NationStates Jolt Archive

.. or rather that he was fed poor information by the CIA who never told him that the evidence was not clear and compelling - somebody with far more free time than me has played "Connect the dots" and sourced a huge wealth of original news stories from credible news sources showing who was saying what over the course of the run-up to war, and how the stories changed.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0804-11.htm

Now, before somebody points to Common Dream's obvious bias, look to the sources of the links for who was saying what. They are generally links to original news stories from mainstream sources such as CNN, ABC, etc


Bush never got told the evidence was shakey and oftentimes completely discredited before he went to war?

Bullshit!

:eek:

Well, it is not all Bush's fault becuase the Senate and House approved the war. A president cannot go to war by himself.

Well, it is not all Bush's fault becuase the Senate and House approved the war. A president cannot go to war by himself.

Granted. However it rather puts his claims to never knowing that the intel was suspect in a dim light doesn't it? And you cannot deny that he WAS the guy pushing for it the hardest.

Actually he legally can for 30 days before need support from Congress

besides.... the CIA was pressured to come up with evidence against Iraq.

Everybody seems to know that Bush and Co. was deliberately lying except the Republicans.

They knew Saddam and bin Laden were not collaborating
In the summer of 2002, USA Today reported White House lawyers had concluded that establishing an Iraq-al Qaeda link would provide the legal cover at the United Nations for the administration to attack Iraq. Such a connection, no doubt, also would provide political capital at home. And so, by the fall of 2002, the Iraq-al Qaeda drumbeat began.

It started on September 25, 2002, when Bush said, “you can’t distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam.” This was news even to members of Bush’s own political party who had access to classified intelligence. Just a month before, Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), who serves on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said, “Saddam is not in league with al Qaeda I have not seen any intelligence that would lead me to connect Saddam Hussein to al Qaeda.

To no surprise, the day after Bush’s statement, USA Today reported several intelligence experts “expressed skepticism” about the claim, with a Pentagon official calling the president’s assertion an “exaggeration.” No matter, Bush ignored these concerns and that day described Saddam Hussein as “a man who loves to link up with al Qaeda.” Meanwhile, Rumsfeld held a press conference trumpeting “bulletproof” evidence of a connection—a sentiment echoed by Rice and White House spokesman Ari Fleischer. And while the New York Times noted, “the officials offered no details to back up the assertions,” Rumsfeld nonetheless insisted his claims were “accurate and not debatable.”

"Politicians lie more than TNT runs Beastmaster." - Denis Miller

besides.... the CIA was pressured to come up with evidence against Iraq.

Everybody seems to know that Bush and Co. was deliberately lying except the Republicans.

To be fair though, I also feel like the Democratic party fell asleep at the switch on this one. They gave him carte blanche when it should not have been given.

I understand that the country was still in a frenzy post 911 and to dissent was a licence to be smeared as unpatriotic to the detriment of one's political future - and I think they bet that some WMD would be found to justify them in the end.

That never happened though, and when I hear democrats speaking now as if they couldn't have known before hand - my response is an equal "bullshit!" I may find people like Kusinich and Dean to be too far left for my likings, but at least they had the cojones to make an unpopular stand at the time.

And TNT runs a lot of Beastmaster...

"Politicians lie more than TNT runs Beastmaster." - Denis Miller

Yes, but lying to Congress is an impeachable offense is it not?

Colin Powell's statement in February 2001 regarding how much of a threat Iraq was from one of the sourced news items...

We will always try to consult with our friends in the region so that they are not surprised and do everything we can to explain the purpose of our responses. We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq, and these are policies that we are going to keep in place, but we are always willing to review them to make sure that they are being carried out in a way that does not affect the Iraqi people but does affect the Iraqi regime's ambitions and the ability to acquire weapons of mass destruction, and we had a good conversation on this issue.



How did he go from not having WMD capability and not even having the conventional army left to even threaten a neeighbour to being a threat to stability in the region, and a direct threat to the US?

Sourced right from the State Department: http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2001/933.htm

Yes, but lying to Congress is an impeachable offense is it not?
Only if your a democrat :)

Only if your a democrat :)


Somebody get GW a cigar..... quick!

What if two months from now they find some WMD. Then What?

To be fair though, I also feel like the Democratic party fell asleep at the switch on this one. They gave him carte blanche when it should not have been given.
I think so too, however I find it understandable. No-one could've really thought that anyone could be so appalingly evil as to manipulate the situation in the way he did.

I think so too, however I find it understandable. No-one could've really thought that anyone could be so appalingly evil as to manipulate the situation in the way he did.

Yeah, I know. The thought that Saddam was being honest was just too damn wierd to consider. Although given that the defector in '95 that pointed inspectors to the one program Saddam had hidden had also claimed that the rest had been destroyed (and given his posistion in the military and the good faith intel he had provided - clearly he was vredible), perhaps people should have stood up more. But, as we all remember - to dissent was to be called in league with Osama at that point.

The media also failed in that all of this info was out there - hell some of it came from them, but still nobody really put the effort into writing a bit of investigative journalsim

What if two months from now they find some WMD. Then What?

Would that change the lies about the uranuim, aluminum tubes, al qaeda links etc? Or would it just be a happy circumstance?

It still wouldn't change the lies that were told before the war. Like Rumsfled's "We know he has them and we know where they are!" speech.

Clearly that was a total fabrication.

Yes, but lying to Congress is an impeachable offense is it not?

Absolutely. Whether one is the President or a civilian, it is perjury. The President gets impeached and the civilian gets prosecuted. So, while your looking into the lies Bush told Congress about WMD's, also look into the lies Kerry told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about the atrocities American troops committed that he supposedly witnessed. You know, to be fair.

To be fair though, I also feel like the Democratic party fell asleep at the switch on this one. They gave him carte blanche when it should not have been given.

I understand that the country was still in a frenzy post 911 and to dissent was a licence to be smeared as unpatriotic to the detriment of one's political future - and I think they bet that some WMD would be found to justify them in the end.

That never happened though, and when I hear democrats speaking now as if they couldn't have known before hand - my response is an equal "bullshit!" I may find people like Kusinich and Dean to be too far left for my likings, but at least they had the cojones to make an unpopular stand at the time.

Yes you are right. The Dems have been dropping the ball or maybe a better description is cowaring in the corner since the 2000 election.

Would that change the lies about the uranuim, aluminum tubes, al qaeda links etc? Or would it just be a happy circumstance?

It still wouldn't change the lies that were told before the war. Like Rumsfled's "We know he has them and we know where they are!" speech.

Clearly that was a total fabrication.


I thought I heard a few weeks ago that they did find some uranium in Iraq that was weapons grade?

As for the speech. I know if I was hussien.. I would have moved them. I mean they did get CNN and all the other channels over there. Now I don't want to flame I just want to understand more.

Yeah, I know. The thought that Saddam was being honest was just too damn wierd to consider. Although given that the defector in '95 that pointed inspectors to the one program Saddam had hidden had also claimed that the rest had been destroyed (and given his posistion in the military and the good faith intel he had provided - clearly he was vredible), perhaps people should have stood up more. But, as we all remember - to dissent was to be called in league with Osama at that point.

The media also failed in that all of this info was out there - hell some of it came from them, but still nobody really put the effort into writing a bit of investigative journalsim
What amazes me is that, every week in the press, theres another story that shows Bush was lying, there are no WMDs and the war on Iraq was unjustified. And... they don't even surprise me any more. There was a time where if the Guardian had come out with a story that said Brits were being tortured by Americans in Cuba, someone would've set the building on fire. But now, its just... business as usual.

I thought I heard a few weeks ago that they did find some uranium in Iraq that was weapons grade?

As for the speech. I know if I was hussien.. I would have moved them. I mean they did get CNN and all the other channels over there. Now I don't want to flame I just want to understand more.

I feel that if they did know where the WMD's were, that they could have monitored these WMD's by sattelite just in case they did in fact move them.

I thought I heard a few weeks ago that they did find some uranium in Iraq that was weapons grade?


No. Not to my knowledge. And I am an inveterate news junkie.

As for the speech. I know if I was hussien.. I would have moved them. I mean they did get CNN and all the other channels over there. Now I don't want to flame I just want to understand more.

Well, read the article, read the linked speeches, news stories, and documents, and come to your own conclusion.

Absolutely. Whether one is the President or a civilian, it is perjury. The President gets impeached and the civilian gets prosecuted. So, while your looking into the lies Bush told Congress about WMD's, also look into the lies Kerry told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about the atrocities American troops committed that he supposedly witnessed. You know, to be fair.
Difference Kerry and the rest of the world know we committed a couple atrocities in Vietnam, but the same can't be said for WMD in Iraq. Seeing as we know they have none.

Absolutely. Whether one is the President or a civilian, it is perjury. The President gets impeached and the civilian gets prosecuted. So, while your looking into the lies Bush told Congress about WMD's, also look into the lies Kerry told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about the atrocities American troops committed that he supposedly witnessed. You know, to be fair.

You can make that case, and I'll support it. I'm not a huge Kerry fan either. Indeed, as a Canadian I am entirely without affiliation.

But I do consider the Bush administration to be dangerous and deceitful.

Well...I guess there is no need for me to rehash this crap...I read some of the articles, and CBS and CNN (Communist News Network) as mainstream, mebbe but biased..certainly..

Quite simply...when all is said and done..I don't care if they if were using the fact that the Easter Bunny had been raped in an Iraqi Cell by Uday..there isn't one of you who can tell me that taking out Saddam was a bad thing. I would have used any pretense..told any lie..if it came to that...as it was so what..we used shaky evidence..in your opinion...ok...the articles I've been plastered with for the last year will attest to that...and mebbe just mebbe Bush did want to start what his father was forbidden to do by the Arab leaders after the First Gulf War....but I stand by my opinion as well as 300,000 dead Iraqis killed by Saddam would attest to that it was the right thing to do....and cause I know someone is going to bring it up....even if past administrations made the "Devil's bargain" with Saddam, all the more reason why we should have nullified all past debts here and cleaned house.

Yes it was in our national interests to get him out..no..it was not about oil, we get plenty from OPEC, as evidence by the price dropping 30 cents a gallon in under 2 months. No..we can not kick out every tin-pot dictator that either previous US administrations or former Soviet Satellite nations have. Would that we could..but we can't..so we must balance out the equation of risk and reward.

To Salishe:

So then would Iraq have been your first choice in the war on terrorism and evil regimes (which you would admittedly lie to the public about to get support for)? What other countries do you want to bomb? Do you agree with the use of Depleted Uranium? How did taking out Saddam serve our National interests? How is it that you can support sending our family members to die for lies?

And noone ever said Saddam was a good person that didnt deserve punishment. But was it worth dying over lies for? Was it worth the 10,000 Iraqi civilian lives to avenge the 3,000 deaths in the US that Iraq had no part in?

Well...I guess there is no need for me to rehash this crap...I read some of the articles, and CBS and CNN (Communist News Network) as mainstream, mebbe but biased..certainly..

Quite simply...when all is said and done..I don't care if they if were using the fact that the Easter Bunny had been raped in an Iraqi Cell by Uday..there isn't one of you who can tell me that taking out Saddam was a bad thing. I would have used any pretense..told any lie..if it came to that...as it was so what..we used shaky evidence..in your opinion...ok...the articles I've been plastered with for the last year will attest to that...and mebbe just mebbe Bush did want to start what his father was forbidden to do by the Arab leaders after the First Gulf War....but I stand by my opinion as well as 300,000 dead Iraqis killed by Saddam would attest to that it was the right thing to do....and cause I know someone is going to bring it up....even if past administrations made the "Devil's bargain" with Saddam, all the more reason why we should have nullified all past debts here and cleaned house.

Yes it was in our national interests to get him out..no..it was not about oil, we get plenty from OPEC, as evidence by the price dropping 30 cents a gallon in under 2 months. No..we can not kick out every tin-pot dictator that either previous US administrations or former Soviet Satellite nations have. Would that we could..but we can't..so we must balance out the equation of risk and reward.


You know. If we really wanted oil. We would just take over Venezuela. Spelling on that. Or Canada. The oil argument I think is over rated in my humble opinion. So you make a very good point with your argument.

To Salishe:

So then would Iraq have been yoru first choice in the war on terrorism and evil regimes (which you would admittedly lie to the public about to get support for it)? What other countries do youw ant to bomb? Do you agree with the use of depleted Uranium? How did takign out Saddam serve our National Interests? How is it that you can support sending our family members to die for lies?

and noone ever said Saddam was a good person that didnt deserve punishment.

Would Iraq have been my first choice?...Yes...their military had already taken a bloody nose in the first Gulf War...and Iraq is central to the region of several Arab governments that do support terrorism...Syria, Iran, the former muslim republics of the former USSR.

What other countries do I wish to bomb..hmm...let's start with Damascus, then Amman (two-faced, the Israelis well-remember the Arab Legion crossing over into Israel)...Tehran...mm...no..it looks like the counter-revolutionaries are making headway...simply arm them and let them loose...the Hizbollah enclaves in Beirut..oh..I say get them all...and DU has been debated and tossed back by scientists both pro and con...bottom line is..our own troops use them and cancer rates are do not reflect the chicken little attitude.

And as for no one saying Saddamn was a good man..all well and dandy..but no one was willing to DO anything bout him..

Would Iraq have been my first choice?...Yes...their military had already taken a bloody nose in the first Gulf War...and Iraq is central to the region of several Arab governments that do support terrorism...Syria, Iran, the former muslim republics of the former USSR.

What other countries do I wish to bomb..hmm...let's start with Damascus, then Amman (two-faced, the Israelis well-remember the Arab Legion crossing over into Israel)...Tehran...mm...no..it looks like the counter-revolutionaries are making headway...simply arm them and let them loose...the Hizbollah enclaves in Beirut..oh..I say get them all...and DU has been debated and tossed back by scientists both pro and con...bottom line is..our own troops use them and cancer rates are do not reflect the chicken little attitude.

And as for no one saying Saddamn was a good man..all well and dandy..but no one was willing to DO anything bout him..


So, you advocate attacking the weakest threats first? And not the more critical threats? That seems an odd way to approach national security.

Do you think that maybe as you go up the list that people like North Korea might figure that their days are numbered and engage in a little "pre-emption" of their own?



However the fact that you feel that your leaders should have no accountability on what they tell the American people as long as they do what you would prefer to see done is pretty sad really. you wold think that you would want better of your govenment.

You know. If we really wanted oil. We would just take over Venezuela. Spelling on that. Or Canada. The oil argument I think is over rated in my humble opinion. So you make a very good point with your argument.


I never really thought it was about oil either. For whatever reason, payback or showing up daddy, Saddam has been in the crosshair for George from day one. and the PNAC doctrine certainly spells out the other geopolitical ramifications intended by this move.

That being said, if a little (or lot) profit on the side could be made by their buddy's I think they all happily lined up to the trough.

So, you advocate attacking the weakest threats first? And not the more critical threats? That seems an odd way to approach national security.

Do you think that maybe as you go up the list that people like North Korea might figure that their days are numbered and engage in a little "pre-emption" of their own?



However the fact that you feel that your leaders should have no accountability on what they tell the American people as long as they do what you would prefer to see done is pretty sad really. you wold think that you would want better of your govenment.

Zep..for a man of astounding intelligence and speaking ability you are politicall naive...or at least you give me the appearance of it..you want to believe in the lofty ideals that propel us...but in this world it is the cold hard reality of things that propel us..Politicians lie..become corrupt..kiss baby, steal the wallets with the other...not just ours..not just Bush....not just Republicans..I've a friend in the Secret Service...he made the joke "That when you first get elected into politics you may start out clean as a baby, but you get muddy just like all the other pigs"

You know. If we really wanted oil. We would just take over Venezuela. Spelling on that. Or Canada. The oil argument I think is over rated in my humble opinion. So you make a very good point with your argument.
You think you could take the US to war against Canada and not lose face?

What other countries do I wish to bomb..hmm...let's start with Damascus, then Amman (two-faced, the Israelis well-remember the Arab Legion crossing over into Israel)...Tehran...mm...no..it looks like the counter-revolutionaries are making headway...
Damascus is a country?

(I'm sure you meant "cities", I'm just messing)

Damascus is a country?

I'm sure you meant "cities".

In the Middle east..those cities are the country's for lack of any target more substantial...Take out Damascus and you've effectly put a knife into the place.

Zep..for a man of astounding intelligence and speaking ability you are politicall naive...or at least you give me the appearance of it..you want to believe in the lofty ideals that propel us...but in this world it is the cold hard reality of things that propel us..Politicians lie..become corrupt..kiss baby, steal the wallets with the other...not just ours..not just Bush....not just Republicans..I've a friend in the Secret Service...he made the joke "That when you first get elected into politics you may start out clean as a baby, but you get muddy just like all the other pigs"
Salishe, clearly he's not saying all politicians are squeaky clean, I'm sure you can understand that. He's saying that we should expect a certain kind of honesty and morality from our political leaders, and we shouldn't reduce that expectation because they don't fulfil it. We shouldn't let politicians get away with lowering the bar that they have to jump over, its not worthy of us or them.

Salishe, I can't say I've ever agreed with most of what you've posted, but darn it, I always like the way you say it. One of these days we need to get together and drink a beer and argue with one another.

In the Middle east..those cities are the country's for lack of any target more substantial...Take out Damascus and you've effectly put a knife into the place.
Well, I don't think that merely the fact that they are the only military target out there makes them a country by rights, and I think that any geographer would agree with me.

Salishe, I can't say I've ever agreed with most of what you've posted, but darn it, I always like the way you say it. One of these days we need to get together and drink a beer and argue with one another.

Uhhhh...no beer...you know that thing with Indians and alchohol..not a good combination...course...a pizza and an A&W would do just fine.

Salishe, clearly he's not saying all politicians are squeaky clean, I'm sure you can understand that. He's saying that we should expect a certain kind of honesty and morality from our political leaders, and we shouldn't reduce that expectation because they don't fulfil it. We shouldn't let politicians get away with lowering the bar that they have to jump over, its not worthy of us or them.

Perhaps that is just it...I expect politicians to become corrupt, one can't do the Potomac Two-Step and not have to make backroom deals that would make a billygoat puke.

Salishe , at least Zeppistan is honest and doesn't lie his ass off like you have on this forum and yes, serveral people have you figured out. So spare us.

Uhhhh...no beer...you know that thing with Indians and alchohol..not a good combination...course...a pizza and an A&W would do just fine.

Yeah Indians have the biggest chance of becoming Alcoholics if they try alcohol.
Some people don't believe me but its true, just the way bodies are man.

Zep..for a man of astounding intelligence and speaking ability you are politicall naive...or at least you give me the appearance of it..you want to believe in the lofty ideals that propel us...but in this world it is the cold hard reality of things that propel us..Politicians lie..become corrupt..kiss baby, steal the wallets with the other...not just ours..not just Bush....not just Republicans..I've a friend in the Secret Service...he made the joke "That when you first get elected into politics you may start out clean as a baby, but you get muddy just like all the other pigs"


Me naiive? Really? The problem is not that the polititians lie, but that you accept it to the point of excusing it. Which makes you an enabler of that as it gets more and more extreme, and as the stakes get higher and higher.

Do I expect perfect honesty from politicians? No. Do I stop calling them out when it becomes so eggregious as to be laughable, and when they are using those lies to rush to start unneccessary wars without preparation, planning, etc? no. And I know we don;t agre on that point, so let's leave it as a side issue here.

This administration has used their lies to alienate allies.

This administration has used their lies to divide the country more deeply than it has been since the late 60s'

There comes a point where you have to say "enough!"

And if an administration was doing what this one is to this extent, but following policies that YOU don't agree with - then I'd bet you would be in agreement with me on that.

Your only defence is political preference for these lies. That shouldn't be enough.

it just frightens me that people are so willing to go to war. but im also not ignorant of the fact that in some cases it's kill or be killed, although i feel those cases are very very few and a lot of times people jump the gun. Im sorry but there is no way that anyone can justify killing so many civilians, american and foreign soldiers to get one guy so the "world can be a safer place".

it just frightens me that people are so willing to go to war. but im also not ignorant of the fact that in some cases it's kill or be killed, although i feel those cases are very very few and a lot of times people jump the gun. Im sorry but there is no way that anyone can justify killing so many civilians, american and foreign soldiers to get one guy so the "world can be a safer place".

Salishe is of the opinion that the only way to change the world is through war, and that it is the US's place to start all of those wars.

I tend to disagree...

from http://zombiedeathkoala.blogspot.com:

The next time a Bush supporter yells at you for calling Dubya a liar, give them the link for the report from the Committee on Government Reform Minority Office--that's Henry Waxman's (D-CA) group.

The Committee has documented 273 statements made by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, or Rice that were misleading at the time they were said. And just in case anybody was thinking about quibbling over the nature of "misleading," here's a taste of the Committee's work:

"The statements in the database are drawn from 125 public statements or appearances in which the five officials discussed the threat posed by Iraq. The sources of the statements are 40 speeches, 26 press conferences and briefings, 53 interviews, 4 written statements or articles, and 2 appearances before congressional committees.

"Quotes from the officials in newspaper articles or other similar secondary sources were not included in the database because of the difficulty of discerning the context of such quotes and ensuring their accuracy. Statements made by the officials before March 2002, one year before the commencement of hostilities in Iraq, were also not included. The database contains statements about Iraq from the five officials that were misleading based on what was known to the Administration at the time the statements were made.

"In compiling the database, the Special Investigations Division did not assess whether “subjectively” the officials believed a specific statement to be misleading. Instead, the investigators used an “objective” standard. For purposes of the database, a statement is considered “misleading” if it conflicted with what intelligence officials knew at the time or involved the selective use of intelligence or the failure to include essential qualifiers or caveats.

"The database does not include statements that appear mistaken only in hindsight. If a statement was an accurate reflection of U.S. intelligence at the time it was made, the statement is excluded from the database even if it now appears erroneous."

Just look at how careful they were with their standards, certainly more generous than any Democrat would receive in a similar situation, and yet 273 documented instances of lying. And now it's all nicely tied up in a package for us to leave at the doorsteps of the Shrub supporters. Special thanks to Incertonia for tipping me off to this.

here's the link to that report: http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs_108_2/pdfs_inves/pdf_admin_iraq_on_the_record_rep.pdf

Heh, Zombie Death Koala made me giggle.

from http://zombiedeathkoala.blogspot.com:

The next time a Bush supporter yells at you for calling Dubya a liar, give them the link for the report from the Committee on Government Reform Minority Office--that's Henry Waxman's (D-CA) group.

The Committee has documented 273 statements made by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, or Rice that were misleading at the time they were said. And just in case anybody was thinking about quibbling over the nature of "misleading," here's a taste of the Committee's work:

"The statements in the database are drawn from 125 public statements or appearances in which the five officials discussed the threat posed by Iraq. The sources of the statements are 40 speeches, 26 press conferences and briefings, 53 interviews, 4 written statements or articles, and 2 appearances before congressional committees.

"Quotes from the officials in newspaper articles or other similar secondary sources were not included in the database because of the difficulty of discerning the context of such quotes and ensuring their accuracy. Statements made by the officials before March 2002, one year before the commencement of hostilities in Iraq, were also not included. The database contains statements about Iraq from the five officials that were misleading based on what was known to the Administration at the time the statements were made.

"In compiling the database, the Special Investigations Division did not assess whether “subjectively” the officials believed a specific statement to be misleading. Instead, the investigators used an “objective” standard. For purposes of the database, a statement is considered “misleading” if it conflicted with what intelligence officials knew at the time or involved the selective use of intelligence or the failure to include essential qualifiers or caveats.

"The database does not include statements that appear mistaken only in hindsight. If a statement was an accurate reflection of U.S. intelligence at the time it was made, the statement is excluded from the database even if it now appears erroneous."

Just look at how careful they were with their standards, certainly more generous than any Democrat would receive in a similar situation, and yet 273 documented instances of lying. And now it's all nicely tied up in a package for us to leave at the doorsteps of the Shrub supporters. Special thanks to Incertonia for tipping me off to this.

here's the link to that report: http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs_108_2/pdfs_inves/pdf_admin_iraq_on_the_record_rep.pdf

Gotta love Waxman for cutting throught the bull.