Rockefeller: Bush Duped Public On Iraq

(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?