or what have you.
Posted by:
Gozer at November 15, 2005 11:21 PM
Why are far left wing fringe kooks like Renne so obsessed with Bush's poll numbers? Do they think he's running for a third term? Are they so stupid that they don't see their own poll numbers in the low 30's? Of course, by lying you can bring down the oppositions poll numbers but the consequences are that your poll numbers will plummet along with theirs. Then the public will re-elect the party that has been smeared. This is not rocket science but evidently the lunatics on the left don't get it. When the GOP picks up another 2 seats in the Senate next year the donks can still scream that the presidents poll numbers are in the tank.
Posted by:
CJ at November 16, 2005 01:10 AM
Canadian,
As a matter of fact, we do...we agree with Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Patrick Leahy, etc, etc, etc who all agreed 100% with the pre-liberation intelligence on Iraq...
All we're doing now is pointing out the dishonesty of Democrats who in 2005 say the opposite of what they said 1998 thru 2003.
Posted by: Mark Noonan at November 16, 2005 02:36 AM
CJ,
They do seem to be engaged in a "Gray Davis" political gambit...make politics so nasty that only the fanatics stay tuned in. I guess their hope is for 30% turnout in 2006...
Posted by: Mark Noonan at November 16, 2005 02:39 AM
Dear Mr. Noonan,
Please allow your readers to be enlightened with this quote from one of your fellow Republican Senators.
Chuck Hagel (Republican) blasted the Bush administration for his attack on critics of the war.
"The Iraq war should not be debated in the United States on a partisan political platform," the Nebraska senator remarked. "This debases our country, trivializes the seriousness of war and cheapens the service and sacrifices of our men and women in uniform. War is not a Republican or Democrat issue. The casualties of war are from both parties. The Bush Administration must understand that each American has a right to question our policies in Iraq and should not be demonized for disagreeing with them. Suggesting that to challenge or criticize policy is undermining and hurting our troops is not democracy nor what this country has stood for, for over 200 years. The Democrats have an obligation to challenge in a serious and responsible manner, offering solutions and alternatives to the Administration’s policies."
Posted by: christopher at November 16, 2005 04:06 AM
canadian..........one word...err two..
Gomery Commission...
I'd worry about your own country...and then den of thieves
Posted by: theblksheepwasright at November 16, 2005 07:18 AM
I think we really need to take an opportunity to praise the wisdom of President George H.W. Bush.
During the several years before the second Gulf War, an increasingly large and influential group of people came to the conclusion that George H.W. Bush erred in failing to "finish the job" during the first war. Current events have vindicate his administration's judgment that toppling Saddam Hussein would have both greatly compromised America's diplomatic position and saddled the U.S. with a deeply problematic occupation of Iraq.
George H.W. Bush was a man of action and wisdom.
Posted by: Christian Wright at November 16, 2005 08:56 AM
Gomery Commission
Yes, Canada has corruption in its government like every other country. Only difference, tens of thousands of people have not lost their lives to this scandal.
Posted by: Canadian Observer at November 16, 2005 09:13 AM
The Democrats have an obligation to challenge (in a serious and responsible manner, offering solutions and alternatives to the Administration’s policies.")
Christopher, this sounds like something that RINO Hagel would say, but the part in parens (emphasis - mine) is just wishful thinking on his part and not, in any way, based in reality. If you think the Donks are being "serious and responsible" and are "offering solutions and alternatives", then you're smoking something illegal.
Matt, I'm beginning to have serious reservations about the "new tone" of your Blog. On the positive side, the lefty trolls that have been commenting regularly the last few weeks are, at least, civil -- not your typical KOS and DU types. On the negative side, all they tend to do is spew memorized DNC talking points. Debating with a bunch of liars, whether they're initiating the lies or just repeating them, gets old real fast. Just once, it would be nice to hear a Lib say, upon hearing one of their lies refuted for the umpteenth time, "I admit I was wrong", instead of simply throwing more of the same sh.t against the wall, hoping some of it will eventually stick. Debating should be about ideas and solutions, not about who is the most convincing liar.
Posted by: Retired Spook at November 16, 2005 10:34 AM
christopher... Hagel is pandering, and you are deluded. Did you actually read his speech, or just what other lefties said about the speech?
The reason I ask is... Bush specifically said there's nothing wrong with disagreeing with him, but that it was wrong to lie about the history of what got us here. When those who disagree with the policies go beyond disagreeing to lying (by saying Bush manipulated the intelligence to get us to go to war), that is what "debases our country, trivializes the seriousness of war and cheapens the service and sacrifices of our men and women in uniform"... not showing that lie to be a lie.
Posted by: LNC at November 16, 2005 10:54 AM
"Do you really think all this garbage being spewed by the administration comes anywhere near the truth?"
Canadian, as is perpetually the case with our counterparts here, you use plenty of loaded language, "garbage", "spewed" but no, absolutely nada on the specifics. Talk about a panic! This is the great elegance and lethality in the Reps counter-offensive. All they need do is take publicly available quotations and publicize them. That's it. Are you saying that Kerry, Clinton et al DID NOT SAY THESE THINGS? If so, your quarrel is with the Congressional Record in most cases. Are you saying these are excised quotes out of context and contrary to their original meaning? Well, then the Congressional Record and Google are your friends... allies. Bring 'em in. Let's see this "truth" that rests, apparently, on nothing but ignorant, juvenile outrage. This is why, among other reasons, the Dem/Left doesn't have a chance at long term or even mid term advances, though short term opportunism has its appeal.
Posted by: megapotamus at November 16, 2005 11:07 AM
Ah... polls don't matter. The majority of the American People think you're doing a poor job running the country and they don't matter; we should just Stay The Course. Got it.
Posted by: Renne P at November 16, 2005 02:01 PM
Clinton's sanctions worked. Saddam could not rebuild his WMD program. Too Bad Bush would not wait until Hans Blix finished the job he started. He could have spared thousands of American lives and tens of thousand of civilian Iraqi lives and well over 200 billion in tax payer dollars.
Bush 43 should have listened to his daddy.
Posted by: Christian Wright at November 16, 2005 02:18 PM
Senators did not get the same intelligence as the President has said. The senate put its trust in the President thinking he knew something they didn't. The Senators who approved the use of force in Iraq (as a last resort) did so because of the information President Bush gave them, which was selected info.
This President used debunked intell in his State of the Union address and continued to repeat it long after they knew it was false.
Its not Dems "flip flopping" on the vote for use of force, its the Dems realizing they had been bamboozled by this administration.
The fact is that the administration used inteeligence that they knew was false to sell the war to the American people.
It will all be coming to light very soon, you'll see.
The war wasnt sold to us as a liberation of Iraq, it was sold based on fear of mushroom clouds and nuclear fears.
Posted by: christopher at November 16, 2005 02:36 PM
Order Matt and Mark's book on Amazon or Barnes and Noble
Devastating article, Matt. The truth always wins out in the end.
democrats & truth are like vinegar & oil.
Great reporting. Also, check out the video available at GOP.com:
http://www.gop.com/Default.aspx?s=video
So let me get this straight.
Democrats called for regime change, and the Republicans think they meant BY FORCE? heh.
So, did Clinton actually send military forces into Iraq? Did they accomplish anything?
Let me get this straight.
The Bush government is following through on a CLINTON initiative? You think he got it RIGHT?
Enough.
The question was not what Saddam could do in 1999. The question was what could Saddam do in 2002. Castro was a threat in 1962. He wasn't in 1963.
The question was not whether Saddam had programs to create WMD. There are guys in Colorado with programs to build WMD. Did Saddam HAVE WMD?
And if not, has the US just spent billions of dollars and 2000+ lives to swat a BUG?
I love it when the foot continues every day to get a little closer to their mouths. looking forward to the top busting off of this one.
Unbelievable. Do you really think all this garbage being spewed by the administration comes anywhere near the truth? I guess they are in panic mode now and will try to lay the blame for their mistakes at the feet of the opposition. The behavior of these so-called leaders is becoming more child-like every day.
And yet Bush's poll numbers continue to sink. With all these clear-cut facts surrounding the actions of the Bush Administration, the right must think the American people are really stupid to have been duped by the vast Left-Wing Conspiracy.
And yet Bush's poll numbers continue to sink. With all these clear-cut facts surrounding the actions of the Bush Administration, the right must think the American people are really stupid to have been duped by the vast Left-Wing Conspiracy.
And yet we care about polls why? We've seen how the media can skew polls or spout out whatever they want. Remember there are Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics. Sorry, Bush isn't up for Re-election so he shouldn't and probably doesn't care about polls.
Honestly you can look at RIGHT AFTER 9/11 or right up to the vote and right before the war and we can quote Dems who are now saying Bush lied who say the EXACT SAME FRIGGIN THING as Bush if not using stronger language. So stop thinking this is going to "get Bush" since it just makes the Dems look like Flip Floppers or what have you.
Why are far left wing fringe kooks like Renne so obsessed with Bush's poll numbers? Do they think he's running for a third term? Are they so stupid that they don't see their own poll numbers in the low 30's? Of course, by lying you can bring down the oppositions poll numbers but the consequences are that your poll numbers will plummet along with theirs. Then the public will re-elect the party that has been smeared. This is not rocket science but evidently the lunatics on the left don't get it. When the GOP picks up another 2 seats in the Senate next year the donks can still scream that the presidents poll numbers are in the tank.
Canadian,
As a matter of fact, we do...we agree with Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Patrick Leahy, etc, etc, etc who all agreed 100% with the pre-liberation intelligence on Iraq...
All we're doing now is pointing out the dishonesty of Democrats who in 2005 say the opposite of what they said 1998 thru 2003.
CJ,
They do seem to be engaged in a "Gray Davis" political gambit...make politics so nasty that only the fanatics stay tuned in. I guess their hope is for 30% turnout in 2006...
Dear Mr. Noonan,
Please allow your readers to be enlightened with this quote from one of your fellow Republican Senators.
Chuck Hagel (Republican) blasted the Bush administration for his attack on critics of the war.
"The Iraq war should not be debated in the United States on a partisan political platform," the Nebraska senator remarked. "This debases our country, trivializes the seriousness of war and cheapens the service and sacrifices of our men and women in uniform. War is not a Republican or Democrat issue. The casualties of war are from both parties. The Bush Administration must understand that each American has a right to question our policies in Iraq and should not be demonized for disagreeing with them. Suggesting that to challenge or criticize policy is undermining and hurting our troops is not democracy nor what this country has stood for, for over 200 years. The Democrats have an obligation to challenge in a serious and responsible manner, offering solutions and alternatives to the Administration’s policies."
canadian..........one word...err two..
Gomery Commission...
I'd worry about your own country...and then den of thieves
I think we really need to take an opportunity to praise the wisdom of President George H.W. Bush.
During the several years before the second Gulf War, an increasingly large and influential group of people came to the conclusion that George H.W. Bush erred in failing to "finish the job" during the first war. Current events have vindicate his administration's judgment that toppling Saddam Hussein would have both greatly compromised America's diplomatic position and saddled the U.S. with a deeply problematic occupation of Iraq.
George H.W. Bush was a man of action and wisdom.
Gomery Commission
Yes, Canada has corruption in its government like every other country. Only difference, tens of thousands of people have not lost their lives to this scandal.
The Democrats have an obligation to challenge (in a serious and responsible manner, offering solutions and alternatives to the Administration’s policies.")
Christopher, this sounds like something that RINO Hagel would say, but the part in parens (emphasis - mine) is just wishful thinking on his part and not, in any way, based in reality. If you think the Donks are being "serious and responsible" and are "offering solutions and alternatives", then you're smoking something illegal.
Matt, I'm beginning to have serious reservations about the "new tone" of your Blog. On the positive side, the lefty trolls that have been commenting regularly the last few weeks are, at least, civil -- not your typical KOS and DU types. On the negative side, all they tend to do is spew memorized DNC talking points. Debating with a bunch of liars, whether they're initiating the lies or just repeating them, gets old real fast. Just once, it would be nice to hear a Lib say, upon hearing one of their lies refuted for the umpteenth time, "I admit I was wrong", instead of simply throwing more of the same sh.t against the wall, hoping some of it will eventually stick. Debating should be about ideas and solutions, not about who is the most convincing liar.
christopher... Hagel is pandering, and you are deluded. Did you actually read his speech, or just what other lefties said about the speech?
The reason I ask is... Bush specifically said there's nothing wrong with disagreeing with him, but that it was wrong to lie about the history of what got us here. When those who disagree with the policies go beyond disagreeing to lying (by saying Bush manipulated the intelligence to get us to go to war), that is what "debases our country, trivializes the seriousness of war and cheapens the service and sacrifices of our men and women in uniform"... not showing that lie to be a lie.
"Do you really think all this garbage being spewed by the administration comes anywhere near the truth?"
Canadian, as is perpetually the case with our counterparts here, you use plenty of loaded language, "garbage", "spewed" but no, absolutely nada on the specifics. Talk about a panic! This is the great elegance and lethality in the Reps counter-offensive. All they need do is take publicly available quotations and publicize them. That's it. Are you saying that Kerry, Clinton et al DID NOT SAY THESE THINGS? If so, your quarrel is with the Congressional Record in most cases. Are you saying these are excised quotes out of context and contrary to their original meaning? Well, then the Congressional Record and Google are your friends... allies. Bring 'em in. Let's see this "truth" that rests, apparently, on nothing but ignorant, juvenile outrage. This is why, among other reasons, the Dem/Left doesn't have a chance at long term or even mid term advances, though short term opportunism has its appeal.
Ah... polls don't matter. The majority of the American People think you're doing a poor job running the country and they don't matter; we should just Stay The Course. Got it.
Clinton's sanctions worked. Saddam could not rebuild his WMD program. Too Bad Bush would not wait until Hans Blix finished the job he started. He could have spared thousands of American lives and tens of thousand of civilian Iraqi lives and well over 200 billion in tax payer dollars.
Bush 43 should have listened to his daddy.
Senators did not get the same intelligence as the President has said. The senate put its trust in the President thinking he knew something they didn't. The Senators who approved the use of force in Iraq (as a last resort) did so because of the information President Bush gave them, which was selected info.
This President used debunked intell in his State of the Union address and continued to repeat it long after they knew it was false.
Its not Dems "flip flopping" on the vote for use of force, its the Dems realizing they had been bamboozled by this administration.
The fact is that the administration used inteeligence that they knew was false to sell the war to the American people.
It will all be coming to light very soon, you'll see.
The war wasnt sold to us as a liberation of Iraq, it was sold based on fear of mushroom clouds and nuclear fears.