Hagel: Iraqi WMD Clouds Bush Credibility

Associated Press ^ | June 22, 2003 | Jennifer C. Kerr

[AntiGuv]

WASHINGTON - The question of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction has left a cloud over the Bush administration's credibility that won't be removed until Americans know whether the administration was straightforward with them, a Republican member of the Senate Intelligence Committee said Sunday.

At the same time, the committee's chairman and its senior Democrat said it is too early to say whether prewar weapons intelligence was manipulated or hyped before the U.S.-led invasion in March, as some Democrats have suggested.

The committee began last week an inquiry into the administration's use of intelligence to justify the invasion, specifically assertions that President Saddam Hussein had thriving programs to develop chemical and biological weapons and had tried to obtain material for nuclear arms.

Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., said the administration is cooperating with the committee hearings, and he expects the cooperation to continue.

"This is a cloud hanging over their credibility, their word," said Hagel. "They need to get that dealt with, taken care of, removed."

Hagel, who spoke on ABC's "This Week" program, said: "The world — certainly Americans — must have confidence in this administration. ... And to resolve this issue is certainly in the interests of this administration."

The Intelligence Committee chairman, Sen. Pat Roberts, said he had seen no evidence in the hearings' early going of any manipulation or other questionable administration tactics, but his panel hopes to answer that question once and for all.

"That's why we have all of the voluminous material from the ceiling to the floor from the CIA," the Kansas Republican said.

The panel's top Democrat, Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, said he does not know whether intelligence may have been exaggerated to bolster the administration's case for going to war, but he added that he has misgivings over the possibility.

Rockefeller pointed to claims that Iraq sought uranium from Africa, which were later determined to be based on forged documents that came to the CIA through Italian and British agencies. President Bush mentioned the purported Niger-Iraq connection in his State of the Union address, apparently after the forgery had been discovered.

For now, Rockefeller said, "I am not going to conclude from that that the president was deliberately misleading."

Rockefeller and Roberts both appeared on "Fox News Sunday."

Their committee held one secret session last week. Roberts said three more hearings are planned, and they probably will be followed by an open hearing, which Democrats have demanded.

"At the end of it, doubtlessly, we will have a public hearing. We'll make a public report and probably a classified report," Roberts said.

The House Intelligence Committee is conducting a similar review on prewar weapons assessments, as is the Senate Armed Services Committee.

More than two months after the fall of Baghdad, no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, which has raised questions about the Bush administration's primary justification for invading.

Until recently, Bush and his aides had maintained prohibited weapons would be found. In his radio address Saturday, Bush made no such promise and said instead that documents and suspected weapons sites were looted and burned "in the regime's final days."

[alnick]

It seems kind of strange that so many want to find WMD's. This after the same individuals spend so much time declaring that the administration did not deceive the public by saying there were WMD's.

What's so strange about wanting to find WMDs? Do you want them floating around in God-knows-whose hands? I don't. I want them secured.

[america-rules]

Some idiots are acting like Saddam never had any WMD?

The more I read FR the more I see the real IQ of many is not as high as one would think. The comments made are sometimes completely clueless or made by DU hacks !

[faithincowboys]

I'd argue that I'm engaging in total independent thought.

ABC, CBS,CBS, CNN, The DNC 9, Hollyweird, the French, MSNBC, Howell Raines, NYTIMES, the Post and the entire liberal media apparatus agree with you. You actually think you are thinking independently-- you even use their Bush slurs. You are so deluded, you probably think your doll's mouth is only open for you. Good heavens, get it together man!

[Cathryn Crawford]

I always let you beat me because I cannot stand the awful pathetic whining noises you make when you lose. I'm trying to save my nerves, here.

[meema]

Yup!

[ValenB4]

That's not true. Myprimary sources of news are Antiwar.com, a rightwing site, LewRockwell, a righwing site, and Jude Wanniski's, the founder of Reaganomics. I learned Monkey Boy from Lew Rockwell. I haven't watched very much since last summer. I'm more conservative than you.

[ValenB4]

I'll let you win if it's that bad.

[faithincowboys]

Are you two an item? In real life or just in this forum? Hate to be nosy, but y'all put it out there.

[Cathryn Crawford]

You never let me win, you ass. When I when, it's because I'm right. Which is all the time. Ha!

[Cathryn Crawford]

Would a blow-up doll post on this forum? :-)

[faithincowboys]

Funny, the same lies and slander heaped at Dubya was slung at Reagan and Reaganomics. Yet, you still believe in Reaganomics and hopefully Reagan. As for the founder of Reaganomics (by the way, most people that use that term use it derisively) sometimes you shoot your load. Maybe he had it in the 80's, but now he is just another aging toad. Also, experts on economics (20 yrs ago)are not generally suited to deal with foreign policy issues that he has limited information on.He needs to stick to his specialty and be a little less arrogant.

[1rudeboy]

Myprimary sources of news are Antiwar.com, a rightwing site, LewRockwell, a righwing site, and Jude Wanniski's, the founder of Reaganomics.

Could you add that to your tag-line? Clearly, the problem is that folks take you seriously.

[faithincowboys]

Don't know, I've never been one. I'm sure you're a lovely person, now try to make your beau a better man. Good luck!

[Cathryn Crawford]

I've never been one either. She was a surprise to me, too. :-)

[ValenB4]

You may not like AW's editorial content, but it's news is very good and informative.

[ValenB4]

But Wanniski was a reporter who was taught by Arthur Laffer, who was taught by Robert Mundell. And Wanniski does his homework. And experts on economics, especially those who are political-economists, are more often right than experts on foreign policy because foreign policy is determined by economics.

[1rudeboy]

AW's editorial content makes its news-reporting suspect, and your claim to be more "conservative" than others laughable on its face.

[InvisibleChurch]

W is waiting for all the liberals to have their say, then he will release the information and make them all look goofy ... again

[ValenB4]

It may be laughable to you but history will more than likely condemn Bush and his Iraq war. Can you imagine what historians will be saying about it years from now? Decades from now? We're already learning it was a fraud. But readers of AW knew this 6 months before the war started. And AW was founded in opposition to Clinton and his Kosovo war. So, despite your opinion, your news sources are the ones that are flawed.

[Harp]

"I love Nebraska but Chuck is an idiot. When it was popular, he was being photgraphed all over the place with Dubya and supporting the war effort. He and McCain are sisters, aren't they?"

Heheh. Precisely. He always seems to have the instincts of a contender in the McCain mold -- like he's working on building cred with everybody but Republicans. It's annoying.

His criticisms don't seem aimed to build, they just corrode.