Bush Ignored Doubts On Iraq Arms -US Senate Report

[Purveyor]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush and top administration policy makers ignored doubts among intelligence agencies over Saddam Hussein's arms programs as they made their case for war with Iraq, a Senate committee reported Thursday.

The Senate Intelligence committee said in a study that major administration statements on Iraq before the March 2003 U.S.-led invasion in most cases were substantiated by available U.S. intelligence, but that they failed to reflect internal debate over those findings.

It also said that Bush administration statements that Iraq had a partnership with al Qaeda and provided it with weapons training were unsupported by intelligence.

The Senate study supported previous reports and findings that the administration's main case for war -- that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction -- was inaccurate and deeply flawed.

Many intelligence conclusions that Iraq had or was developing weapons of mass destruction turned out to be inaccurate.

REUTERS: http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=199140

[Ian David]

1. Uhm.... No. The final word on the NIE was that Saddam was NOT a theat. n/t

[G_j]

2. "..unsupported by intelligence."

Dear Senators, I know you are somewhat intellectually challenged, but that means they LIED

[alfredo]

3. They ignored them because nothing was going to stop their war

of aggression against Iraq.

[npincus]

4. IMPEACH THE FUCKER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Did I say, "please"?

[KSCFAN]

5. Assume Bush is telling the truth.

Assume he is telling the truth. That we saw information on both sides and decided it was better to be "safe" and attack. You can still take him at his word and prove it is wrong to have a preemptive war. They kept saying to you really want to wait to be attacked?

My answer is yes. We are the most highly armed country in the world. Instead of having our entire military overseas proping up all sorts of government they should be at home on defense. Patrol the coast and the skys and the ports. There really shouldn't be an active military like we have anyway. We just need the national guard, coast guard, air national guard. That is a defense. What we have now if offense.So yes we should wait for an attack and then repel it. My hope is that people don't think this was bad becuase Bush was evil. It is preemption that is evil and it won't be made good in someone else's hands.

[Johonny]

6. I think the war pretty much proved him wrong

We destroyed the whole country of Iraq in less than 1 month. I think it's safe to say they weren't a threat to national security.

On the other hand the destroyed nation of Iraq lead exactly to the circumstances, failed nation-state, that were/are producing waves of new terrorist acts. It's no doubt Bush made the country vastly less safe.