Charles Krauthammer demolishes Nancy Pelosi today over her new assertion that the CIA lied and didn’t brief her….as Charles said, she is now at war with the CIA and she will lose. (full video of her embarrassing press conference here)
Even Hoyer wouldn’t back her:
Rep. Steny Hoyer, the House majority leader, panned the recent criticism of Pelosi as a “distraction” during a verbal tangle with Republican Whip Eric Cantor on the House floor.
But when asked directly whether he shares Pelosi’s belief that the CIA misled Congress, he backed off.
“I have no idea of that. I don’t have a belief of that nature because I have no basis on which to base such a belief,” Hoyer said. “And I certainly hope that’s not the case. And I don’t draw that conclusion.”
Of course those who tend to believe her want justice:
Democrats on the House intelligence committee said Thursday that CIA officers broke the law in 2002 if they told Nancy Pelosi then that they had not yet engaged in waterboarding.
“If they make a false report, absolutely it’s illegal,” said Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. “If they fail to make a report when they’re obligated to that is also illegal — a violation of the National Security Act.”
But Andy McCarthy believes that whether the water games started before or after Pelosi was briefed matters not:
…Pelosi ups the ante big-time by alleging that, in 2002, she was “told explicitly that waterboarding was not being used,” and, therefore, that the agency is lying when it claims to have told her it was. But — though I acknowledge she is confusing and at times incoherent — Pelosi does not appear to disclaim knowledge that waterboarding was at least in the CIA’s gameplan. And, indeed, she now says she learned waterboarding was being used from other lawmakers who attended other briefings in the ensuing months.
Now, back to the torture statute. I won’t rehash the now familiar provisions that explain what torture is. But I do want to focus our attention on a prong of the torture statute, Section 2340A(c), that hasn’t gotten much notice to this point:
Conspiracy.— A person who conspires to commit an offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties (other than the penalty of death) as the penalties prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.
So I ask myself, “Self, what difference does it make whether Speaker Pelosi knew the CIA was waterboarding suspects or merely knew the CIA was planning to use waterboarding?” Answer: None.
Unless a victim is killed by torture such that the death penalty comes into play (which is not alleged here), American law regards conspiracy to commit torture as something exactly as serious, punished exactly as severely, as actual torture. As it happens, I don’t think waterboarding as administered by the CIA was torture. But Pelosi says she does. If that’s where you’re coming from, how do you get off the hook by saying you only knew about a plan to torture but not actual torture?
~~~Finally, on the “did nothing about it” score, the lamest part of Pelosi’s defense is the claim that she didn’t need to register her dissent because she agreed with Rep. Jane Harman’s letter, purportedly “objecting to” the enhanced interrogation tactics. Here’s Harman’s letter. It contains no objection whatsoever to the tactics.
Lindsey Graham says the same thing as Andy:
She can change her story but if she believes waterboarding to be illegal and wants people hung and quartered over it she is first in line, whichever story of her’s is true.
But the sad part of all this is if this story involved a Republican the MSM would be all over this….she’s obviously incriminating other lawmakers by saying others were briefed. So why are they not asking who these others are? You know, the who, what, when questions taught in journalism school. Who knew about it and what was told to them by the CIA? I mean if these yahoo’s actually believe waterboarding is torture then the MSM should be screaming the question, as they would with a Republican, why did they not object to it?
See author page
Commonly referred to as “Blue on Blue” in military terms or cannibalism in Political terms.
Let the fur fly and let the Pretender in Chief sort it out.
The toughest part about telling lies is trying to remember the last lie that you told, Eh Nancy?
Can any of you image the coverage that would engender by the MSM, if she was a Republican?
Dayum.
That’s gonna leave a mark.
The best thing about all of this is how the Democrats did it to themselves. This never would’ve come up if Obama hadn’t released those memos in an attempt to make Bush look bad.
OMG… between Obama wanting to hang them, and Leon Panetta playing politics instead of backing his now-charged organization, the spooks must feel as isolated as I do.
Leon Panetta’s “strong” stance, backing the CIA from Curt’s article. Note the difference in emphasis between George Little and the career politician Panetta:
Yeah… that’s standing up for your guys, Leon. Go crawl back in your political hole.
I loved the quote Krauthammer provided:
“I prefer to tell the truth, it’s easier to memorize.”
@Timothy:
There’s another much older one (he’s probably just paraphrasing) that I like. “An honest person doesn’t have to have a good memory.”
Ahh, Pelosi, so good to see the back of her.
buh bye!
nancy is soooo back peddling, she is screwed.
Between Cheney going on a talking spree and wanting documents declassified for his upcoming book and to back his claims that Obama makes us less safe, and Pelosi’s flip flopping with her changed stories and calling the CIA liars, I’m not sure if a full investigation will be avoided. Calling the CIA liars from the Speaker of the House has to have consequences.
I’m not too sure that the fun the Republicans are (perhaps justifiably) having skewering Pelosi is going to work for their best interest. They were dead set against any truth commission until they smelled blood in the water from Pelosi, and now, it seems both sides will have an ongoing battle and a vested interest to get to the bottom of everything in an effort to sink the other side. While one side is on top at the moment, the other will continue to dig until they can make hay, and on and on. Typical Washington crap, plus, Republican firepower will be spent in going after Pelosi while the Democrats will move right along with their agenda.
Pelosi is in a district where she is very safe for reelection, and, just like when Bush commuted Scooter Libby’s conviction in part because his poll numbers were so low that it didn’t matter anyway, he might as well do what he wants to do, Pelosi has little to lose from the polls and especially her standing amongst Conservatives. And the Democrats will the majority and mostly be running the show for all these inquiries and truth commissions…..all the while the President will distance himself from the proceedings and let the Republicans keep the issue alive and well on his behalf. She might lose the battle, but she may win the war.
More “common ground” with one of our FA left leaning residents, moose.
Yes… this is a political battle, and one I regret is being waged. And yes it’s “justified”. Not as much that Nancy was caught in her political expediency lies, but mostly for the Obama error in not fighting the ACLU in court and releasing the docs. Now that the pandora’s box was opened, you can’t leave half truths in the public domain. The public has a right to know if their attempts to justify banning waterboarding will result in less actionable intel. And you can not rest all of that merely on Soufan’s testimony, based on his supposed clairvoyance.
“CIA Director Leon Panetta has said it would be up to Congress to determine whether notes made by agency personnel at the time they briefed lawmakers were accurate. “
So, we’re going to let Nancy Pelosi decide what the truth is despite whatever records the CIA may have that contradict her?
Can you imagine a comparable situation where a Republican high ranking official was given the power to pronounce on the facts about whether they were lying or not?
Only in Dem land would someone like Panetta even suggest such a thing.
“She might lose the battle, but she may win the war.”
She can be removed from office for Perjury.
I call that losing the war.
Note to Pelosi,
When you give a definitive statement, better be ready to the rectal probe exam by your enemies.
You need to quibble on the front side instead of the backside.
Now there will be those who will point to others to blame, bring up old scores, old agendas and the ever popular BUTT MONKEY (Laura Ingrahm show segment), but Moose, the genie has been opened and the last time I checked it’s President Obama’s turn at the wheel. After a while, bringing up the Bush angle wears thin when the public has the memory of a flea.
Whether Pelosi is damaged or not is secondary. This issue is taking a life of it’s own with the potential of side tracking the normal DC cycles, producing embarassing questions, diverting agendas and so forth. It’s called “collateral damage” and polticians hate it when a collegue sidetracks their business and puts them in an embrassing situation.
If Pelosi doesn’t get canned, she’ll have issues tagged to her (dead weight) that her opponents can use at future opportunities.
Mata: I agree, both sides of the issue will want to get the half truths out there already resolved and their own agenda issues settled. I still think this is convenient cover for Obama in some ways, because unless he is personally tied to any Pelosi waffling, he can let her take the heat while he can set the agenda behind the curtains and the issue stays alive without the perception of the public being that he is responsible for it. I’m not certain that in spite of the odd twists that Pelosi has clearly presented with her evolving story and claim of lying that it will not somehow work toward some of the ends that Obama wants. Pelosi is getting a serious black eye politically, and it could cost her dearly, and that does remain to be seen, she may survive the ordeal. Both sides most likely have their next couple moves already planned out.
Mike: Paneta is aware of something that is likely unfolding, former Senator Bob Graham said today that “the CIA provided him with false information about how many times and when he was briefed on enhanced interrogations.” and said that he had “no recollection that issues such as waterboarding were discussed.” Who knows who else is going to step up and say what was discussed in those briefings, from both sides before it’s over with. Paneta will have to take a stance on the issues very shortly, or maybe he will have some internal investigation on that issue so he can buy time and issue a report on the findings…Oh Man…..
“Can you imagine a comparable situation where a Republican high ranking official was given the power to pronounce on the facts about whether they were lying or not?”
Well yeah: “I am not a crook”, but I will concede that was said a long time ago……
Old Trooper: Won’t they have to put her under oath to get a perjury conviction? If she claims bad memory, stress, PMS, or some other flimsy excuse, she may somehow survive and just be politically wounded. If they do prove that she is bold face lying, and not the CIA, I bet she won’t be the only one to go then either. It is hard to even imagine a Speaker from either party ever making a charge like that against the CIA without either having the facts to back it up, or just being completely bonkers. She had better be able to produce the goods….and maybe she will although it’s hard for even me to see that happening. Either way, I think the truth commission is going to be a given unless something dramatic happens…..and it probably will.
The CIA is already contacting news agencies claiming Pelosi lied. O’Reilly mentioned they contacted him an hour before his show and will send information. This would be after Panetta’s statement, perhaps he really isn’t running the CIA.
I’m betting the cameras were rolling when Pelosi was informed and she will have been effectively backed into the corner.
I was disappointed when Nancy Pelosi became the first female Speaker of the House, I was aslo disappointed when Barack Obama became the first person of color to be elected POTUS.
There is a responsibility to being first, the folk who follow have to overcome or live up to.
I am so very disappointed that both these people are living up to my expectations in being the wrong firsts and damaging not just those who hope to follow but also my country.
I like Charles Krauthammer he has a soft spoken not mincing the facts way of saying something insulting without sounding malicious or mean spirited.
.
mooseburger #9
“*Between Cheney going on a talking spree and wanting documents declassified for his upcoming book and to back his claims that Obama makes us less safe, and Pelosi’s flip flopping with her changed stories and calling the CIA liars,..”
The way things are going it looks like Obama, Pelosi and the Democrats are giving VP Cheney enough material for a best seller.
🙂
*Under Oath Yes
*No Truther Commission, a Federal Court not a Congressional Kangaroo Court.
*An Indictment, not a “Hearing” or Dog & Pony Show
*CIA Briefing notes and the Access form that was signed by All Present, All Evidence presented
*Classified Information is not a problem as Prosecutors & Judges can be cleared
*Let the chips fall where they may for All Concerned
*If Pelosi pleads PMS or Diminished Capacity, that is cause for Removal from Office and no further access to Classified Documents.
Let Obama or Panetta try a cover up. I dare them. Elected Office holders are Not Above the Law.
They should be held to a higher Moral Standard.
In Courts Martial Proceedings, the Accused can request any Commissioned Officer to be appointed Legal Counsel. Not just JAG. I have acted in that capacity. Bring it on!
Trust me, my actual take on this situation is not flippant. But I cannot seem to get that “Wizard of Oz” song out of my head…
“Ding dong the witch is dead!
Which old witch?
The Wicked Witch!
Ding dong the Wicked Witch is Dead!”
(yeah yeah… I’ll believe it when it actually happens)
Old Trooper: Indictments are a long way off at this point, but in general I agree with you. Lets get the facts on the table regarding all concerned. The far left and far right are now both on the same page in terms of wanting to find all that transpired. With different objectives for each side:
The Democrats are looking at: “Finding a “smoking gun” linking Iraq and al Qaeda became the main purpose of the abusive interrogation program the Bush administration authorized in 2002, a former State Department official told CNN on Thursday.
Dick Cheney’s office ordered use of “alternative” techniques against CIA’s recommendations, aide says.” (This from CNN)
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/14/iraq.torture/index.html
The Republicans are looking at: Pelosi says it’s torture, and she knew about torture, so she is an accomplice to torture, with emphasis on the misleading or lying about who knew what and when.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/14/republicans-dispute-pelosis-claim-stop-interrogation-techniques/
If the Republicans prevail, then Pelosi will be history, especially if the CIA lying charge gets proved wrong, and a new Democratic speaker will be taking her place. Republicans will make political hay out of this and probably make gains in the 2010 elections.
If the Democrats prevail, it could show that the invasion of Iraq was on shaky ground from the start and the Bush team knew it. It could show that what the American people were told to sell the war, weapons of mass destruction, mushroom clouds, and links to Alquida, were suspect even then by Bush administration officials and the EIT’s were used after the fact to bolster the case for what the American people were already told to sell the war itself. It could show that the DOJ memos were written after the fact also to CYA all involved. The war could never have been sold to the People without all these claims. Cheney’s dissing of Gen Powell may come back to haunt him, as he knows what transpired before and after, and his credibility with the American people is still pretty good.
Indictments may not be what EITHER side is interested in before this is over….I think Republicans have the potential to lose more than they gain with this course, and I think they might back off Pelosi before all is said and done. I doubt the press will back off, and every day the steady Drip of info, from former Bushies and others will continue….
Moose, Wilkerson also said:
He’s basing this not on his personal knowledge, but hearsay from current and former officials. Would that be State Dept officials?
Secondly, something else odd about his accusations. He said this started in April of 2002…. about 8 months after 911. We didn’t go into Iraq until March of 2003. Considering that there was documented ties from Saddam and Zawahiri (then EIJ) back to 1993, and that AQ was known to be involved in Somalia in 1993, why wouldn’t a CIC and officials want to delve into whether there was any link INRE the latest attack? Doesn’t strike me as anything but due diligence, which I expect from my Commander in Chief, our State Dept, and our intel personnel.
Considering the Dems and media have spent the last 8 years convincing the US population that Iraq was only about WMDs and not about it’s connections with AQ and terror affilated jihad groups, who do you figure it shows the *liberation* of Iraq and deposition of Saddam was on shaky ground? Because if Saddam’s proveable connections to AQ and AQ affiliated jihad movement is all that’s needed to magically make the Iraq war justifiable, the Dems will lose if they prevail. WMDs cannot be proven, or disproven, at this moment. But Saddam’s connections most certainly has been.
Frankly, I don’t think anyone in the beltway is interested in the truth. This is all political maneuvering. Oddly enuf, the Dems brought it down upon themselves. What’s the moronic Daily KOs way of putting it? “Bwwwwwaaaaaaahahahahahahah”
My only interest in this case is in Due Process, not Politics. If Laws were broken there must be Due Process. There is a lot of speculation and bull being tossed around. While in Service, I was held to the Geneva Conventions, UCMJ, Status of Forces Agreements as well as Treaties too numerous to list, US Constitution and US Code. I was held responsible for knowing the intent and content of every Classified Briefing that I sat through or had a part of information gathering for briefings. Playing Stupid was not an option. Telling falsehoods was never an option.
I served my Army, my Nation and politics was not within the scope of my Oath or Duties. This has gone political and way off track. That is not the American way when it is possible that Laws may have been broken. We are forced to rely on integrity of Agencies where National Security is involved. We should expect integrity, honesty and responsible conduct from ANYONE involved in National Security, Intelligence gathering, Analysis and ANYONE sitting on an Intel Committee.
Lets get this sorted out and settled and if Laws were broken, Due Process in a Court of Law is the only prudent and legal option. Finger pointing, taking the case to the Media for Adjudication or political witch hunts are not the proper venue. I’m Old School. We are a Nation of Laws. This issue is not just going to go away until there is Due Process for All involved. These days I trust a career politician or Lawyer about as far as I can throw Air Force One.
@Old Trooper:
If only you could replace a number of the political hacks that are playing this out in the media. It’s all over power, not honor, nor for the safety of this country and all that have defended it. I personally believe it is those like you that we are to be proud of, not anything coming out of DC and it’s been that way for a long time. Sad.
Mata said: “Considering the Dems and media have spent the last 8 years convincing the US population that Iraq was only about WMDs and not about it’s connections with AQ and terror affilated jihad groups, who do you figure it shows the *liberation* of Iraq and deposition of Saddam was on shaky ground? Because if Saddam’s proveable connections to AQ and AQ affiliated jihad movement is all that’s needed to magically make the Iraq war justifiable, the Dems will lose if they prevail. WMDs cannot be proven, or disproven, at this moment. But Saddam’s connections most certainly has been.”
True, except you forgot to mention that Bush and Company spent a considerable amount of time and effort the convince the people that the WMD’s were the main threat to us, that was the Bush standard, he established it to sell the war and the press just kept following up on it. So it follows that if he was wrong on that, it raises suspicions regarding other ties Bush said were there regarding the war. The ties between Sadam and Alqueda are thought by both sides to be either very strong or that they didn’t exist at all in a meaningful way, mostly falling along partisan lines. The CIA’s record on Iraq’s WMD capabilities is shaky too, no better than any in the rest of the world, but shaky non the less, thus adding more uncertainty to Bush’s initial selling points of the war.
I have always wondered that if we had the no fly zone over 2/3 of Iraq, and all that, why Sadam would be such a threat to the US mainland soil? No way he could have launched a missile at the US, or even Israel without sudden and certain destruction of his country from the US. Certainly Iran’s ties to terrorist groups are strong and well known and documented, and are and were then a greater threat to the US and her allies than Iraq. Same story with North Korea being a demonstrated threat, with a nuclear capability during the Bush years.
Iran being Russia’s Proxy state and N. Korea being China’s, we weren’t going to gin up fear of those very real threats and plan to set standards of compliance and threaten reprisals if they don’t comply.
So I myself don’t think that “Saddam’s proveable connections to AQ and AQ affiliated jihad movement is all that’s needed to magically make the Iraq war justifiable” Mata.
If we have been on the DMZ for as long as we have, why was the no fly zone such an unwanted alternative to a full scale invasion? Iraq was in no position to do anything to anybody at that point in time, and the threats that Bush told us about a “Smoking Gun” and “Mushroom Cloud” were the very standard that he himself imposed.
Old Trooper: I agree with you, and the politics mixed with the National security issues is a very bad mix. The media has the zing effect, but getting to the real truth is not their best attribute.
Sorry for the off topic above about the lead up to the war, those are things I have personally wondered about, and I’m sure you all have debated this at great length before I ever showed up here.
For me anyway, it is not just about a link to AQ or not, there were many issues that I wondered about. At the time, I didn’t think it was a good idea to invade Iraq, but then, as now, I trusted that the President had more info than I do. As I watched the goal posts being moved time and again after the war started, I can see that Bush was under alot of pressure to justify the war, and he spent considerable time doing just that.
I think going after Pelosi could also play into the hands of those who are going after Bush and company and keep all the issues alive. This could allow Obama to satisfy his left wing base while pretending to stay above the fray. In the foolish media enhanced chess game of the politics on this issue, to lose a Bishop (Pelosi) to capture the oppositions Queen or even King (Cheney, Bush) is a good trade, and don’t think for a minute that all this is not being considered into the whole equation, however petty or misguided that may be.
The media truly isn’t interested in this.
Take today’s WH press briefing for example.
Not one question from the entire press pool until Major Garrett of the dreaded FoxNews Channel finally got the opportunity toward the end.
Gibbs promptly brushed off the question and moved on.
Robert Gibbs lately appears to have studied the Baghdad Bob school of press briefings.
The questions answered are not as telling as those that are not. The political spin is so thick you could cut it with an axe. Transparency? Nope.
A lot of information that led up to the invasion of Iraq is still Classified and deserves to remain so as a matter of Current Diplomacy within the region and Foreign Policy issues that need to be resolved without any further anger in the neighborhood. If you thought politics was kinky here, the Middle East is a real jigsaw puzzle for the unacquainted.
@mooseburger:
FA Archives could bring you up to speed, the hosts have done outstanding research and writing. This is also a quick, good read:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/08/who_lied_about_iraq.html
Also check out the current thread…..”Iraq Prime Minister Says There Is Now Proof of Ties Between Saddam’s Regime and Al Q Network in 2003. Mata and Scott provide a wealth of information. Thank them very much!
@mooseburger:
“…you forgot to mention that Bush and Company spent a considerable amount of time and effort the convince the people that the WMD’s were the main threat to us.”
Are they not paying attention, or do they deliberately ignore historical facts?
Now Mooseberger knows that WMD were a very real factor, contrary to the propaganda the Dems have been spewing. And now that he knows that, will he refrain from making that false assertion? Will being shown this error of his inspire him to work harder to find what really went on rather than to blindly accept the Left’s version? Only time will tell.
ASIDE – I wonder if Mooseberger even knows who David Kay is, and why his testimony is so important?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134625,00.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/bush-was-warned-there-were-no-wmd-says-former-cia-man-475357.html
Bush himself said as much about the failure to find WMD
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7759908.stm
Outgoing US President George Bush has said his biggest regret is the failure of intelligence over Iraqi weapons.
In a wide-ranging TV interview, he declined to say whether he would have decided to invade Iraq if he had known it had no weapons of mass destruction.
So maybe mooseburger is trying to understand both sides of the issue, and heard the regret about the WMD from Bush Himself, a pretty good source for this topic I would think.
Aye: to have the speaker call the CIA liars and not be a top level story is really strange, I agree. Even the Media will not be able to keep her from putting up or shutting up at some point.
@MataHarley #22:
It wouldn’t appear to be the first time (re: Timmerman’s Shadow Warriors, Ch 15). Wilkerson wrote a piece for the Baltimore Sun in 2006 that is full-on BDS-laden garbage.
@mooseburger #25:
The Administration did need to “sell” the war to drum up popular support; but with perhaps a couple of slip-up “gotcha” quotes/overstatements, most of the time when Bush or Cheney mentioned about the wmd threat from Iraq, it had to do with intent, programs and capabilities and “we just don’t know- which is the point”, than about actual possession; especially when it came to possession of nuclear wmd. And they were citing CIA claims. The CIA oversold the wmd angle and underplayed the Saddam-al Qaeda links.
I don’t think so; because the way I see it, most of the claims, even in the absence of wmd stockpiles, were found to be true.
What were the justifications put forth again, for concluding our war with Saddam?
Moose, it wasn’t so much about the fear of Saddam launching missiles at the U.S. or say a land invasion. That sort of scenario is not the kind of threat the Administration was claiming, in regards to the Saddam threat. It had to do with his extensive history of ties to terrorists and wmds. What we feared was the marriage of the two that could see Saddam using terrorists as a proxy to deliver a wmd attack.
@mooseburger #31:
But how does that invalidate/delegitimize the decision to remove Saddam? Was he or wasn’t he a threat? Did he or did he not come clean about his wmd programs and abide by the terms of the Cease-Fire Agreements?
Which tv interview was that? I seem to remember him saying in one interview something different. Would love to see the transcript. I think what people say and mean are sometimes distorted or mis-cited.
@Missy #29:
Damn…I can’t believe posts like this one only has 2 visits. 😉
In fact, all of these great posts only have 1 or 2 views:
Thats only because the new post counter was installed….started the counts to zero. Trying to have the plugin author find a way to read the database of the old one tho.
Being gone most of the day, I can see that many of you have already corrected moose on his misconception that it was Bush who insisted that WMDs was the prime and/or only reason for liberation of Iraq. Fact is, moose, with the public cry for “get the UN on board”, WMDs and the 17 broken resolutions was the only international approach. But it wasn’t, and never was the only reason. And that is obvious if you reread the AUMF.
As far as the no fly zone being your alternative to regime change, I wonder how you think that our fighter jets, constantly being shot at by Saddam’s ground minions, can thwart weaponry and/or WMDs that move thru the borders via ground travel. How the heck do you think Saddam managed to blackmarket the OFF program for so many years? It never was just a missile being launched… it was about what Saddam could supply to the jihad movements that he utilized as an unofficial state weapon.
I do think Bush regrets they never found WMDs. However I pointed out in a comment that was somewhat related to my post about Dave Gaubatz a few days ago, ground intel and several locations ID’d by local Iraqis were never explored by the ISG due to lack of adequate equipment and resources. Then there’s Sada, and many others who insist that much of Saddam’s WMD program that was in place and ready to start up on short notice, left the country in the cavarans prior to our lead up to OIF.
I, for one, am not convinced they did not – and perhaps still do not – exist. Thus I say it is neither proven, nor disproven with any certainty.
Sheesh….didn’t Curt or Mata notice my ” 😉 “?
😀
@mooseburger:
And you references prove what? That AFTER THE FACT we got it right, and some of that was reported? So what? Are you saying that Bush should have ignored intelligence that he had no way of knowing was wrong? That’s just dumb.\
And go back and read the money portion of the David Kay quote, that the information and technology which would have been available for terrorists made Iraq an even more dangerous place than we had realized, …in his words…
OK, enough of that, it’s too far off topic.