Rockefeller: Bush Duped Public On Iraq
CBS News Exclusive: W.Va. Senator Says Invasion Unnecessary Even If Saddam Would Still Be In Power
-
Play CBS Video Video Pre-War Intel Report Fallout A Senate report finding no link between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein has led a key Democratic senator to accuse the Bush Administration of manipulating the public into supporting the Iraq war.
-
Video Sen. Rockefeller Speaks Out Only On The Web: Sen. John Rockefeller, D-W. Va., accuses the Bush Administration of manipulating public opinion into supporting the war in Iraq. He also makes an interesting claim.
-
Senate Intelligence Committee Vice-Chairman Sen. John D. Rockefeller, D-W.Va., left, and Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., discuss a newly released committee report Friday, Sept. 8, 2006 on Capitol Hill in Washington. (AP)
-
Interactive WMD Fallout Controversy surrounds the hunt for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
-
Interactive Iraq: 4 Years Later The conflict wears on as the nation struggles to rebuild.
-
Interactive Saddam: The Man A chronology of his life, his family tree, the sons he lost, and the 2003 CBS News interview.
Its statements like this one, made Feb. 5, 2003, by then-Secretary of State Colin Powell that have become so controversial, implying Iraq was linked to terror attacks.
"Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by abu Musab al-Zarqawi, an associated collaborator of Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda lieutenants," Powell said.
But after 2 1/2 years of reviewing pre-war intelligence behind closed doors, the lead Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, Sen. John Rockefeller of West Virginia, who voted for the Iraq War, says the Bush administration pulled the wool over everyone's eyes.
"The absolute cynical manipulation, deliberately cynical manipulation, to shape American public opinion and 69 percent of the people, at that time, it worked, they said 'we want to go to war,'" Rockefeller told CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson. "Including me. The difference is after I began to learn about some of that intelligence I went down to the Senate floor and I said 'my vote was wrong.'"
Rockefeller went a step further. He says the world would be better off today if the United States had never invaded Iraq — even if it means Saddam Hussein would still be running Iraq.
He said he sees that as a better scenario, and a safer scenario, "because it is called the 'war on terror.'"
Does Rockefeller stands by his view, even if it means that Saddam Hussein could still be in power if the United States didn't invade?Read Bush administration officials' reactions.
Watch the Rockefeller interview.
Read the Senate committee report on information provided by the Iraqi National Congress. (211 pgs.)
Read the committee report on Iraq's alleged terror links. (151 pgs.)
"Yes. Yes. [Saddam] wasn't going to attack us. He would've been isolated there," Rockefeller said. "He would have been in control of that country but we wouldn't have depleted our resources preventing us from prosecuting a war on terror which is what this is all about."
Republicans say there was flawed intelligence to be sure, but they insist there was no attempt to mislead the public.
"In 2002 and 2003, members of both parties got a good look at the intelligence we had and they came to the very same conclusions about what was going on," White House Spokesman Tony Snow said.
©MMVI, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Read Bush administration officials' reactions.
Watch the Rockefeller interview.
Read the Senate committee report on information provided by the Iraqi National Congress.
The secrets of tennis legend 



- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
... - 6
- next
See all 106 CommentsBush %u2026 changed the Clausewitz Axiom: %u201CWar is continuation of politics by other means %u2026 Subordinating the political point of view to the military would be absurd; for it is policy that creates war. Policy is the guiding intelligence and war only the instrument, not vice versa.%u201D Ther%u2019e doing vice versa: Policy is the continuation of war by other means!
They are working by Bernoulli-Shifts. Bernoulli-Shifts indicate historical processes. Classical exemple for Bernoulli-Shifting: Plutarch: %u201CAudacter caluminare, semper aliquid haeret%u201D (Disgrace just boldly, anything allways get caught in the memory [Truth is what works%u2026]).
Credo: You can%u2019t change history%u2026
Remember the question by Sen. Robert Kennedy jr.Was The 2004 Election Stolen? (http://rollingstone.com/election04)
Another problem is the 9/11 as you can see by the Essay of Paul Craig Roberts (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14921.htm). He was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration and he is the author of Supply-Side Revolution: An Insider's Account of Policymaking in Washington. In %u201Cinformationclearinghouse%u201D
he asks the question: Is American Democracy Too Feeble To Deal With 9/11?
In that way you have one question after another%u2026
Remember the great founder of FBI: %u201CThe individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists%u201D J. Edgar Hoover
Bush %u2026 changed the Clausewitz Axiom: %u201CWar is continuation of politics by other means %u2026 Subordinating the political point of view to the military would be absurd; for it is policy that creates war. Policy is the guiding intelligence and war only the instrument, not vice versa.%u201D Ther%u2019e doing vice versa: Policy is the continuation of war by other means!
They are working by Bernoulli-Shifts. Bernoulli-Shifts indicate historical processes. Classical exemple for Bernoulli-Shifting: Plutarch: %u201CAudacter caluminare, semper aliquid haeret%u201D (Disgrace just boldly, anything allways get caught in the memory [Truth is what works%u2026]).
Credo: You can%u2019t change history%u2026
Remember the question by Sen. Robert Kennedy jr. Was The 2004 Election Stolen? (http://rollingstone.com/election04)
Another problem is the 9/11 as you can see by the Essay of Paul Craig Roberts (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14921.htm). He was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration and he is the author of Supply-Side Revolution: An Insider's Account of Policymaking in Washington. In %u201Cinformationclearinghouse%u201D
he asks the question: Is American Democracy Too Feeble To Deal With 9/11?
In that way you have one question after another%u2026
Remember the great founder of FBI: %u201CThe individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists%u201D J. Edgar Hoover
A. Saddam, who was not really a threat to US security or anybody else after the first Iraq war.
and
B. Iraq war
* 2600+ dead US soldiers,
* 41,000 civillian deaths,
* Untold numbers of wounded US soldiers and civilians
* Badly damaged US credibility and rise in anti-US sentiment around the world
* Over 300 billion dollars in US taxpayer money,
* Increase in significant terrorist acts and recruitment since the war began
* Horrific human rights abuses by the US
* The possibility of an all-out civil war in Iraq
I would take option A, Saddam and say Rockefeller is spot on. It would be better if the US had not went into Iraq at all. This war was a major miscalcuation from the start. Rumsfield thought we would just go in, take out Saddam and leave right away. Now we are facing an all-out civil war. Bush should be impeached for not telling us the truth: chimpeach dot info.
A. Saddam, who was not really a threat to US security or anybody else after the first Iraq war.
and
B. Iraq war
* 2600+ dead US soldiers,
* 41,000 civillian deaths,
* Untold numbers of wounded US soldiers and civilians
* Badly damaged US credibility and rise in anti-US sentiment around the world
* Over 300 billion dollars in US taxpayer money,
* Increase in significant terrorist acts and recruitment since the war began
* Horrific human rights abuses by the US
* The possibility of an all-out civil war in Iraq
I would take option A, Saddam and say Rockefeller is spot on. It would be better if the US had not went into Iraq at all. This war was a major miscalcuation from the start. Rumsfield thought we would just go in, take out Saddam and leave right away. Now we are facing an all-out civil war. Bush should be impeached for not telling us the truth: chimpeach.info/Iraq.html
A. Saddam, who was not really a threat to US security or anybody else after the first Iraq war.
and
B. Iraq war
* 2600+ dead US soldiers,
* 41,000 civillian deaths,
* Untold numbers of wounded US soldiers and civilians
* Badly damaged US credibility and rise in anti-US sentiment around the world
* Over 300 billion dollars in US taxpayer money,
* Increase in significant terrorist acts and recruitment since the war began
* Horrific human rights abuses by the US
* The possibility of an all-out civil war in Iraq
I would take option A, Saddam and say Rockefeller is spot on. It would be better if the US had not went into Iraq at all. This war was a major miscalcuation from the start. Rumsfield thought we would just go in, take out Saddam and leave right away. Now we are facing an all-out civil war. Bush should be impeached for not telling us the truth: www.chimpeach.info/Iraq.html
A. Saddam, who was not really a threat to US security or anybody else after the first Iraq war.
and
B. Iraq war
* 2600+ dead US soldiers,
* 41,000 civillian deaths,
* Untold numbers of wounded US soldiers and civilians
* Badly damaged US credibility and rise in anti-US sentiment around the world
* Over 300 billion dollars in US taxpayer money,
* Increase in significant terrorist acts and recruitment since the war began
* Horrific human rights abuses by the US
* The possibility of an all-out civil war in Iraq
I would take option A, Saddam and say Rockefeller is spot on. It would be better if the US had not went into Iraq at all. This war was a major miscalcuation from the start. Rumsfield thought we would just go in, take out Saddam and leave right away. Now we are facing an all-out civil war. Bush should be impeached for not telling us the truth: http://www.chimpeach.info/Iraq.html
A. Saddam, who was not really a threat to US security or anybody else after the first Iraq war.
and
B. Iraq war
* 2600+ dead US soldiers,
* 41,000 civillian deaths,
* Untold numbers of wounded US soldiers and civilians
* Badly damaged US credibility and rise in anti-US sentiment around the world
* Over 300 billion dollars in US taxpayer money,
* Increase in significant terrorist acts and recruitment since the war began
* Horrific human rights abuses by the US
* The possibility of an all-out civil war in Iraq
I would take option A, Saddam and say Rockefeller is spot on. It would be better if the US had not went into Iraq at all. This war was a major miscalcuation from the start. Rumsfield thought we would just go in, take out Saddam and leave right away. Now we are facing an all-out civil war. Bush should be impeached for not telling us the truth: http://www.chimpeach.info/Iraq.html
It is inconceiveable to me that CBS News just conveniently ignores the fact that the senator had the same intelligence the president had and everyone came to the same conclusion. If he has changed his mind about the war since that vote he is entitled to do that. He just have the guts to stand up and admit what he said originally. He is not entitled to act as though he never had another opinion nor should you as a news organization be willing to let him get away without explaining why he should not also be considered a liar.
He voted for the war and gave a very lengthy speech on his decision making process. It is patently adsurb for all of these democrats to now act as if they never saw or ever agreed with the intelligence that was used in the decision making process.
You don't want any name calling!? You wrote of "Islamic facsist." But of course "those people" do not figure in a discussion, do they. See how the administration has so muddied the water that even intellegent discouse is impossible? But it was this administration that has overseen the maiming of tens of thousands, and the death of thousands of our children...Iraq wasn't the right target. The guys that attacked the WTC in the '90's are in jail! Where is Osama?
You don't want any name calling!? You wrote of "Islamic facsist." But of course "those people" do not figure in a discussion, do they. See how the administration has so muddied the water that even intellegent discouse is impossible? But it was this administration that has overseen the maiming of tens of thousands, and the death of thousands of our children...Iraq wasn't the right target. The guys that attacked the WTC in the '90's are in jail! Where is Osama?
By invadeing Iraq we have greatly destabilized the entire region. A secular Iraq was as close to a "liberal" government as there was(outside Isreal)in the Mid East. As a secular Sunni, Saddam had no love for either Iran or Osama and his buddies. He may be a thug, but he's not a fundamentalist. He probably sponsored his share of terrorists, but they were more likely to act on his interrests than some larger Pan-Islam cause, and therefore was unlikely to get recruits from around the world.
Had these fools taken the time to consult with Social Scientists before they went charging into Iraq they might have learned that there are more than one flavor of Muslem.
Had they listened to their generals instead of fireing them they may still have been able to pull their bacon out of the fire, but as none of them had any worthwhile or measurable millitary experience, they had no way of evaluateing the advice they were presented with.
In the end, it's our fault. We elected them..................twice.
By invadeing Iraq we have greatly destabilized the entire region. A secular Iraq was as close to a "liberal" government as there was(outside Isreal)in the Mid East. As a secular Sunni, Saddam had no love for either Iran or Osama and his buddies. He may be a thug, but he's not a fundamentalist. He probably sponsored his share of terrorists, but they were more likely to act on his interrests than some larger Pan-Islam cause, and therefore was unlikely to get recruits from around the world.
Had these fools taken the time to consult with Social Scientists before they went charging into Iraq they might have learned that there are more than one flavor of Muslem.
Had they listened to their generals instead of fireing them they may still have been able to pull their bacon out of the fire, but as none of them had any worthwhile or measurable millitary experience, they had no way of evaluateing the advice they were presented with.
In the end, it's our fault. We elected them..................twice.
By invadeing Iraq we have greatly destabilized the entire region. A secular Iraq was as close to a "liberal" government as there was(outside Isreal)in the Mid East. As a secular Sunni, Saddam had no love for either Iran or Osama and his buddies. He may be a thug, but he's not a fundamentalist. He probably sponsored his share of terrorists, but they were more likely to act on his interrests than some larger Pan-Islam cause, and therefore was unlikely to get recruits from around the world.
Had these fools taken the time to consult with Social Scientists before they went charging into Iraq they might have learned that there are more than one flavor of Muslem.
Had they listened to their generals instead of fireing them they may still have been able to pull their bacon out of the fire, but as none of them had any worthwhile or measurable millitary experience, they had no way of evaluateing the advice they were presented with.
In the end, it's our fault. We elected them..................twice.
By invadeing Iraq we have greatly destabilized the entire region. A secular Iraq was as close to a "liberal" government as there was(outside Isreal)in the Mid East. As a secular Sunni, Saddam had no love for either Iran or Osama and his buddies. He may be a thug, but he's not a fundamentalist. He probably sponsored his share of terrorists, but they were more likely to act on his interrests than some larger Pan-Islam cause, and therefore was unlikely to get recruits from around the world.
Had these fools taken the time to consult with Social Scientists before they went charging into Iraq they might have learned that there are more than one flavor of Muslem.
Had they listened to their generals instead of fireing them they may still have been able to pull their bacon out of the fire, but as none of them had any worthwhile or measurable millitary experience, they had no way of evaluateing the advice they were presented with.
In the end, it's our fault. We elected them..................twice.
By invadeing Iraq we have greatly destabilized the entire region. A secular Iraq was as close to a "liberal" government as there was(outside Isreal)in the Mid East. As a secular Sunni, Saddam had no love for either Iran or Osama and his buddies. He may be a thug, but he's not a fundamentalist. He probably sponsored his share of terrorists, but they were more likely to act on his interrests than some larger Pan-Islam cause, and therefore was unlikely to get recruits from around the world.
Had these fools taken the time to consult with Social Scientists before they went charging into Iraq they might have learned that there are more than one flavor of Muslem.
Had they listened to their generals instead of fireing them they may still have been able to pull their bacon out of the fire, but as none of them had any worthwhile or measurable millitary experience, they had no way of evaluateing the advice they were presented with.
In the end, it's our fault. We elected them..................twice.
The precipitous withdrawal of troops from Iraq would probably invite anarchy and civil war there, even if we leave behind a smaller military force as we have in Germany, from after World War II to the present day. One solution might be to install a United Nations multinational peace keeping force as a transitional authority, whilst the American military stands down from a full occupation of Iraq. Such a gesture would hopefully keep civil war from breaking out; it would introduce a more international mix of voices--and capital--involved in reshaping and rebuilding Iraq into a democratic society; and it would demonstrate that the United States is not in the business of Empire Building.
It would also demonstrate that the Bush administration is sincere about wanting to end the war in a timely fashion.
David S. Bommer
San Antonio, TX
These are interesting ideas, but to put the ethic into practice, unfortunately, you would have to declare war on a considerable list of states-- some small, some large, some nuclear, some with other WMDs (real ones)-- and you would have to take on them all. That is, to be really consistent, which is, after all, the idea behind ethical principles.
You appear to be comfortable with relatively small, "ethical demonstration" programs like Iraq. Unfortunately, again, the intended lesson is not being widely taken even a few hundred miles distant, much less around the world. Is the next step to declare war on the world's miscreants, one by one, until they heel on your command?
This brings up another issue-- whose command and whose interpretation of the principles you cite? There are people in the world who consider the US invasion, itself, as a violation of the UN charter. There are some, surely, who applauded Abu Graib and Mahmoudiya and Haditha. This is not an argument for relativist ethics, but a suggestion the problem is embedded in the way the world presently works. Work peacefully for regime change, and drop the idea of "preemptive" war-- it's still a war.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
... - 6
- next
See all 106 Comments