Rockefeller: Bush Duped Public On Iraq

CBS News Exclusive: W.Va. Senator Says Invasion Unnecessary Even If Saddam Would Still Be In Power

(CBS)  When the Senate Intelligence Committee released a declassified version of its findings this past week, the Republican chairman of the committee, Pat Roberts, left town without doing interviews, calling the report a rehash of unfounded partisan allegations.

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.'"

---

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.)

---

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?

"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.

[wattermelann]

Well, the people voted for both Bushes and now look at the mess they made! Its too late to change your mind now; you can't sidestep all those dead bodies piled up there for the past three years now and say: "OOPS! We made a mistake! I'd say the hole the Bushes Administration has dug is pretty deep by now. Guess you are going to have to sit in it. Maybe you should leave town before the town's angry mob comes to tar and feather ya and string you up from a tree!

[kman414]

I know all about hindsight being 20/20, however, the damage we have done by invading Iraq is obscene. I have no answers...only questions.

Are the Iraqi people better off today than they were before we invaded?

Is America safer because of the Iraqi War?

Is it better to continue to make things worse or start making things better by admitting we made a mistake ?

What would our forces in Iraq have accomplished if they went after Al Qaeda instead of Saddam ?

Do you think Saddam wants his job back ?

[jaswee-2009]

Anyone who doesn't realize that the Bush Administration misled the country on the intelligence prior to the Iraq war is a fool or willfully ignorant. Additionally,Sen. Roberts of Kansas is a hack, a coward and a lap dog for Bush/Cheney. His accusations of partisanship by the Dems on this is laughable. He unwillingness to investigate the manipulation of intelligence by the this administration represents everything that I dispise about politicians. At the very least, the US citizens who have died, been wounded and are serving in Iraq now deserve to know the truth. Roberts should be ashamed of himself.

[Mentor397]

How many times did we have to bomb Iraq before the war for violating the terms of the no-fly zones? I don't want to hear any arguments about their protecting their sovereignty - they lost their chance when they invaded Kuwait and then attacked their own citizens.

Occupying a country is hard. A lot harder than taking it and smashing it. America underestimated the underlying problems with nation-building and therefore was at a significant disadvantage when it came time to setting up a democratic Iraq. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have done it though. Saddam killed way more than America has.

[Travel_Marketing]

A week or two before we invaded Iraq, I was at a conference in Vermont, with a few big name newscasters and journalists. One said he knew, then, they knew we were going to invade Iraq.

No one - out of 150 people - said boo. One lady finally stood up as everyone was leavong and said that is crazy. If that was happening in Vermont, I imagine people in the rest of the country were just as quite.

Oil? Revenge? Realignment of the Middle East? Or is it freedom and democracy? I think we need to be loud and clear. The world is judging us %u2013 US %u2013by our silence as much as our actions. The people should decide %u2013 and debate %u2013 not just sit there! 1 person out of 150 speaking up is no democracy.

[crazydubya]

Answers:
1.Iraqis would be safer if not for the fact that Al-Qaeda, Iran, Warlords of different shapes and sizes weren't using the power vaccuum to shore up their own fiefdoms of power. Blowing up a Coalition Soldier is resistance; Killing Average Iraqi's is terrorism.

2.I live in NYC, have my whole life and since 9/11 the # of attacks on American soil is well... Zero. Hmm, seems Bush might be doing something right after all. Terrorist Martyrs expended by terrorists groups in Iraq are not being put on planes to wreck havoc on our homeland.
3. Admit the Mistake but stop the defeatist attitude of cut and run
4. We'd be fighting in Afganistan instead of NATO , other than that we'd be doing very little unless you think we'd invade Pakistan or Syria or Iran.
5. What tyrant doesn't want his power?

[nynative1340]

This isn't anything new, but it's about time someone in Washington had the cahones to stand up and say it. It is a fact that Bush and his 'new' cabinet were planning the invasion of Irag only a few days into his first term as president. (Ref: Paul Simon, Bush's first Sec. of the Treasury, in 'The Politics of Truth' by Ron Suskind)

Bush really had no reason to attack Iraq, except that Saddam tried to kill his father, and to avenge Bush 41's failure to 'finish the job' the first time. Bush 43 seized upon the WTC attack and WMD as his 'excuse' for the invasion. So, it's NOT hindsight; there were many, many people, including Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rumsfeld, Armitage, Rice, et al, who knew well before 9/11 that an attack on Iraq was imminent, regardless of the existence (or non-existence) of WMD. And I suspect there were a few Democrats who have known for quite some time. So, they've ALL been lying to us since early 2000.

Is America safer because of the Iraq war? Probably, but we would be even more safe if we had waged a full-out war on al quaeda and bin Ladin instead of deposing Saddam.

Should we continue to make things worse? Good question; I don't have an answer. Unfortunately we can't just up and leave. Deposing Saddam has de-stabilized the area so badly that Iraq would probably fall to Iran and the Shiites, and the entire middle east would be unstable for years to come. It will be anyway.

...continued...

[flphillip]

There are two reasons that the war in Iraq is not going to end any time soon.

1. The Iraqis don%u2019t want it to end. They know that if they %u201Cstand up%u201D and the US soldiers leave, the money from the US pouring into that country will eventually stop. They don%u2019t want their sugar daddy to leave. They will milk this for every penny they can.
2. Military contractors, including Halliburton, don%u2019t want it to end. They are making a lot of money on this war. Stop the war and the money stops.

The only way that the war is going to end is for the US to give the Iraqis a deadline for departure. Once they realize that the sugar daddy is moving out then you will see them standing up real fast. We can not be expected to baby-sit the Iraqis forever while they have a civil war.

We have been in Iraq almost as long as we fought World War II. It%u2019s time to give a deadline and leave.

[nynative1340]

I think we could have captured bin Ladin if we had kept up the pressure. We certainly could have captured bin Ladin by now if the Republican congress had given Clinton the wire tap powers that Bush 43 has now. Thal alone might have prevented 9/11. We'll never know. But it's very interesting that Bush has 'totally' ignored bin Ladin, considering that he has been pretty brazen lately about his whereabouts.

Considering that Saddam thinks he has done no wrong, he probably would love to have his job back. But, given the situation there now, and the war between the Sunnis and the Shiites, I don't think he would live very long.

All we know for sure now is that the Arab world hates us, and it started in 1953 with the 'Shaw' and maybe even before that. After all, British and American oil companies have dominated the middle east for many decades.

[gonnuts]

Know this: bush needs binLaden as much as binLaden needs bush. There is no way bush wants to capture binLaden. He needs his boogey-man, like those that shilled for the military industrial complex shilled communism for previous adminstrations.

As far as Iraq goes, anyone that hasn't read Project for a New American Century's Mission Statement, doesn't know enough to comment about our current situation there. buch&co. have achieved what they want there (although incompetantly).

We're on the road to total destuction of what is left of our from of government and the enemy is from withiin.

[nynative1340]

It would not surprise me at all if Bush's 'October surprise' in 2008 is the capture of bin Ladin.

I find it hard to believe that the 'architect of terrorism' is not being pursued vigorously, and that there is not a top secret mission to capture him.

[ronniehm]

"IRAQ WOULD BE BETTER WITH SADDAM" - a Democrat

I just want to make sure that's in print as much as possible before the elections. I love it. I may print T-shirts.

[walt1944]

Why won't everyone just wisen up? No one wants to admit it, but we are in another Vietnam and history, due to political bungling and corporate greed is repeating itself all over again. The only thing missing is the draft, and I will bet that comes back before the middle of 2008! That could be an encouragement to end the thing when all the 20-30 year olds will HAVE to go and see what war is really like, and bring our grandparents back home from fighting THEIR war!

[maya1949]

Senator Rockefeller is absolutely right. Plenty of other countries have evolved from within to eventually overthrow their totalitarian governments -- look at Poland and Romania and the collapse of the entire Soviet Union. Look at Argentina and Chile and South Africa.

Iraq, for all the totalitarianism of the Saddam regime, was largely a steadily modernizing and secular state with a solid professional class, an educated populace, and greater rights for women than any other Middle Eastern country.

Thanks to our invasion, the forces of reactionary fundamentalism have been unleashed. The educated and professional classes are fleeing the chaos, women's rights are being reduced by leaps and bounds.

Instead of invading and destroying, we could have given monetary support to their universities, encouraged foreign exchange student programs, sent assistance to their medical facilities, and encouraged all manner of cultural exchange.

It was blue jeans and rock'n'roll that contributed the greater part to the Soviet state's weakening hold on its citizens -- much more so than the "weapons race". It was the America's creativity and cultural freedom that truly won the Cold War.

Saddam would have eventually faded away, without having EVER posed a threat to the U.S. And the people of Iraq would have had the opportunity to evolve their country on their own, without hundreds of thousands of them dying for the deluded fantasies of the neocons.

[maya1949]

Senator Rockefeller is absolutely right. Plenty of other countries have evolved from within to eventually overthrow their totalitarian governments -- look at Poland and Romania and the collapse of the entire Soviet Union. Look at Argentina and Chile and South Africa.

Iraq, for all the totalitarianism of the Saddam regime, was largely a steadily modernizing and secular state with a solid professional class, an educated populace, and greater rights for women than any other Middle Eastern country.

Thanks to our invasion, the forces of reactionary fundamentalism have been unleashed. The educated and professional classes are fleeing the chaos, women's rights are being reduced by leaps and bounds.

Instead of invading and destroying, we could have given monetary support to their universities, encouraged foreign exchange student programs, sent assistance to their medical facilities, and encouraged all manner of cultural exchange.

It was blue jeans and rock'n'roll that contributed the greater part to the Soviet state's weakening hold on its citizens -- much more so than the "weapons race". It was the America's creativity and cultural freedom that truly won the Cold War.

Saddam would have eventually faded away, without having EVER posed a threat to the U.S. And the people of Iraq would have had the opportunity to evolve their country on their own, without hundreds of thousands of them dying for the deluded fantasies of the neocons.

[stircrazy516]

Well Duh!

[loretha2]

I feel that we would have been better off in Bogalusa, LA after Hurricane Katrina if we were noticied. It has been 1 year since the disaster and most of us are still suffering. There were limited funds sent in, and they did not last for one full week. So, when President Bush says he cares about America and the people, what does he really mean.

Sincerely,
Hurricane Katrina Survivor

[hhemken]

George W Bush and his collaborators are Christians, and the teachings of Jesus Christ inform their every decision.

Iraq is the front line in the War Against Terrorism

Iran is a major threat to the US, comparable to Nazi Germany in the 1930s-40s

There is practically no corruption in the US government, no bribery, no large-scale pork barrel funnelling of money to political cronies

The law applies equally to all in the US, to rich or poor, WASP or non-WASP

The war in Iraq is not about petroleum

US citizens do not need many of the rights in the Bill of Rights if they get in the way of fighting terrorism

There is nothing wrong with designating certain people as "unlawful combatants" and stripping them of all civila and legal rights

The Geneva Convention should be abandoned if it gets in the way of fighting terrorism

We must defend the Persian Gulf oil supplies at any cost to keep the oil flowing

"Collateral damage," including death and maiming of Iraqi civilians, is a necessary price to pay in the War on Terror

Frozen embryos are sacred human life that must not be damaged or exploited in any way

[newsjeff-2009]

I am glad Levin and Rockefeller are agreeing with what I have been saying for many weeks now. If America is going to spend money and manpower for a quote "war on terrorism", why not fight to get Bin Laden and his followers: the people who attacked American soil. There is also domestic problems here at home: rising crime rate,rising DUI rates,rising robbery rates,rising drug abuse rates,rising cases of illegal drug dealers selling drugs to our kids and teenagers,illegal drug abuse is a threat to families,marriage,birth defects,fatalities,unemployment and jobless numbers in parts of America, even in big states and places like Hurricane Katrina areas,jobless and unemployed workers need to be offered education and job-training, not excuses from political leaders calling them "unskilled workers or unskilled manual laborers." So you see there is plenty of domestic problems to wage war on to.

[bradrichert]

Can someone please tell me whether El_Ratiux is being sarcastic or not? I am not even going to bother replying to the majority of those statements, but the first one has to be thrown out the window. What evidence does anyone has that George Bush II is a Christian other than he says he is. Give me one iota of evidence that he has acted in a manner that is Biblical.

[rightie-o]

Anyone using the a form of the word "embolden" to describe bin Laden or Al Queada has ingested one too many talking points from the GOP and is seriously hampering their own ability to think critically.

That being said, I wish Americans didn't have such short term memory problems because in fact we WERE attacked again after Sep.11.01. The ANTHRAX attacks that happened not long seem to have have been conveniently forgotten by most people.

However, it still just sounds stupid to say we haven't been attacked in however many years, because the US has NEVER been attacked on a regular basis by terrorists from other countries. Bush hasn't done a friggin' thing to protect us in the long term, but his illegal invasion of Iraq has certainly and will certainly hurt us in both the short and L-O-N-G term.

[newsthought1]

Comment to RonnieHM:

Get your quote right. Rockefeller didn't say IRAQ would be better with Saddam still in power, he said the WORLD would be better off. And he is right. Instead of the U.S. wasting hundreds of billions of dollars, and killing or wounding tens of thousands of American soldiers in Iraq, we should have instead devoted that time, money, blood, sweat, and tears to catch the REAL enemy, Osama bin Laden, and I bet we would have had him and his pals by now. But Bush is an oil man, Iraq is oil rich, and Cheney has been made rich by Halliburton, so of course they are going to go drum up a war in Iraq instead. You've been DUPED, Ronnie, wise up.

Even if Rockefeller HAD said "Iraq was better off with Saddam"- which he DIDN'T- given the tens of thousands of Iraqi deaths, totally screwed up infrastructure, and constant fear of death, maybe even that could be true. Ask the Iraqis.

"A study published by the Lancet says the risk of death by violence for civilians in Iraq is now 58 times higher than before the US-led invasion."
Source BBC News:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3962969.stm

[maya1949]

My apologies for the inadvertent double post.

[beeeerman]

Republicans say there was flawed intelligence to be sure, but they insist there was no attempt to mislead the public.

What a blatant lie. There was obviously tremendous effort and many quotes on the record to the contrary.

I think the Republicans forget that when they lie like this, they are not just having their words relayed on FOX News where such ommissions of truth are simply shrugged off, but are exposed for the liars that they are...if only they would see it for themselves...maybe they think that since they are 'in power' that lying is their preogative and they don't have to see it because to them it doesn't really matter: they just say, "Hey, we're in power, we make the rules".

[alphaa10-2009]

bradrichert asked-- "<b>Can someone please tell me whether El_Ratiux is being sarcastic or not? I am not even going to bother replying to the majority of those statements, but the first one has to be thrown out the window..."</b>

Reading the list over, pausing once, pausing twice, then smirking, then laughing, it is obvious "El_Ratiux" is making a faithful parody of most of the statements seen here and elsewhere by Bush boosters. That is why you feel compelled to ask, isn't it?

It should be said, however, no specific statement is key to every conservative's point of view-- for example, WFBuckley, patriarch of the conservative tribe in America, says Bush is not a true conservative, and Buckley believes him very unwise in his Iraq venture-- but the majority of El_Ratiux's statements are so nakedly naive, you know immediately he is up to Colbert-style, acid-soaked caricature.

Nice work, El_Ratiux.

[fallngempire]

"Does Rockefeller stands by his view" -- Come on CBS do you even pay attention to your copy anymore? I'm goin back to the NY Times.

[ritgig]

Perhaps the Anthrax attacks were so conveniently forgotten is that the Administration understands that this was a domestic attack. I still think it odd that on the eve of the vote on the Patriot Act, the only politicians attacked were the Democratic leader of the Senate and the Democratic leader of the House, both of whom opposed the Patriot Act.

[alphaa10-2009]

Gonnuts said, "<b>Know this: bush needs binLaden as much as binLaden needs bush ... He needs his boogey-man ...</b>

Whole generations of American taxpayers keep our war industry well-fed and humming along, with or without war. We spend seven times more than the PRC on weapons, and more than anyone else in the world-- yet our acute paranoia called "national security" has never been worse, for all the money spent. America, from all appearances, is a perpetual war economy.

Military-boosters have no problem with periodic wars, better to test our weapons systems, and have our military baby-sit high school graduates, issuing them nice BDUs, maturity and "raw" experience before coming back home and working for McDonalds. (Hey, a few thousand wounded or killed, but who's counting?)

After spending for essentials like Abrams tanks to replace those lost in Iraq, and tossing in hundreds of billions more for new weapons to replace the old ones, there is no money left for education, or even to pay decent salaries to our "volunteers" in uniform. But we must be realistic about shortchanged horizons-- and trade our naive prejudice against war for the mature understanding of an imperial power.

* Oh, on having a little war, every now and then, just remember that must be a "test war"-- like pre-emptively invading Panama, Grenada, or some oil-rich, forgotten corner of the world like, say, Iraq. Just remember to clear the liberated streets of flower petals and garlands before you leave.

[alphaa10-2009]

mentor397 said-- "<b>Occupying a country is hard... That doesn't mean we shouldn't have done it though. Saddam killed way more than America has.</b>

Before anyone sets himself up as Emperor of the Galaxy, charged to determine who lives and who dies, more than a century of diplomacy finally has established a rough approximation of peace between nations which previously went at each other whenever their war chests were big enough. This is a kind of progress, most notably the kind that bypassed World War III.

But things are far from perfect. We must begin with a set of rules for international conduct, rules which promote peace and reduce friction-- unlike hair-trigger, reactive conflict and ballooning military budgets.

And we must swear off policies which make the world likely to resume an arms race, like StarWars II, the ABM (abominable missile system).

Most assuredly, drop the fiction that any one state is licensed to invade another on its own general principles. Anyone who claims the world is better off because of Bush's Iraq-- all on the idea Saddam was bad, and worse-- needs to be consistent. What other dictator merits "pre-emptive" invasion? For example, you have a thriving Communist dictatorship in the PRC.

[richardfalco-2009]

i think katie is doing a great job

[fryken-2009]

I can't wait until one of you become President so it will all be better. The Pres. is nothing more than a figure head and fall guy for the Senate And Congress, that way all those know it alls never have to take blame for what they agreed to or diagreed to. Think about it

[gcbfred]

It is true that Iran (who couldn't beat Iraq) duped the US into invading Irag and doing what they them selves could not do by providing (indirectly) information about Iqari's Weapons of Mass Destruction?? Is Iran funding most of the terror attacks within Iraq?? Is Iran of the same Islamic sect as those so called insurgents within Iraq??

[tampabaydemo]

There is no question that the average Iraqi was better off under Saddam. Even with the US sanctions that killed untold thousands of Iraqi children due to lack of medical supplies, at least the average Iraqi had electrictiy, running water, access to some form of health care, and a shot at a job throughout the 1990's.

Now, the lack of rudimentary services and skyrocketing unemployment drives people to either take money from the local war lord to feed their family, or the fact that a person has seen half of their extended family killed as "collatoral damage" drives them to become aggressive.

Bottom line, we've made this mess, and we can't fix it. We need to formally apologize to the entire planet by getting out, letting the Iraqi's build their own country with our financial help (unfortunately), and prosecute those who lied us into this war.

I'm inspired by a grassroots grandma who is running for congress in Florida who feels the same way. Check her out: http://www.sammsimpsonforcongress.com

[ronniehm]

Whether Rockefeller thinks Iraq or the world would be better off with Saddam at this moment is irrelevant. Was the world better off DURING World War II?

[ronniehm]

"There is no question that the average Iraqi was better off under Saddam."

Actually there is a question, and it just happen to be included in a survey of Iraqis. A majority of Iraqis do not think they were better off under Saddam.

[eyedrive1]

Considering that of the "axis of evil" that GW talked about it seems to me that Iraq represented the least threat to the US than either of the other two members of the club. We have lost nearly three thousand service members, and ten times that wounded in this conflict. Yes, Sadaam was a ruthless dictator but it was the responsibility of the Iraqis themselves to overthrow him. We have done nothing to prevent the Iranians from developing their bomb other than plead to the UN when Russia and China care more about their dealings with them and will not accept more than a slap on the wrist to make them stop development of the bomb. As to the DPRK, we have let them produce the bombs that could really present a threat to us. In other words, the war against terror has to date been an abysmal failure, all we have done is isolate ourselves further from the international community. If we are going to prosecute the war on terror, lets do it right and make it very clear that the US and willing partners will not tolerate DPRK and Iran continuing the path they are following with the threat of nuclear anhilation if they do not comply. That will get their attention far more than negotiations with the UN. They are obviously not friends of the US. We can and should let China know if they interfere we will tariff them to death. As to Russia, the vast majority of their oil and natural gas goes to the Europeans. They will continue to sell to them or their resources are useless to them.

[alphaa10-2009]

The "better off without Saddam" observation is a logical bait-and-switch argument. Getting rid of Saddam is not prima facie evidence an American invasion made Iraq "better". Iraqis certainly have a right to be first in line to define what "better off without Saddam" actually means.

And they have. While RonnieHM is right about the question in which many Iraqis said they thought they were better off, he did not mention most of the same people surveyed wanted US troops to leave Iraq this year and about half of them want to go on killing US troops for making their lives better, thank you very much. These Iraqi respondents apparently are not enthusiastic about the definition of "better off" that includes Bush and 135,000 American troops.

No, this "better off" logic used to defend Bush is the equivalent of saying "Take out Saddam, and whoever walks in is your savior." Not so fast. As with any survey, context is everything in interpreting results. You cannot pick and choose favorite responses and fraudulently argue on that basis. It is stolen goods.

Of its own survey, the Brookings Institution said the apparent contradiction between Iraqis wanting Americans out, but not wanting them out at the instant of the survey was Iraqis feared what in fact has happened-- their country began descent into civil war.

[pudd54]

I find it interesting that anyone would feel safer from Fundimental Islamic terrorists after we invaded Iraq knowing that a) Hussein's Deputy Prime Minister was a Catholic (Tariq Aziz) b) we will replace his government with one similar to the Afghanistan government and c)coverting to christianity is a crime punishable by death in Afghanistan.

[alphaa10-2009]

Condi-- Pack your bags, and make space for a guy named "fryken". No, that's "Mr." Fryken to you. You need not genuflect, but you may bow and curtsy on introduction.

Fryken will assume abject responsibility for all matters related to the Department of State and its annual beer and cocktail budget. Fryken also will bash heads and make things work at State with Bolton and his crew in NYC. Fryken will require Bolton to shave his mustache and head until further notice, and preface all his requests with a polite "Please" and a big, winsome smile.

Fryken is reluctant to serve, which makes him an excellent candidate. Fryken is not yet completely convinced of his infallibility, a rare exception on my team, and we may have difficulty with this.

Mr. Fryken, ultimately, will serve the role he all too generously ascribed to me-- a "figurehead and fall guy" for others. I needed him yesterday, and Fryken already understands the US House and Senate need a fryken to kick around until the 2008 election.

This could be a very successful transition at State as I enter my lamest of lame duck periods. What this country needs, Condi, is a good fryken.

43

PS: You need not thank me, Condi.

[alphaa10-2009]

GOP figures asked about the CIA and Iraq usually respond with the phrase "intelligence failures". After all, this is the official Bush explanation for his own failure in Iraq-- it was actually the fault of the CIA.

However, three years of national debate on intelligence about Iraq did establish CIA estimates were clearly qualified by professional assessment of their reliability. Where the CIA evidence ended, these limits were so stated by professional analysts.

Therefore, if CIA estimates "failed" Bush, it jcould be only a refusal to endorse a prescribed Bush doctrine unsupported by clear evidence. Cheney, in particular, stated as fact points burdened by strong and reasonable doubt of any reliable basis at all. Cheney became visibly impatient with CIA when he got no ringing chorus of "Amen!" for his pro-invasion rhetoric.

Critical Bush and Cheney assertions about Iraq turn out to have originated with fragmentary or single-source origins which compromised its reliability-- as noted at the time by contributing analysts. Tenet himself stated to congress he was under intense pressure to express solidarity with Bush and Cheney on administration statements-- statements at odds with those of his own agency. Supporting Bush as a team player, Tenet suggests, ran against the best professional assessment available on Iraq.

With others of his party, GOP Sen. Pat Robertson dismisses the whole affair as "politics"-- precisely the charge critics now direct at him and his party.

[alphaa10-2009]

RonnieHM said-- "<b>Whether Rockefeller thinks Iraq or the world would be better off with Saddam at this moment is irrelevant. Was the world better off DURING World War II?</b>"

Actually, Rockefeller's access to intelligence information makes his opinion count for a great deal, even if you and he disagree about certain matters like Bush's fraudulent arguments for Iraq.

Rockefeller accurately assesses the Bush debacle in Iraq for what it is. To Pangloss Iraq, characterizing this engulfing disaster as mere darkness before the dawn, is misleading. Most current, reliable indications are that the conflict is not becoming better, and threatening to widen beyond Iraq.

[dan-s-]

"Was the world better off DURING World War II?"

No, but in the same amount of time that's passed since 9-11, the US entered the war, helped beat the Germans, kicked the Japanese A** AND built the atomic bomb!

What has Bush done since 9-11?!

OUR PORTS AREN'T EVEN SECURE!

[johnnyyenaga]

The Key Word in this article is "Cynicism", which is the titanium fist under the PNAC glove of "Democracy". *** Cheney is nothing if not cynical, religiously so, intellectually so, in practice, and in self-permissiveness. His cynicism extends to the Constitution, it is overseas, it is the lie of "The New American Century" which is neither new nor American. It is the black smoke of destruction hanging over every country he and his pack of cynical and insane cohorts have rested their talons.

[drgoodwin12]

Saddam was never a nice guy however he kept the country running(electricty,gas,food etc.)With all the news reports coming out of Iraq and the opinion polls of the Iraqis.I have to agree with Sen.Rockefeller.I also hear Neil singing "Let's Impeach The President".Now we are stuck in this quagmire and the admin. has clamped down on news reports coming from.That way we remain stupid of the realitys of the war and the price of gas keeps falling just in time for the November elections.Who's being misled again? It is past time to impeach the President,VP and all of their cronies and it is time to get tough with the new Iraqi goverment.Tell them to shape up or face the consequences.

[wolfi872]

Senate is independent branch of government. Senate Intelligence Committee provides its own careful analysis of available intelligence so that it may vote soberly. Jay Rockefeller is long-time member of that committee. However, instead of doing his own analysis of available intel AT APPROPRIATE TIME, Rockefeller ignored his sworn duty and instead dizzily voted with the rest of the Senate to lynch Saddam. Rockefeller is the lap dog who yip-yip-yipped at the heels of the lynch mob and now he's squeeling like a stuck pig. The senate would be better off without Jay Rockefeller.

[wolfi872]

So now we prefer to believe Saddam was "not a nice guy" but he "kept the country running." Such allusions are not only puerile but dangerously misleading. an Italian dictator made the trains run on time; a German dictator built the autobahn; a Soviet dictator developed Siberia; a Chinese made the great leap forward; a Vietnamese reunited his country; (the "rules of engagement" won't allow the names). Let's go on and on with our psychotic revisionism instead of confronting the real issue of evil in our time.

[frostygolf1]

If anyone still believes that the "Bushies" didn't mislead us, they are delusional. All you need do is revisit their own words prior to the illegal invasion. Fortunately, the admin can't recall all the speeches that were made in the runup, they can't "classify" them in the name of "national security".
The GOP is the "in" party...incompetent and incapable. They can do nothing except reduce taxes on the most priveleged among us and endanger the rest of us. So what is their answer now? More of the same, stay the course, with us or agin us...slogans are us!! Unfortunately for the people of this republic, solutions lie not in slogans, but in real, and capable governance.

[chubvonshuva]

i have said from the beginning that this conflict in Iraq was a lie started by this group of neocons from the project for the new American century and most of that gang is in the bush administration our troops are over there in iraq getting killed and maimed for nothing talking about the war on terror we have not won the war on drugs the only thing to do is bring our troops home also this conflict is costing this great nation of ours billions and billions of dollars every day and the bush cheny partners are making tons of our tax dollars that really what this conflict is all about

[acolon77]

SECURITY:
This is exactly where the American people have failed...because we let the Bush regime play us on it. Like the bully who says "if you give me all your money and beat up on little girls, i'll protect you and be your friend."
This biggest fear of Anglo-Saxon America ( which is not about race but about culture) which Karl Rove has been playing on...using and recreating historic events such as Pearl Harbor to bring nostalgic support to an unjust war that uses and tosses away the lives of our soldiers and the money of hard working Americans. And this is exactly what they said they'd do in PNAC!
And now this fear has carried over to immigration and our border SECURITY ...a smoke screen to the REAL problem. There are no terrorists here in America. Its more likely you'll be killed by an American then any kind of terrorist attack. So where again is this 'War on Terror'?

The absolute truth is those who voted for Bush in knew it, but chose to neglect it anyways. They turned a blind eye to this administration's past (Rockefeller is one of them)in order to make sure there was conservation of power to this Anglo-Saxon America. Now every American is paying for it, including Rockefeller which is the only reason he has chosen to speak out against this regime now.

[tank611]

QUOTE:

'Now we are stuck in this quagmire.'

No we are not stuck. We can pull out anytime we want to.

QUOTE:

'Rockefeller accurately assesses the Bush debacle in Iraq for what it is.'

The 'Bush' debacle? In case you forgot CONGRESS had a vote and approved the military operation in Iraq. There are 21 other countries besides the United States with 16,000 combat troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's not just 'Bush's war'. By the way Congress is responsible for funding wars. Congress could have a vote tomorrow to end funding for the war and the war would be over.