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."

[1rudeboy]

Justin Raimondo, by his own admission, protested Reagan's deployment of Pershing II missles to W. Europe during the Cold War. I wonder what historians are saying about his judgement now?

[ValenB4]

I disagree with JR about the Pershing missiles. But I can forgive him for that because that was not the straw that broke the Soviet system. The Cold War is over. These terrorist organizations are non-state actors and going to war with conventional militaries is not the answer. Going into Iraq will be as relevant to fighting terrorism as going into Vietnam was in fighting communism.

[AntiGuv]

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

LOL! I'd totally forgotten about this thread some 40 posts ago. I've been participating in an evolution/creationism flamewar and when this comment popped up, I thought it was from that thread. Needless to mention, I was somewhat perplexed for a moment..

Anyhow, barely on topic, just thought you may find that somewhat bemusing.. ;^)

[faithincowboys]

So I should have went to war acc. to the Greenspan doctrine and not Rumsfeld's way. So Bob Rubin should have planned how to get to Baghdad rather than Franks?

Odd, I think! And old Eisenhower should have deferred to Joe Kennedy.

Sure! In your world, we would be typing in German!

[InvisibleChurch]

you're welcome to copy and paste my comment on that thread ... it will either bring up some interesting reponses or get you banned

: )

[1rudeboy]

To be honest, I can forgive him for that also. But I submit that the War on Terrorism is not entirely dis-similar from the Cold War, and that a failure to understand the Cold War can make one's analysis of the War on Terrorism questionable. A topic for another day, and one that JR could spin (non-perjoratively speaking) into a column.

[faithincowboys]

Well, it is the only deterrent. Disbanding a couple of cells in response to 9-11 wasn't enough. The dictators who sponsor terror have to be ousted to get the terrorism to stop. Telling them they can knock down the biggest buildings in NY, hit our Pentagon and kill 3,000 (while hoping to kill 100,000) and only get a couple of terorists arrested and a couple of camps destroyed is insane. The Pashtun majority will still remain. What had to happen was a leader over there had to fall. When Sadat got killed, the message was sent that peace with Israel wouldn't be tolerated. And the leaders over there have complied. With Saddam gone and Iranian opposition feeling more emboldened and militant Islam looking less attractive, we are doing what we must. They must know that we will not tolerate terror. We are at a war with terrorism and Saddam was in league with the terrorists and I don't care what the CIA (that didn't stop 9-11, didn't know that India and Pakistan had the Bomb unitl each set off mushroom clouds) says. Also, the high placed moles in our intelligence services (Hansen et al) are still there. Thus, laziness, ineptness and avarice have made the alphabet soup of intelligence as reliable as a Bob Dole erection pre-Viagra.

[ValenB4]

I can understand why JR would oppose the Pershings though. He's a libertarian of the Rothbard tradition. That means he believed the Soviets would have collapsed on their own no matter what. Therefore, the priority should have been defending the US here at home. That may be true. The USSR would have collapsed eventually. I believe Reagan accelerated the ending.

The War on Terrorism is different. Communism was a system supported by the elites and not the masses. Islam is a system supported by the masses and not so much the elites. While less organized, this Islamic problem is more difficult and will require more subtlety. Communism was a political system that could be confronted. Islam, and the Islamic feeling of frustration and anger, is a cultural phenomenon that cannot be defeated by the military.

[faithincowboys]

Why are they frustrated? Didn't Realpolitick and client leaders make the Shiite fundamentalism seem attractive? Aren't the elites churning out anti-American propaganda in their media to divert from the sins of the ruling elite? Shouldn't you be heratened that an ever growing number of Iranians are rejecting the fundamentalists? Isn't this a battle of good and evil? Aren't the kids who love America and progress the angels in this battle? Aren't the ones stoning women to death, repressing free expression and funding suicide global suicide acts the evil-doers that the President says they are? Would capitulation to Islamic fundamentalist terror really make us safer? Should we assume the French position-- it is very easy, it is commonly known as the Lewinsky? Should we service the tyrants and mullahs as long as we could get contracts and they hit us last? Maybe we can give them Israel-- do you think they wouldn't go after the Great Satan if they destroyed the Little Satan?

What do you think we should have done? They declared war on us on 9-11, and going back to the 80's (when we allowed them to hit our barracks) or the 90's (when we allowed them to hit the embassies and the World Trade Center and the Cole) is not the answer.

I resent the people who want to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory. Who want to live in the defeat of Vietnam forever. Who want to listen to well funded know-it-alls who don't disclose their financial ties.

I question everybody and the accusers have a burden of proof that has not been met (by a long shot) and worse than that, the recent past damns them. Saddam did use WMD (whether it was against the Iranians or the Kurds) he did thwart the inspectors, he did have aspirations for nukes as far back as the 80's, he did fund terrorism, he did exacerbate the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and intelligence organiztions suggest he was behind the first trade center bombing, and the attempted assasination of Bush Sr. Is it believable that Hussein wouldn't ally himself with al qaeda? Is it likely that he didn't have WMD? Why throw the inspectors out, why fund terror, why have people in the cabinet with names like Dr. Germ?

I am so sick of the 5th column!

[Enduring Freedom]

Republicans of the pious wimp form:

You aren't a man, you're not a brother, you're nothing to me.

[Sonny M]

To lie to the American people to gain politically or to satisfy some mysterious third party (like I believe Hagel is doing) is disgraceful.

Hagel isn't doing that, honestly, he is mad, and yes its selfish, but the bottom line is, he is upset because he got screwed. It happens, get over it.

[Sonny M]

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 !

To be honest with you, I think the whole WMD was a poor excuse. Bush, used Clintons words, and that does not make it better. I supported the war, for simple reasons.

We are better off, if this guy is dead. Anyone else, who may rise, lets put them next on the list. The clinton administration unfortunatley gave the Bush administration the ammo. Personally, I always wanted to fire it.

[Sonny M]

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 !

To be honest with you, I think the whole WMD was a poor excuse. Bush, used Clintons words, and that does not make it better. I supported the war, for simple reasons.

We are better off, if this guy is dead. Anyone else, who may rise, lets put them next on the list. The clinton administration unfortunatley gave the Bush administration the ammo. Personally, I always wanted to fire it.

[meenie]

Now you have the right reasons to find them.

[Captain Kirk]

Hagel is wishy-washy? Why do you say that? It seems to me that h he were wishy washy, he wouldn't have dared oppose Dubya at the height of his popularity.

[FryingPan101]

Soooo, Cap'n, You either like to debate or just love Chuck Hagel. :)

[dennisw]

Hegel should think twice and should shut up if wants to cast doubt and aspersions. He should think about party unity instead of his need to get his rocks off.

Why Republicans have a need to join the Democrat chorus is beyond me.

[faithincowboys]

So why were they against the war in Kosovo?

[faithincowboys]

Oh, I disagree. Hagel is merely giving the anti-Bush media narrative a Republican, combat vet face. The media love Hagel for it, and the only people who will be able to trim his sails are the voters of Nebraska.

[berserker]

U.S. Senators Chuck Hagel (R-NE), far left, Joseph Biden (D-DE) and Richard Lugar, second right, (R-IN) are saluted as they tour the grounds of the Iraqi police college in the capital of Baghdad, June 23, 2003. Hagel, Lugar and Biden said that U.S. troops may need to be in Iraq for five years. (Chris Helgren/Reuters)