Remember - Niger letter is why dems in Congress approved war

[bunnyhop]

Just yesterday i heard another repug on TV saying dems should stop carping about the war since they voted to give bush the power to invade. But that ok was based on the bush claim that iraq was developing nukes and his proof was the forged letter between iraq and niger!. Repugs are trying to make it sound as if the administration first mentioned the letter in the SOTU and that is absolutely false. They touted it last fall as the smoking gun that proved saddam must be stopped and THAT is why congress approved war. Dems should not be criticised for giving bush the ok since they were LIED to. Here's an article explaining it.

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2003/3023wmd_fraud.html

[lkinsale]

1. I'd like to know the truth on this

Tenet's statement claims the Niger stuff was NOT used in the closed door congressional sessions.

In the fall of 2002, my Deputy and I briefed hundreds of members of Congress on Iraq. We did not brief the uranium acquisition story.

I'd like to know the truth on this. How can we find out?

[hedda_foil]

3. If it's not true, why did the top Dems on the Senate Intel Comm vote no?

Graham and Durbin (chairman and whip of Intel) voted against the resolution. Byrd (senior Dem on foreign relations and armed services), Kennedy (armed services) and 19 others voted against the damn thing. Only the DLC Dems voted for it. They knew. The question is, will they cut their losses or continue to listen to the very bad advice of From, Reid and Marshall? Will they remain Blair Democrats as Blair goes up in flames?

If they do, they're crappy politicians and crappy leaders imho. They sure as hell made a huge mistake by going along on this one. Hopefully they'll at least make a fuss now.

[kentuck]

2. As I recall, before the vote...

Senators were called for secret sessions with WH officials and when they came out of their meeting, most said they would support Bush and his plans. Were they told in secret sessions that Saddam had nuclear materials and they were an imminent threat to the US? I have not heard any Senators speak on the matter yet. Are they sworn to secrecy?

[hedda_foil]

4. Classified briefings n/t

[lkinsale]

6. It's an interesting question. Graham voted NO, here's clue but no ...

real answer on what actually happened:

CNN 7-10-03

CROWLEY: Senator,let me ask you on the general question of weapons of mass destruction, I want to -- we found something that you said in December on the CBS program, and I want you to put it in context for me. As we all know, Bush's move into Iraq, you have been opposed to and voted against.

Here's what you said in December. "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons for mass destruction.

How does that square with saying, Look, you know, the president, you know, made this up?

GRAHAM: Well, that statement was based on the briefings that we had had just a few weeks earlier by the CIA and other intelligence agencies in which they made such a case. Apparently we were not getting the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in terms of what they knew or what they knew was dramatically at variance with the facts.

CROWLEY: So you were misled as well as the president?

GRAHAM: Yes. And I think the other members of Congress who heard what we had every right to assume was an accurate, balanced, taking into account all the information that which supported weapons of mass destruction and that which contradicted that, that we were led to believe that there was compelling evidence to believe that there were such weapons in Iraq.

(my boldface)

********

Graham, who was on the Senate Intelligence Committee, has repeatedly characterized this administration as deceptive and secretive, even more strongly recently, and made statements that information is being kept classified that should not be. I don't think Graham, who was patently against going into Iraq, would have made this WMD statement for the fun of it.

If the CIA didn't tell them this (Tenet's statement claims they didn't) then maybe "another" intelligence agency did? Rummie's crew at DOD?

[RichM]

5. No it's not. They did it because of fear of looking "unpatriotic."

Most people here on DU were not fooled in the least by the absurd fear-mongering charges of the administration. To think that career politicans in DC would be more naive about this than we were is utterly ridiculous.

[Hamlette]

7. Tom Friedman's theory of war

Those Dems who went along with Friendman's theory of why we should invade can't say they relied on Bush's statements.

If Iran goes democratic, Tom was right. It will be interesting to see if Bush tries to spin that as HIS reason for going to war if it happens.

Don't touch that dial...

PS. don't you just LOVE Bush overseas? He has to answer reporters' questions. We gotta figure out how to get him to travel more.