Washington D.C., August 22, 2008 - The U.S. intelligence community buckled sooner in 2002 than previously reported to Bush administration pressure for data justifying an invasion of Iraq, according to a documents posting on the Web today by National Security Archive senior fellow John Prados.

The documents suggest that the public relations push for war came before the intelligence analysis, which then conformed to public positions taken by Pentagon and White House officials. For example, a July 2002 draft of the "White Paper" ultimately issued by the CIA in October 2002 actually pre-dated the National Intelligence Estimate that the paper purportedly summarized, but which Congress did not insist on until September 2002.

A similar comparison between a declassified draft and the final version of the British government's "White Paper" on Iraq weapons of mass destruction adds to evidence that the two nations colluded in the effort to build public support for the invasion of Iraq. Dr. Prados concludes that the new evidence tends to support charges raised by former White House press secretary Scott McClellan and by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in its long-delayed June 2008 "Phase II" report on politicization of intelligence.

Scoop: PR Push for Iraq War Preceded Intelligence Finding

No matter how high the mountain of evidence showing how the Bush administration came about the "rhetoric" towards trying to justify the war on Iraq, I expect some people will insist that the view in the sand looks much better...

I'm glad the truth is finally out...

From a 911 Troofer!!!!...

The 9/11 Bookshelf

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

I will use an analogy.

When a prisoner is paroled he has to abide by the terms of his or her parole. If he violates even one term, even to the slightest degree, the parole officer is authorized to revoke that person's parole and return them to prison to finish their sentence.

When Saddam's representatives signed the 1991 Gulf War Cease Fire they obligated Saddam to abide by the provisions of that agreement.

As soon as he violated the terms of the Cease Fire a technical state of war existed between the US and Iraq.

NOTE TO ALL CONSERVATIVE POSTERS:

You may want to bookmark this link so that when the subject comes up in the future you will be able to inform and educate the misinformed person who believes the war was based on the WMD's, alone.

Mark Goldblatt on Iraq on National Review Online

__________________
Every step taken toward the installment of Sharia law will be justifiable to the person who values appearance more than freedom and democracy.

Lets just be very straight forward here. Real clear. Did the administration plan to go in to Iraq regardless of the evidence? You guys on the right do a lot of talking around this issue. Fact is the spying on our phone records predated 9-11. So when are you guys just going to face that the administration is not only criminal. Breaking their pledge to protect and defend the constitution is actually treason and a impeachable offense. Case closed.

__________________
Talking about music is like dancing about architecture

Exactly and I've said essentially the same thing in several posts.When Saddam violated the terms of Cease Fire,he knew and accepted the consequences.This is still the Gulf War,it may be known by other names but how we got there is self evident.There are aspects of this war that I may not agree with... "understatement"...and I believe the BA screwed up big time by trying to sell a war that was already justifiable!

__________________
"Destiny must be shaped and not left to mere chance."..Spencer Collins ..

Look we can go over Saddam being a bad guy all day long. Many countries break U.N. resolutions without any consequences. Lets say that we all agree that we had to do something about Saddam.
First thing I would ask is did we need shock and awe? Did we need to invade the entire country?
OK now again lets even accept that we had to go in and take over for fear it could get out of hand. And then lets even give you that mistakes were made blah blah blah.
Still end of the day I will never concede that the timing of this was out of our hands. We had no problem keeping Saddam in his box while we were dealing with the war we were dealing with. And to most Americans including me the most important job at hand was to show the world what happens when you come in to our country and kill our citizens. Dropping that ball was the thing that finished this administration in my mind. And it has made us look weak. Inspired our enemies including Russia. Fired up latin wackos like Chavez. It has exposed us.
These guys were the hight of arrogance. They didn't consider our troops. They didn't consider the Iraqis. They just wanted to do what they wanted to do. And I think they were upset 9-11 got in the way. Thats why we have been in this mess.
So the right wants to keep saying he was a bad guy. That shouldn't require us to be stupid or stubborn. He could be bad and we could have been responsible about how we use our military power at the same time.

The threat was hyped. Very few deny that anymore. To keep this facade going at this point is silly. Bush and Cheney wanted to get in to Iraq for two reasons. One was oil I would bet my life. Now all things being equal. Take away the hype put up by the administration. If you would have asked the American people if we should A. Get those who attacked us on 9-11 first. or B. Stop and go after a guy that we can keep in a box with one f-16 and stretch our military thin in the effort. I wonder which they would have supported?

__________________
Talking about music is like dancing about architecture

Yes and "Saddam" broke U.N. resolutions and of all people..should have known better! What could he have been thinking? Was it that the U.S. would not dare invade again? Saddam was indeed a "bad guy" and he had very poor judgment!

I don't recognize "sanctuaries" when it comes to terrorists.I take out the wheat with the chaff when they hide behind women and children.

My method may not have taken out Saddam but there would have been far more casualties on "their" side and the insurgents would be dead before they had a chance to form "committees".If and when one must invade,do it with overwhelming force. If the commitment is not there from the onset and ground troops are not to be utilized,conventionally punish the enemy.Embargo's are not that effective and they only bought him more time. History has shown victory can be achieved without an invasion and in the end..save more lives!

Saddam had his chance and broke his agreements.Mercy and "understanding" were no longer viable options.As stated,I believe the BA oversold the war and used tactics that were not needed to justify holding Saddam's feet to the fire when there were "other".. possibly more severe conventional options that did not require the U.N.'s blessing!..So none of the options paint a pretty picture but permitting Saddam to go virtually unchecked by way of ineffective policy paints a much more sinister and deadly picture.Saddam left unchecked would eventually prove to be a much more formidable opponent and our options would be greatly diminished!

War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over...William Tecumseh Sherman

False statement...

The UN was ready to lift the sanctions on Iraq (with large help from Russia and France), which would un-handcuff regulations as to what products could enter the country (like dual-use products which may be used for biological weapons)...

Also, as we've learned, Saddam was waiting for EXACTLY that...

Interrogator Shares Saddam's Confessions

This coincides with the Butler Report...

I can just imagine waiting until the sanctions are lifted(Thank you France!) and the world looks away while Saddam reconstitutes his WMD programs without interference.

Then when he was ready to kill on a mass scale, the very same people temporarily taking the pacifier out of their collective mouths to claim Iraq was better off with Saddam in power(Thank you Senator "Big Oil" Rockefeller!), would be asking for heads to roll because it could've been prevented...

Whatever way the wind blows...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

Maybe you missed what I said. When I said Mistakes were made I was avoiding going in to the fact that I agree that we should have gone in with overwhelming force when we do have to. And I am in no way disagreeing that our national security trumps the U.N.. There is stuff here that I am not in disagreement with you on. I take out wheat and chaff. Woman and kids no matter as long as terrorists stand behind them. Well I disagree. But if that was the case what would have stopped us in Pakistan? But I assume you would have felt the same as me when it comes to going in to the tribel areas to kill the bastards that attacked our citizens.
If we really needed to do both at the same time I wouldn't have a bitch. I think the BA wanted Saddam from election day. And you can give me rational for an attack. But I think the 9-11 attack trumped a punk like Saddam. Saddam liked to tweek the U.S. he was a thug and a punk. But somewhere deep inside he liked the U.S. Thats why he was a movie buff etc. Now don't think I am trying to humanize this pig. But he was nothing like the fundamentalists that want to die to kill you for their religion. That wasn't Saddam. He wouldn't have killed himself for allah. So IMHO it is and was apples and oranges.

__________________
Talking about music is like dancing about architecture

I didn't miss a thing and I believe we have strong areas of agreement.I would have tried other options,severe and "selective" bombardment.If and when we are forced to use ground troops,I would do so with overwhelming force! At any rate,my focus is now on redeployment to the "real" war! I do not say this to detract from our goals in Iraq,Saddam "had" to go. I don't want to deal with an enemy that has been granted a green light to become stronger as our future "options" would have been greatly and dangerously diminished.

I applaud the BA for taking on this despot Head On!!! I voted for Clinton not once but twice and I believe his "measured" response was far too weak! Do I agree with the BA's early tactics? Hell no..it was a circus but we were right to take Saddam out. The future belongs to they who refuse to let others shape their destiny. Yes..let us reason with one another but when a despot commits genocide against his own people and invades a sovereign nation,we are compelled to shape.. their ..destiny least they shape ours by default!

And I'm also aware that there are other issues here,some selfish,others vindictive.What really matters is our concern over terrorists and despots acquiring weapons of mass destruction and taking it seriously early rather than later.I don't drink Kool Aid...I hate the stuff but I can see the clear and present dangers around us.Despots and theocracies in possession of WMD's must be opposed,I don't want them to write histories final chapter without a good fight..

__________________
"Destiny must be shaped and not left to mere chance."..Spencer Collins ..