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.

[arik7-2009]

Allways Questions!
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

[arik7-2009]

Allways Questions!
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

[gwbush21]

If it was a choice between:

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.

[gwbush21]

If it was a choice between:

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

[gwbush21]

If it was a choice between:

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

[gwbush21]

If it was a choice between:

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

[gwbush21]

If it was a choice between:

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

[smccaffity1]

I would like to know why in this interview Senator Rockefeller was not asked to comment on his speech on the senate floor prior to his vote in favor of the resolution to go to war. I believe he said several times that Saddam posed a significant threat based on all the evidence.

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.

[mluce2]

Jane,
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?

[mluce2]

Jane,
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?

[onegandolf1]

Senator Rockefeller is absolutely correct when he states that the world would be better off had we never invaded Iraq, even id Saddam were still in power.

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.

[onegandolf1]

Senator Rockefeller is absolutely correct when he states that the world would be better off had we never invaded Iraq, even id Saddam were still in power.

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.

[onegandolf1]

Senator Rockefeller is absolutely correct when he states that the world would be better off had we never invaded Iraq, even id Saddam were still in power.

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.

[onegandolf1]

Senator Rockefeller is absolutely correct when he states that the world would be better off had we never invaded Iraq, even id Saddam were still in power.

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.

[onegandolf1]

Senator Rockefeller is absolutely correct when he states that the world would be better off had we never invaded Iraq, even id Saddam were still in power.

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.

[ronniehm]

Am I supposed to believe that Saddam Hussein, whose army surrendered to us like a troop of Girl Scouts (not once but twice), kept al Qaeda out of Iraq? I'm sorry, but huh?

[phantomdsb]

The New York Times is surely correct to point out that the United States is in dire need of a real world solution to the quagmire in Iraq. %u201CListing the sins of the Bush administration,%u201D they write, %u201Cmay help to clarify how we got here, but it will not get us out (NYT; 9/11/06).%u201D

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

[houser123]

Finally, we have someone stand up and say what needed to be be said months earlier. Saddam did not pose a threat to the U S prior to the war. I only wish more of the elected officials who voted for this war would have the fortiude to say the same. Yes, Saddam was an evil dictator, but he was Iraq's evil dictator. He had no WMD's, no ties to AQ, and no nuclear programs. All three were the reasons to go to war. History has shown that dictators will fall from within when the people rise up and take a stand. Now Mr. Cheney in his appearance with Tim Russert yesterday stated that is was all the fault of George Tennet and the CIA. I do not buy into Mr. Cheney's premise. In addition, now Iraqi government, less the Sunni members because they are boycotting the meetings, is moving to split Iraq into three autonomous regions. North for the Kurds, South for the Shiites and Central for the Sunnis. Oil in the North and South and sand in the central. Will this lead to move civil war and sectarian violence, of course it will.

[atcspec]

The Bush Administration still misses the big picture. Sadam Hussein kept the terrorists out of Iraq for years, and the terrorists feared Sadam and his Red Guard. Iraq was no place for Al-Quaida terrorists prior to March 2003. They wouldn't dare step foot in Sadam territory. In fact, Sadam, our former ally, could have been massaged into helping us thwart off the Iranian threat with a little diplomacy that the CIA, since the 1950's, used so skillfully with other dictators around the world. Our intelligence, good or bad, had little relevance to taking out Sadam Hussein. We missed a golden opportunity to take out the 'clear and present danger' in Iran with the help of Sadam Hussein, and offering a couple of carrots in return.

[alphaa10-2009]

ihtltd said-- "<b>The reasons for the war, as presented by our government was wrong and deceptive. Human Rights violations should have been reason enough to take such a drastic step.</b>

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.