Commissioner: Bush Deliberately Delayed Inquiry Report Until After Iraq Wa

[Nottingham]

Commissioner: Bush Deliberately Delayed Inquiry Report Until After Iraq War

Big News Network.com Saturday 26th July, 2003

WASHINGTON, July 25 (UPI) -- A member of the independent commission set up to investigate the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks has accused the Bush administration of deliberately delaying publication of an earlier congressional inquiry into the attacks.

Former Sen. Max Cleland, D-Ga., told United Press International that the White House did not want the report made public before launching military action in Iraq. He said the administration feared publication might undermine the administration's case for war, which was based in part on the allegation that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had supported Osama bin Laden -- and the attendant possibility that Iraq might supply al-Qaida with weapons of mass destruction.

"The administration sold the connection (between Iraq and al-Qaida) to scare the pants off the American people and justify the war," said Cleland. "There's no connection, and that's been confirmed by some of bin Laden's terrorist followers ... What you've seen here is the manipulation of intelligence for political ends."

Cleland accused the administration of deliberately delaying the report's release to avoid having its case for war undercut.

more.....
http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/?sid=6aa9e973ce69679a

:bounce:

[radfringe]

1. Bush Lied and soldiers died n/t

[bvar22]

2. bush* lied....

thousands died. They won't be coming back.

[Raenelle]

3. This needs to be added to our list of distortions, mistruths, exaggeration

No Al Qaeda-Iraq connection--and Bush doesn't want us to know. In what universe is it now possible to claim that Bush didn't try to stampede the US into war, regardless of facts.

[TacticalPeek]

11. In the clanging, empty space inside aWol's cranium...

Unka Dick told me a story!

[DrBB]

4. Curious about BigNews Network

Australian company, and I hadn't seen anything from them until the Niger Uranium thing started to heat up. Suddenly they have a number of good things on the intel manipulation theme. Dunno if it means anything, but it's kinda curious....

[young_at_heart]

5. Why was there such a big rush to war?

That argument that "We can't wait and take the chance of nuclear weapons being used on us" doesn't seem to make sense now that we know the truth!

[grasswire]

6. rush?

1. Bush needed to secure Iraq's oil before Iraq's contracts with Russia and France were enacted.

2. Bush needed to make the war immediately to stop the investigators, who weren't finding anything. If they worked longer and declared Iraq free of WMD, there would never be an opportunity to make war.

3. Bush needed to establish the toe-hold in Iraq so that the Carlyle Group and the family clique could start to reap the trillions of dollars that is theirs through the destruction of the country.

4. And he needed for those cohorts to start making $ so they could dump part of it back into his campaign fund.

[Cocoa]

9. agreed

Bush, like his father, snatched war out of the jaws of peace.

The rush, by the way, is one of the reasons for the failure of the postwar. There was nowhere near enough planning, as many people warned at the time, including republicans who were not doves.

An interesting discussion on PBS with historians comparing the current occupation situation to the post-WWII occupation of Germany and Japan. I was amazed to learn that we actually began the postwar planning right at the beginning of the war, not too long after Pearl Harbor.

[TacticalPeek]

14. and Key Number 5:

Only war/foreign conflict safely hold up his and the R's numbers.

Unka Rove: "Use the war."


You live by it, you die by it. Observe the fruit of their handiwork.

[concord]

19. Don't forget the midterm elections

another reason for the rush. The drumbeat of 9-11 = Iraq won BushCo the house and senate.

[PaDUer]

28. Agreed....

now, what can, will, and when will things be done for ALL these crimes and whatever they've done..They went after Clinton without a break quickly, when are things going to roll here???

[colorado_ufo]

44. Excellent analysis!

Right on -

[mediaman007]

7. Good Question

I think our soldiers were in position before the United Nations inspectors began their work. So whoever moved the troops into position has the key.

Once the soldiers were in position, they had to do something or they would have had mutiny on their hands.

By the way, didn't our military use the false link between Osama and Saddam to motivate the troops? A lot of the military seemed to think that they were getting retribution for 911.

[FubarFly]

8. I'd like know how many people still think Iraq is responsible for 9/11 .

Is our sheeple learning?

[jamesinca]

13. Quiet a few still think it was the Iraq people who were involved

I work with every one of them, or live next door to them. But that is Fresno, the P.O. box address of FreeRepublic. bartcop.com has an interesting cartoon on todays page that sums it up nicely, it goes something like this: This rock does not think the Iraqis had WMD, theis rock does not think the Iraqis were responsible for the WMD etc... this rock is smarter than half of the U.S. It goes something like that.

[Paschall]

39. That cartoon is by Don Wright of the Palm Beach Post (eom)

[rocketdem]

17. several of my coworkers still believe this

According to their general wisdom, there can only be so much evil in the world and certainly it's all working together in a coordinating manner. To suggest otherwise doesn't make any sense.

Making the connection is easy. They're all muslims over there. They're all brown more or less. They all profess to hate the U.S. Therefore, they're all in it together.

In order to understand that this is not the case, that Saddam and the Ba'ath Party is not the same as bin Laden, the Taliban, and al-Qaeda, one has to think more deeply, contemplate the nuances of the history of the Middle East, understand Islam on a higher level than that available from, say, Rush Limbaugh.

Republicanism is, at its heart, based upon the exploitation of the stupidity, bigotry, laziness, or indifference of the American people. Unfortunately, these are resources in too high of a supply.

[jamesinca]

45. There are a lot that still think this

I work with them. I was talking about this the other day and my co-worker said " you wait you will see, there a were Iraqis on those airplanes. Why do you defend Hussein and bin-laden so much?"

[young_at_heart]

10. I guess war is better than mutiny for our glorious leader

"Bring em on" and "We're gonna git him" just don't sound very reassuring these days!

[PaDUer]

29. True

They had the troops there without anyone really knowing..

[DemoTex]

12. Bu$h (R-Hell), the AWOL chickenhawk, lied.

Max Cleland (D-Ga), the wounded Vietnam hero, set the record straight with the truth. The world now knows what was suspected all along. Thank you Max. Welcome home.

[TacticalPeek]

15. Amen...

I have an unshakable view that a whole mess of justice is fixing to come rolling down.

Who knows? Maybe a little extra will find it's way to Max someday soon enough.

[Gloria]

16. Cleland was cooking on NOW last night...

He shut down Frank Sesno who was subbing pretty well when Sesno got raised hackles over this.

Sesno also asked about the missing pages and whether they would be in the final report. Cleland said, "Yes,....THEY BETTER BE.!"

The slimeball also asked if Cleland's outrage was "sour grapes" over the "bitter" reelection campaign which he lost. Max just smiled slightly and said, NO, what makes him mad are all the soldiers DYING because of this trumped up crap (my words).

Cleland is not going to go quietly on this.....

Note to Moyers--pick less snivley sub hosts...Sesno was crappy...good thing Max didn't let him get away with anything.

[Tansy_Gold]

20. But Cleland never answered Sesno's main question ----

--- which was did Cleland have PROOF that the report was deliberately held up.

Cleland said something to the effect that "all you have to do is LOOK," but that's not proof.

I think Cleland damaged his credibility by not having proof of such a monumental claim.

I'm not suggesting he's wrong or that they didn't delay the release, but he would have come across much stronger if he had had some hard evidence.

[CityDem]

22. Looked like sour grapes on Cleland's part

I agree Cleland needed to support this claim with some hard proof. He cannot make these claims without some credible support without looking like a sore loser (to Chambliss).

[Lorien]

23. WTF does his loss to Chambliss have to do

with the 9/11 report? It's desparate reaching, IMHO. The proof IS obvious; the information existed, but was withheld for many months from any kind of investigation. The * administration fought against an independant investigation from the beginning. Has there ever been ANY other tregedy in American history that has gone so unexamined? When Columbia went down, the examinations of 'how' and "why" started immeadiately. The timetable alone proves Cleland's point.

[Catherine Vincent]

36. Oh no, not Sesno!

Don't tell me he's a republican! He was one of the few reporters on CNN that I respected. Let's hope he's at least a moderate republican.

This really upsets me hearing this about him.

[PurityOfEssence]

18. This will resonate: Junior lies to scare us into killing for his profit

The administration KNEW that all attempts to tie Iraq to 911 were disproven, yet they held this back to keep the lie alive in the run-up to war. Time to check all the speeches after this was known and see if there's more than just using the word "terrorism" and "Iraq" in the same sentence. They're obviously deceptive, but an outright lie would be lovely.

Yes, we know Hussein payed $25K on occasion to the families of suicide bombers in the Palestine/Israel conflict, but that wasn't 911. We supported Mujahadeen in Afghanistan in the 80s, so what makes us any better? Were there any suicide bombings during the Soviet war?

"State Terrorism" is terrorism.

Junior terrorized the American people for his own personal financial gain. (Regardless of "blind trusts", he's the heir of a daddywarbucks who would definitely benefit by exploiting Iraq. That's guilt.)

Simply put, Junior lied to scare us into an unjustified war for his personal financial gain. Try that approach.

[ChillEB]

26. All you gotta do is add *'s push to abolish Estate Taxes...

Et voila!

A DIRECT chain of custody between war on Iraq, and Jr's OWN POCKETBOOK appears. Plain as day ...

Especially when you add in the fact that Poppy's former staffer and CLOSE associate/partner in the Carlyle Group was offered Bremer's job as head honcho of Iraq yesterday!

I mean, talk about OBVIOUS. I ask the gods every day to see to it that one of the media whores will finally SACK UP (60 minutes, perhaps?) and sketch out the whole evil plot to the American People (including references to PNAC, Cheney, Halliburton/Brown & Root) in clear and concise manner.

Even if it's just presented as a "what if" scenario, I bet $$$ to donuts that a great majority of the population would very quickly conclude that this whole thing STINKS to high-heaven, and *'s poll numbers would drop to 30% overnight. The people just need it all brought together and wrapped in pretty paper, with a big bow on top. They'll get it, if you just present it to them properly ... My God, though, can you IMAGINE the hissy-fit that the WH would have if a story like that went on Nightline or 60 Minutes?!? OMG, the SHIT would hit the proverbial "circular air-moving device" in SUCH a big way.

Freeper boycotts of your stations notwithstanding: The writing is on the wall, O intrepid reporters! The time to do your job is NOW, before more people are senselessly murdered by this cabal of power-crazed gangsters! They must be stopped before they let loose on Syria or Iran, the next stops on the PNAC "Benevolent-Global-Hegemony Express"...

[PurityOfEssence]

43. Absolutely, add in the Al-Queda lie from the SOTUA...

How are these 26 words from the SOTUA for ya:

"Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida."

I started a thread, but forgot to put "greens" or "Gore" or "God" in it, so it died like a dog. This is absolute, deliberate deception, and has to rise to the definition of "lie", since the conclusions all point to them knowing that the connections were all discredited. Zarqawi is not Al-Queda. The Atta meeting never happened. Using "terrorism" and "Iraq" in the same sentence is defensible only with the caveat that it's terrorism outside of the U.S.; it's obvious that the subliminal connection with 911 is obvious. Fundamentalist terrorists hit us; Iraq was a very secular state. No wonder Junior hates Saddam.

Back to your point; you are absolutely right, and many of us have been saying just this. It can easily be boiled down to this:

Junior lied to terrorize people into killing for his profit.

[snippy]

21. It is time to demand a special prosecutor.

[alfredo]

24. Is it too early to use the word

Treason?

[DemoTex]

25. No.

Treason is the appropriate word.

[ChillEB]

27. Treason? Absolutely the right word.

And so is COLD BLOODED, PREMEDITATED MASS MURDER OF INNOCENT MEN, WOMEN, AND CHILDREN...

[PaDUer]

30. Hell no...

matter of fact, Ann the man, has her book titled appropriately for the truth of this story, however, had the pages of another book put in by mistake....

[snippy]

31. The invasion of Iraq and 9/11 are "a single seamless scandal."

From the Wall Street Journal:

Terror-Report Gaps May Add To Bush's Intelligence Woes

. . .

Democrats including Mr. Graham, a former Intelligence Committee chairman and current presidential aspirant, say questions about how the White House used intelligence to justify the invasion of Iraq are merging with Sept. 11 intelligence issues into a single seamless scandal.

. . .

http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB105900909639432200,00.html?mod=politics_primary_hs

Questions the media needs to begin asking:

1. Who made the decision to use a campaign of lies and exagerations to market the invasion of Iraq? (Was it Turd Blossom Rove?)

2. When was that decision made? (Was it before or after March, 2002 when Bush told three Senators in Rice's office: "Fuck Saddam. We're taking him out."?)

3. Why was that decision made? (PNAC American empire? Oil? Presidential approval ratings? God's orders?)

[juajen]

34. I'm getting senile

I thought it was Rove that said No. 2. Was it Bush?

[Buns_of_Fire]

42. It was bushie baby, in all his eloquent glory...

Google search

[ldf]

32. well what do we expect?

didn't rove blatantly say that they (the bush administration) would lie to the american people anytime they felt like it?

well, they obviously felt like it.

and they told us they were going to do it. so what are we complaining about?

[kclown]

33. How did Cleland vote on the war?

Hate my occasional stupidity, but Cleland was a U.S. Senator
last year.  Which way did he vote?

Get on board the Graham train, folks.  He voted right and he
can win Florida.

[tjdee]

35. He voted FOR the war.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237#position

[DemoTex]

38. But don't forget, the entire Congress was LIED TO by the Bu$h regime.

I realize the old warning Caveat Emptor needed to be considered. But the entire Congress of the United States was railroaded - "quickly" being the big problem - into this war. All in the name of 9/11. Hence the rush.

Why did Cleland vote first and ask questions later? I don't know. Ask him. I think it is a good question.

[0007]

46. Max ain't going for the same trick twice

We all make mistakes, 'eh? Well maybe not YOU!

[Redleg]

37. Impeach the rotten bastard!

Impeach him or tar and feather him!

[Paschall]

40. Funny... Why does this remind me...

...of the delay in publishing a report on a controversial presidential election caused by four jets crashing in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania?

[Jack Rabbit]

41. Who wants to defend the Frat Boy now?

There are two counts of perjury contined herein:

March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President)

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH