Rep. Rangel wants inquiry on war's cause

Waterbury Republican-American ^ | June 17, 2005 | A.P. Wire

[Graybeard58]

WASHINGTON -- Congress should conduct an official inquiry to determine whether President Bush intentionally misled the nation about the reasons for toppling Saddam Hussein, a senior House Democrat suggested Thursday.

New York Rep. Charles Rangel was among Democratic House members who participated in a forum to air demands that the White House provide more information about what led to the decision to go to war in Iraq.

"Quite frankly, evidence that appears to be building up points to whether or not the president has deliberately misled Congress to make the most important decision a president has to make, going to war," said Rangel, senior Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee.

Rep. John Conyers and other Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee organized the forum to investigate implications in a British document known as the "Downing Street memo." The memo says the Bush administration believed that war was inevitable and was determined to use intelligence about weapons of mass destruction to justify the ouster of Saddam.

Conyers pointed to statements by Bush in the run-up to invasion that war would be a last resort. "The veracity of those statements has -- to put it mildly -- come into question," he said.

In the opening hours of the forum, witnesses spoke mainly about their views on the decision to go to war and not the memo, which the Bush administration has dismissed.

"We are having this discussion today because we failed to have it three years ago when we went to war," former Ambassador Joseph Wilson said.

"It used to be said that democracies were difficult to mobilize for war precisely because of the debate required," Wilson said, going on to say the lack of debate allowed the war to happen.

Wilson wrote a 2003 newspaper opinion piece criticizing the Bush administration's claim that Iraq had sought uranium in Niger. After the piece appeared someone in the Bush administration leaked the identity of Wilson's wife as a CIA operative, exposing her cover.

Wilson has said he believes the leak was retaliation for his critical comments. The Justice Department is investigating.

The Downing Street memo states the "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

recounting a July 23, 2002, meeting of Prime Minister Tony Blair and his national security team. The meeting took place just after British officials returned from Washington.

U.S. officials and Blair deny the assertion about intelligence and facts being "fixed," a comment that the memo attributes to the chief of British intelligence at the time.

"This is simply rehashing old debates that have already been discussed," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Thursday.

The London Sunday Times disclosed the contents of the memo May 1. It also reported on an eight-page briefing paper prepared for Blair that concluded the U.S. military had given "little thought" to the aftermath of a war in Iraq.

The briefing paper of July 21, 2002, said that a postwar occupation of Iraq could lead to a protracted and costly nation-building exercise and that "as already made clear, the U.S. military plans are virtually silent on this point. Washington could look to us to share a disproportionate share of the burden."

[Graybeard58]

They need to conduct an investigation to see if Hannity's good friend Charley Rangel has a brain.

[thoughtomator]

Here's a newspaper for Rep. Rangel, to get him up to date:

[RexBeach]

I'd prefer an investigation of what caused Charlie Rangel.

[sarasotarepublican]

I'd prefer an investigation of what caused Charlie Rangel.

Thanks for my laugh of the day!

[CyberAnt]

Errr .. excuse me .. wasn't that what the 911 Commission was all about ..?? Why do we have to go down that road again ..??

The dems are just mad because all their carping and whining is not gaining them any ground.

[Huck]

What is your answer to the obvious observation that Saddam Hussein did not attack us on 9-11, and that the leaders who DID attack us are still at large?

I was in lower Manhattan on 9-11. I passionately desire to see Al Queda, Osama, etc captured and justice served. But Uday and Kousey getting caught had zero to do with it. Same goes for Saddam, given that the administration itself admits the WMD info was crapola. So let's have a new headline for Rangel.

[JennysCool]

Actually, I think they're losing ground at a pretty good clip.

[RexBeach]

You are most welcome. Enjoy your weekend!

And if you see Charlie Rangel, tell him to have a happy day!

[Huck]

Errr .. excuse me .. wasn't that what the 911 Commission was all about ..?? Why do we have to go down that road again ..??

I think the 9-11 commission had to do with 9-11, didn't it? Since Iraq has nothing to do with 9-11, I don't get the connection. Did they investigate the Iraq intel failures on the 9-11 commission? I thought they focused on 9-11 intel failures. I know, with all the failures, it's hard to keep them straight.

[Gator101]

Well, you see Charley, it all started back in 570 AD in a town called Mecca...

[sauropod]

How do you answer the many ties Saddam had to terror? He had Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas, and Al Zarquawi in Baghdad just before his regime fell.

I can put you in touch with a freed Iraqi who can tell you a whole lot about what Iraq was like under Saddam and who he was connected with.

BTW, the WMD went over the border to Syria in the months leading up to the war.

[sauropod]

It is questionable that Saddam had ties to 9-11. It is not questionable that Saddam had ties to terror.

[FlingWingFlyer]

Rangel is proof that anyone, even the severely mentally handicapped can get themselves elected to Congress. Whadda country.

[Huck]

How do you answer the many ties Saddam had to terror?

None of which had anything to do with 9-11. Even the Bush administration admits that. Lots of countries have ties to terror groups, including the United States (how much money do we send to Hamas??)

I can put you in touch with a freed Iraqi who can tell you a whole lot about what Iraq was like under Saddam and who he was connected with.

And I can find stories about Rwanda, Sudan, Cuba, China, etc etc etc. None of it has anything to do with 9-11.

BTW, the WMD went over the border to Syria in the months leading up to the war.

Total speculation, based on crappy photos from the same sources who got everything else wrong.

[sauropod]

"crappy photos" = satellite imagery?

[Huck]

The implication of post #2, repeated often by broken glass bushpublicans, is that somehow the Iraq War is the logical reaction to 9-11, which is total Barbra Streisand. Going after Al Quaida had to do with 9-11. Iraq was and is a sideshow, based on bad intel, leaving nothing but an improvised Wilsonian utopianism to paper over the abject failures and misjudgements. It's a good thing the other party is so inept and unfit.

[Wally_Kalbacken]

1. The war was not that long ago. If Rangel cannot remember - it may be the onset of dementia. Maybe not even the onset....
2. The "buildup" to the war was a protracted period during which Saddam Hussein was repeatedly told what he could do to avoid it. If Rangel wants to call it a "rush to war" or a hasty judgment - he can - but it flies in the face of what actually occurred.
3. The decision to go to war was based on a number of factors, including the presence of WMD or WMD capabilities.
4. Intelligence is never perfect.
5. There was uncertainty as to the state of WMD capabilities in Iraq in March 2003.
6. Leadership involves decision making in the face of uncertainty or imperfect intelligence.
7. The President knew that whatever the true state of nature (i.e., that Iraq had WMD or that Iraq did not have WMD) in March 2003, it would be only a matter of months before the end of the war- and that would afford an investigation, and on the ground audit of the true state of Iraq's WMD capabilities. The President also knew that this audit or investigation would be completed well before the 2004 election campaign was over, and that a finding that there were no weapons or capabilities would be politically damaging.
8. He erred on the conservative side by electing to go to war, given the uncertainty, in order to protect the United States. If the President had decided not to take action and the intelligence had been understated (i.e. the true state of nature was that Iraq was closer to nuclear and biological capability than we had surmised) then the nation and the Middle East would be at risk.
9. The nation voted in November 2004 with full knowledge of 1-8 (above).
10. Charlie Rangle is a dickhead.

[Huck]

Remember Powell's embarrassingly inaccurate slideshow? Nice photos.

[Graybeard58]

We went in to Iraq to remove the murderous bastard Saadam from power after he defied numerous U.N. resolutions.

He's gone and that's a good thing, his insane sons are gone too and that's another good thing.

Democracy is happening in Iraq and that's the best thing.

[sauropod]

1) I am NOT a broken glass Republican.

2) I DID NOT make the argument that Iraq and 9-11 were linked explicitly.

3) The War on Iraq was a just war. No sideshow. Look at a map and see where Iran and Syria and Afghanistan are wrt each other.

4) Remind yourself that we were kicked out of Saudi Arabia. Where were we gonna have a base?