Posted on 06/17/2005 10:54:05 AM PDT by 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."
That's not true. The war was marketed entirely within the context of 9-11. Here's the president in the opening minutes of his Cincinatti speech:
We also must never forget the most vivid events of recent history. On September the 11th, 2001, America felt its vulnerability -- even to threats that gather on the other side of the earth. We resolved then, and we are resolved today, to confront every threat, from any source, that could bring sudden terror and suffering to America.
Cheney called Iraq the "geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."
Bush, in 2003, said "the battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11th, 2001."
By what measure? I'd like to see Iraqi ranked, according to objective metrics, against Iran, Syria, Egypt, and GWBs family buddies in Saudi Arabia. What's the criteria?
Three-Power Pact Between Germany, Italy, and Japan, Signed at Berlin, September 27, 1940.
Art 1 Art 2 Art 3 Art 4 Art 5 Art 6
The governments of Germany, Italy and Japan, considering it as a condition precedent of any lasting peace that all nations of the world be given each its own proper place, have decided to stand by and co-operate with one another in regard to their efforts in greater East Asia and regions of Europe respectively wherein it is their prime purpose to establish and maintain a new order of things calculated to promote the mutual prosperity and welfare of the peoples concerned.
Furthermore, it is the desire of the three governments to extend co-operation to such nations in other spheres of the world as may be inclined to put forth endeavours along lines similar to their own, in order that their ultimate aspirations for world peace may thus be realized.
Accordingly, the governments of Germany, Italy and Japan have agreed as follows:
ARTICLE ONE
Japan recognizes and respects the leadership of Germany and Italy in establishment of a new order in Europe.
ARTICLE TWO
Germany and Italy recognize and respect the leadership of Japan in the establishment of a new order in greater East Asia.
ARTICLE THREE
Germany, Italy and Japan agree to co-operate in their efforts on aforesaid lines. They further undertake to assist one another with all political, economic and military means when one of the three contracting powers is attacked by a power at present not involved in the European war or in the Chinese-Japanese conflict.
ARTICLE FOUR
With the view to implementing the present pact, joint technical commissions, members which are to be appointed by the respective governments of Germany, Italy and Japan will meet without delay.
ARTICLE FIVE
Germany, Italy and Japan affirm that the aforesaid terms do not in any way affect the political status which exists at present as between each of the three contracting powers and Soviet Russia.(1)
ARTICLE SIX
The present pact shall come into effect immediately upon signature and shall remain in force 10 years from the date of its coming into force. At the proper time before expiration of said term, the high contracting parties shall at the request of any of them enter into negotiations for its renewal.
In faith whereof, the undersigned duly authorized by their respective governments have signed this pact and have affixed hereto their signatures.
Done in triplicate at Berlin, the 27th day of September, 1940, in the 19th year of the fascist era, corresponding to the 27th day of the ninth month of the 15th year of Showa (the reign of Emperor Hirohito).
How's this for drool? Got one of these for Iraq and Al Quaida?
Three-Power Pact Between Germany, Italy, and Japan, Signed at Berlin, September 27, 1940.
Art 1 Art 2 Art 3 Art 4 Art 5 Art 6
The governments of Germany, Italy and Japan, considering it as a condition precedent of any lasting peace that all nations of the world be given each its own proper place, have decided to stand by and co-operate with one another in regard to their efforts in greater East Asia and regions of Europe respectively wherein it is their prime purpose to establish and maintain a new order of things calculated to promote the mutual prosperity and welfare of the peoples concerned.
Furthermore, it is the desire of the three governments to extend co-operation to such nations in other spheres of the world as may be inclined to put forth endeavours along lines similar to their own, in order that their ultimate aspirations for world peace may thus be realized.
Accordingly, the governments of Germany, Italy and Japan have agreed as follows:
ARTICLE ONE
Japan recognizes and respects the leadership of Germany and Italy in establishment of a new order in Europe.
ARTICLE TWO
Germany and Italy recognize and respect the leadership of Japan in the establishment of a new order in greater East Asia.
ARTICLE THREE
Germany, Italy and Japan agree to co-operate in their efforts on aforesaid lines. They further undertake to assist one another with all political, economic and military means when one of the three contracting powers is attacked by a power at present not involved in the European war or in the Chinese-Japanese conflict.
ARTICLE FOUR
With the view to implementing the present pact, joint technical commissions, members which are to be appointed by the respective governments of Germany, Italy and Japan will meet without delay.
ARTICLE FIVE
Germany, Italy and Japan affirm that the aforesaid terms do not in any way affect the political status which exists at present as between each of the three contracting powers and Soviet Russia.(1)
ARTICLE SIX
The present pact shall come into effect immediately upon signature and shall remain in force 10 years from the date of its coming into force. At the proper time before expiration of said term, the high contracting parties shall at the request of any of them enter into negotiations for its renewal.
In faith whereof, the undersigned duly authorized by their respective governments have signed this pact and have affixed hereto their signatures.
Done in triplicate at Berlin, the 27th day of September, 1940, in the 19th year of the fascist era, corresponding to the 27th day of the ninth month of the 15th year of Showa (the reign of Emperor Hirohito).
Now who's grasping?
Oh, you've got to be joking. Any other friggin' hoops you want us to jump through. You want documents signed in Saddam's blood?
The answer is not that we went after Iraq directly because of 9/11, but indirectly because the president was resolved not to wait until we are hit first again.
"... looking at polls ... overplaying their hand".
I agree .. that is one of the democrats' worst qualities. As soon as they think they have an issue - they overplay it and it backfires in their face. You'd think they would eventually catch on .. since they still haven't .. you have to wonder about their claim to intelligence.
The democrat leadership in congress is being led down the hole by the KOOK LEFT - and the dems are sure their KOOK LEFT has the majority opinion in America. Teddy said, "we may have lost the election but we're still the majority in America" .. whah ..?? They are more than just out of touch - they're delusional.
"We went in to Iraq to remove the murderous bastard Saadam from power after he defied numerous U.N. resolutions. "
So? Since when do we give a crap about the UN? Why do American troops have to bleed for this group of money-grubbing pacifists?
"He's gone and that's a good thing, his insane sons are gone too and that's another good thing. "
Last I checked, he's still getting 3 meals/day and new underwear, rather than the bullet in the head that he deserves. No argument on the killing of his sons.
"Democracy is happening in Iraq and that's the best thing."
One can hope. Only time will tell at the moment. I wish more Iraqis would step up and seize the gift soaked in American blood that's been handed to them.
That's absurd. Nothing you can do will tackle terrorism. It's too easy to do. You could try to minimize the risk of large scale WMD terror, but seeing as how we don't know where whatever weapons were supposedly there are, it's a little tough to say we accomplished even that much in Iraq.
starts with going after their major sources of support, which are the state sponsors;
So, when do the wars with Syria, Egypt, Pakistan, Iran, North Korea, and Saudi Arabia start?
Saying the only objective is OBL betrays a profound misunderstanding of our security situation. OBL is a symptom of a global problem, and is not in any significant way its leader.
That's why the president used to say he wanted him dead or alive. Ha!
Actual evidence is too much to bother with for the kool aid crowd. I know.
"War in Iraq is about preventing the next 911. The President has never been anything but crystal clear about that."
Yet every single terrorism expert since the next big attack is inevitable.
Maybe. I don't know for a fact WHY the president waged war on Iraq. You are correct that for the most part, they have used 9-11 as a frame of reference to make the case for abolishing risk.
"We just can't allow these failed nation states to cause terror anymore."
I agree. When is the invasion of Saudi Arabia scheduled?
That's a good point. Even Cheney says we'll probably get hit again.
This war was merely a revocation of a previous cease-fire. They repeatedly refused to make good of the terms under which the cease-fire was offered. In effect, they squeezed their own trigger.
What has happened since 9/11 that comes anywhere close to the magnitude of 9/11? Spain? Russia? Neither has what it takes to answer terrorism. They invite it on themselves by doing nothing when it does happen.
Which had nothing to do with 9-11 (pretty hard to argue that, since the cease fire predated 9-11 by years.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.