Click to Enlarge
Page 67- Senate Intelligence Committee Phase II Report on Public Statements
June, 2008
This news from the WaPo today is as shocking as seeing Hillary Clinton suspend her campaign.
Fred Hiatt at The Washington Post reported- "Bush didn't lie!"
The Anchoress is rubbing her head wondering what got into the media to suddenly admit that Bush did not lie.
She wrote a wonderful history of the antiwar crowds' favorite chant about Bush and included this from 2003:
One reads this and thinks…it’s really too bad that when this story of Dems on the Intel Committee plotting against Bush broke in 2003, the mainstream press ignored it, taking umbrage that anyone would leak a memo (!) while ignoring its content.Ed Morrissey at HotAir adds analysis on the prewar intelligence.
And, the New York Sun has an amazing report on last week's Senate Intelligence Committee's report on prewar intelligence.
The report describes direct links between Saddam Hussein officials and Al-Qaeda leader Al-Zarqawi before the war began.

This document discovered after the invastion shows photos of Al-Qaeda leader Al-Zarqawi. (Dread Pundit Bluto)
ISGZ-2004-019920
2002 Iraqi Intelligence Correspondence concerning the presence of al-Qaida Members in Iraq. Correspondence between IRS members on a suspicion, later confirmed, of the presence of an Al-Qaeda terrorist group. Moreover, it includes photos and names.
The New York Sun reported:
On many key judgments before the war, the report itself found that statements on Iraq's biological weapons capacity, its nuclear and chemical weapons programs, the president and his cabinet secretaries generally followed the intelligence assessments of the spy services. On some issues there was disagreement. When Mr. Cheney said in September 2002 that he did not know if Al Qaeda and Iraq cooperated on the September 11, 2001, attacks, the CIA and FBI believed at that point there was no connection.Bummer. It looks like the Democrats forgot to scrub that memo from their latest political hit piece before it was released.
...President Bush believed the nation could not take the risk that they could. But on the question of meaningful links between Al Qaeda and Iraq, something the anti-war movement believes never existed, the evidence suggests a more nuanced picture than Mr. Rockefeller has portrayed. This is where Mr. Ford's January 31, 2003, memo comes into play.
Mr. Ford's memo came on the eve of Operation Iraqi Freedom. His words demolish a talking point for Democrats who still say Al Qaeda had nothing to do with Iraq until the coalition of the willing invaded. Mr. Ford wrote that the former emir of Al Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Musab Zarqawi "has had a good relationship with Iraqi intelligence officials." He added that intelligence on Qaeda "revealed the presence of safe house facilities in the city as well as the clear intent to remain in Baghdad. Also, foreign NGO workers outside of Iraq who are believed to provide support to al-Qaeda have also expressed their intent to set up shop in Baghdad."
Previously:
Picture Proof: The Saddam-Al Qaeda Connections
NYT: Saddam Was a Year Away from Building A-Bomb!
The Saddam-Al Qaeda Links: In Photos and Video
UPDATE: I just got off the phone with Senator Bond's office.
Senator Bond (R-MO) is the Minority Leader and Vice-Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
A spokesman for Senator Bond this morning told me that the July 2004 report blamed flawed intelligence. The previous bipartisan report did not distort the facts on prewar intelligence unlike last week's report that blamed the Bush Administration.UPDATE 2: Thomas Joscelyn at The Weekly Standard has more on the Saddam and Al-Qaeda links.
The 2004 report gained unanimous support from the committee members. Last week only 2 Republican senators signed on to the report.
The Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee had the same prewar intelligence as President Bush. In this latest Phase II report, the minority was entirely shut out of the process. The Demorats willingly distorted this intelligence report.
The type of partisan gamemanship displayed in the report is disgraceful.
The intelligence committee was sure that Al-Qaeda was operating in Iraq before the war.
UPDATE 3: Rockefeller did lie, though.
The Obama Chi-town dirty political machine is in full blown attack mode. Trying to connect McCain to Bush. So this is needed to fire back at the usual Democrat scum, like billionaire Rockerfeller.
ReplyDeleteIt would do good to point out that Obama plays mean. HotAir and Ed Morrisey have an excellent post up and video by CNN showing how Obama knocked his political mentor out of Chicago politics.
How did he do it? He sent a team of lawyers in to verify every single voter registration on the petitions of his Democrat competitors. We should all remember this as the Democrats are constantly arguing for open voter polls without verification.
Obama Throws Political Mentor Under the Bus
Its all about Obama, Chi-town slimey politics, Mayor Daly and the David Axlerod connection between the two. Axlerod seems to be the slime that greases the wheels of Obama and Daly machine.
The media needs to look into his past and connections.
++
ReplyDeletenothing new to me.. i've been posting documents & article's verifying the fact that BUSH DIDN'T LIE for years now!!
it's the freakin' Marxist Support Machine that's been LYING since Bush took office.. they just can't afford to hide the FACTS any longer..
hence, they have no choice but to "CHANGE" course & "HOPE" it's not to late to recoup their "LOST" credibility!!
==
++
ReplyDeleteJoshua @ 10:41 AM..
one of the main reasons i can't stomach McCain is that like Peter in the garden, he denies Bush..
what i want to know is why does he or anyone else feel the need to disassociate themselves from a President who has not only done the best he can with the fools who serve US to protect & defend this nation.. but has also managed to free millions of oppressed people's than any before him against all odds??
McCain needs to drop his self promoting insinuations via his "i was right, Bush was wrong" mantra..
he should know better.. Bush left the Generals et al in charge of conducting the war.. that is not passing the buck, that is employing logic..
McCain should also know better than most everyone else that many mistakes are made in the course of any war.. i highly doubt McCain could have done any better w/out the benefit of hindsight had he been in charge.. that's not to say he'd make the same mistakes, but i can guarantee mistakes would have been made..
==
++
ReplyDeleteHT : LGF via Mossad Moshebob @ ITM
D-Day: Crisis On Omaha
==
Like most presidents, history will be much kinder to W. than any of the MSM ever was...
ReplyDeleteMcCain is going to lose to Obama if he doesn't get OFF of his high horse and start PROVING that the Democrats are left-wing fascist morons.
ReplyDeleteHe needs to talk about how the nation will prosper under his guidance instead of talking about putting men on Mars for Christ's sake.
DAMN!
He needs to hammer this Rockefeller witch hunt like a rented frakkiin' mule.
++
ReplyDeletere: bg @ 11:49 AM..
God Bless Soldiers everywhere for putting THEIR
lives on the line to protect us ALL from terrorism!
re: Snooper @ 11:51 AM..
The Rockefeller Connection
==
bg...AMEN!!
ReplyDeleteIt seemed self-evident to me that, when al Qaeda began operating in Iraq immediately after our taking Baghdad, they had to have had safe houses and ongoing relationships in Iraq. And, given the Hussein regime's ruthlessness against dissenters, it stood to reason that the relationships ought to have been government-sanctioned to at least some degree.
ReplyDeleteNot that I considered it terribly important at the time that Iraq and al Qaeda be joined at the hip. It was enough for me to know that Saddam had had and used chem/bio weapons, continued to violate the GWI cease-fire, used terror tactics at home and supported them abroad - and of course that Iraq stood (and stands) smack in the middle of an area where substantive change is desperately needed, and had not one but two major disenfranchised and oppressed ethnic groups likely to support the Hussein takedown. (As they did.)
The rest since then? I am not a military strategist; but all told, it's still been a low-casualty conflict and aftermath, and the Iraqi people continue to move together just as we'd hoped they would.
Jamie..."we" watched them flee Afghanistan making haste to Pakistan, Iranistan and Iraqistan.
ReplyDeleteAlso, there were almost 1400 of AQ in Iraqistan BEFORE 91101.
Amazing isn't it?!?!
ReplyDeleteBack in October 6, 2004 Dick Cheney noted the connection on Online News Hour...
Stephen Hayes noted it back in June of '04 with his: There They Go Again
The 9/11 Commission and the media refuse to see the ties between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda
++
ReplyDeletesorry to go OT, but.. WOAH!!
HT : Michael J. Totten
Another Wave of Afghan Arabs?
excerpt:
[Eli Lake reports in the New York Sun that Sheik Ahmad al-Rishawi from Iraq’s Anbar Province is now volunteering to do something similar, only in reverse. He’ll lead a new contingent of “Afghan Arabs” into Afghanistan to help fight against Al Qaeda and their Taliban allies.]
WAY TO GO SHEIK!!
excerpt:
[When Sheik Ahmad's brother, Sheik Sattar, met with Mr. Bush in Anbar last fall, he told the president that he dedicated his victory over Al Qaeda to the victims of the attacks of September 11, 2001.]
GOD BLESS & THANK YOU SHEIK SATTAR,
YOU WERE A TRUE IRAQI HERO!! R.I.P..
==
"When Sheik Ahmad's brother, Sheik Sattar, met with Mr. Bush in Anbar last fall, he told the president that he dedicated his victory over Al Qaeda to the victims of the attacks of September 11, 2001" thats a shame you dont hear about these kind of things in the nonono goddamn amerikkkan media.
ReplyDeleteFolks,
ReplyDeleteSorry, but history won't be kind to Bush. You might recall, he had a chance to hunt down and destroy Al Qaeda in Afganistan, to either grab or shoot its leader there, but he did neither. You do recall it was bin Laden that was the leader of Al Qaeda, not Saddam Hussein?
Of course, Righties tend to have a slight lapse in memory in that regard. It's in their blood, I suppose. Bush & Co. already had Iraq in its sights - 911 was just a cover for what they intended on doing anyway.
So, yes, Bush lied.
Toodles,
A Leftie
The left uses the word lie with the irony it deserves coming from them. Anyone who knows a damn thing about the Iraq war knows there were many reasons we went into that country - first of which is the fact that Saddam invited us. It was the last game of chicken he ever played.
ReplyDeleteBut the ultimate point has been lost. How do you fight stateless terrorists who choose to hide among civilian populations and cross borders incognito? Simple - you let off a stink bomb in a battlefield of your choosing and wait for the roaches to come to you. The deserts of Iraq are the battlefield and the stink bomb was infidel boots on holy ground. The world learns again that when warriors meet - America wins.
Nothing ironic about that, libs...
++
ReplyDeletevenomous @ 7:22 PM..
unfortunately for everyone there are too numerous to count historical events that have occurred, and are still occurring throughout Iraq that the Marxist Support Machine have no, and probably will not report, ie:
flashback to 7/07/07..
The al-Ameriki Tribe
excerpt:
[The big news on the streets today is that the people of Baqubah are generally ecstatic, although many hold in reserve a serious concern that we will abandon them again. For many Iraqis, we have morphed from being invaders to occupiers to members of a tribe. I call it the “al Ameriki tribe,” or “tribe America.”
I’ve seen this kind of progression in Mosul, out in Anbar and other places, and when I ask our military leaders if they have sensed any shift, many have said, yes, they too sense that Iraqis view us differently. In the context of sectarian and tribal strife, we are the tribe that people can—more or less and with giant caveats—rely on.
Most Iraqis I talk with acknowledge that if
it was ever about the oil, it’s not now.]
==
++
ReplyDeleteA Lefti @ 7:34 PM..
obvioulsy A pathetically desperate Lefti to boot..
==
A Leftie,
ReplyDelete"Sorry, but history won't be kind to Bush."
Actually, this statement is technically correct. When it turns out someone was completely in the right as much as President Bush was they really don't any kindness from history. Merely justice. And it's always good to have justice on one's side. ^_^
"You do recall it was bin Laden that was the leader of Al Qaeda, not Saddam Hussein?"
In the same sense that it was Hirohito that was the Emperor of Japan rather than Germany your statement is again technically correct. But that doesn't change the fact that there was as much justice in going after Saddam after 9/11 as there was in going after Hitler after Pearl Harbor.
"Bush & Co. already had Iraq in its sights - 911 was just a cover for what they intended on doing anyway."
Yeah, their targeting of Iraq went all the way back to 1998 as shown here:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%2BClinton+%2BIraq+%2B1998&btnG=Search
O, wait. President Bush wasn't in charge in 1998. Somebody by the name of Bill Clinton was. Well, A Lefty, I guess you can always say that the people who supported Mr. Clinton and currently support Mr. Obama were a gang of nitwit warmongers even then, right? :P
Or, since you claim telepathic insight into what President Bush was thinking, perhaps you would like to argue that President Bush mind-controlled all these weak-willed Democrats into saying those things in 1998? But if you guys were so weak-willed back in those days then why would anyone want you now? Wear lots of tinfoil in your hat Mr. A Lefty! Wear lots of tinfoil and be proud. It's that wearing of tinfoil in one's that seperates the Left from the rest of America. ^_~
++
ReplyDeleteps: A Lefti @ 7:34 PM..
seeing as how you're so arrogant & ignorant..
i'll link the tape for you, wouldn't want
you to go spastic searching for it..
==
++
ReplyDeleteLefties Were Right!! :D
Bush Was Right!! :-)
==
I could not pull up the link to the Washington Post reporter at the beginning of the article. Does anyone have it saved?
ReplyDeleteBush was indeed "right" and it is that FACT that drives the moonbat fruit loop brigades to frothing madness.
ReplyDelete++
ReplyDeleteETP @ 9:23 PM..
WaPo link..
==
Regarding Zarqawi, you seem to be suggesting that we have good reason today to believe that Zarqawi and Iraq had a relationship. This is wrong. It is true that prior to the war our intelligence officials suspected that there was some relationship. It turned out not to be true. The 2006 Senate Intelligence report, produced while Republicans still controlled the Senate, concluded "postwar information indicates that Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and that the regime did not have a relationship, harbor, or turn a blind eye towards Zarqawi." (p109)
ReplyDeleteIt's not really news that prior to the war some relationship was suspected. Given that it was concluded that no such relationship existed and that Saddam was trying to capture Zarqawi, I don't see why there's any news value in pointing to another prewar Zarqawi assessment that turned out to be wrong.
what a bunch of little chicken-hawks! Running around with a small piece of information and blowing it up as if it proves anything. Americans don't know war. If they did, they wouldn't be so quick to wage it. Bush used descriptions of mushroom clouds to win public support. Great marketing trumped a bad product, the product being the facts supporting an invasion. y'all are a joke!
ReplyDeletebigtires said: another moonbat moron drivels its tired and sad idiocy.
ReplyDelete++
ReplyDeleteSnooper @ 2:31 PM..
amazing what the anti-liberationists think they know isn't it..
==
bg...this is why we have started the Moonbat Slaying University at American Truth Warriors on Blog Talk Radio.
ReplyDeleteSession Two of Ten is on tonight.
Details here:
http://www.anewtone.com/2008/06/moonbat-slaying-101-session-two.html
++
ReplyDeleteSnooper @ 2:56 PM..
thanks..
==