The Real Truth About The Iraq WMD Intelligence



2-2-2004 -- On this web page I am going to show you how they lied and prove they lied, something the corporate media could also do if they wanted to. But as you probably know the corporate media is not looking out for the American people. They are looking out for the corporations who pay their bills, and those are the very same corporations who give millions to Bush and the republicans to get elected. The American people no longer have a free press, of the people, for the people, we have a bought and paid for press, of the corporation, and for the corporation. As I have said before, our founding fathers are probably rolling over in their graves at what he become of the so-called free press.

The Bush administration and the Corporate media (NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, and FOX) want you to believe it was faulty intelligence that got us into a war in Iraq.

This is a bold faced LIE, how come the media does not mention the OSP. How come the media does not mention Greg Thielmann. How come the media does not mention Scott Ritter.

President Bush, his administration, and the media are now saying everyone thought Iraq had WMD's before the war. They tell us the whole world thought Iraq had WMD's before the war. This is such a big lie it is laughable that they think anyone would believe this.

These LIES are an insult to the American people, we are not stupid. We remember Russia, Germany, France, and Japan, all opposed the war. We remember the UN Security Council opposed the war. We remember Bush promised to get an up or down vote from the UN for a war in Iraq, he said I promise to have a vote and let the chips fall where they may. We remember that vote never happened because Bush knew he would lose that vote. We remember only 38% of the American people supported the war without UN approval.

Russia Admits They Did Not Believe Iraq Had WMD's

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - 2-10-04 -- Russia's U.N. ambassador said late on Monday his country was never sure Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, despite assertions from former U.S. arms inspector David Kay that "we were almost all wrong."

The furor over whether Iraq possessed unconventional weapons, a justification for the U.S.-led war, recently flared again after Kay said he believed there were no large stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons in Iraq.

Russian ambassador Sergei Lavrov, at his annual meeting with the press, said that Russian officials repeatedly maintained they did not have enough information.

"We said that we don't have information which would prove that the WMD, weapons of mass destruction, programs remain in Iraq. We also said we don't have information that those programs have been fully stopped," Lavrov said.

Consequently, he said he supported a Security Council resolution in November 2002 giving "an unprecedented, intrusive mandate to U.N. inspectors and that is why we wanted the inspectors to finish their job."

After Kay told Congress on Jan. 28, "we were almost all wrong," many U.S. and British officials said that members of the U.N. Security Council, as well as United Nations inspectors, got it wrong also.

Full Story:

story.news.yahoo.com/news

This article is a must read, it details the lies and how the Bush administration stovepiped the intelligence they liked to Bush etc.

THE STOVEPIPE

by Seymour M. Hersh

How conflicts between the Bush Administration and the intelligence community marred the reporting on Iraq’s weapons.

Published 10-20-03

The point is not that the President and his senior aides were consciously lying. What was taking place was much more systematic—and potentially just as troublesome. Kenneth Pollack, a former National Security Council expert on Iraq, whose book “The Threatening Storm” generally supported the use of force to remove Saddam Hussein, told me that what the Bush people did was “dismantle the existing filtering process that for fifty years had been preventing the policymakers from getting bad information. They created stovepipes to get the information they wanted directly to the top leadership. Their position is that the professional bureaucracy is deliberately and maliciously keeping information from them.

“They always had information to back up their public claims, but it was often very bad information,” Pollack continued. “They were forcing the intelligence community to defend its good information and good analysis so aggressively that the intelligence analysts didn’t have the time or the energy to go after the bad information.” The Administration eventually got its way, a former C.I.A. official said. “The analysts at the C.I.A. were beaten down defending their assessments. And they blame George Tenet”—the C.I.A. director—“for not protecting them. I’ve never seen a government like this.”

A few months after George Bush took office, Greg Thielmann, an expert on disarmament with the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research, or INR, was assigned to be the daily intelligence liaison to John Bolton, the Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control, who is a prominent conservative. Thielmann understood that his posting had been mandated by Secretary of State Colin Powell, who thought that every important State Department bureau should be assigned a daily intelligence officer. “Bolton was the guy with whom I had to do business,” Thielmann said. “We were going to provide him with all the information he was entitled to see. That’s what being a professional intelligence officer is all about.”

But, Thielmann told me, “Bolton seemed to be troubled because INR was not telling him what he wanted to hear.” Thielmann soon found himself shut out of Bolton’s early-morning staff meetings. “I was intercepted at the door of his office and told, ‘The Under-Secretary doesn’t need you to attend this meeting anymore.’” When Thielmann protested that he was there to provide intelligence input, the aide said, “The Under-Secretary wants to keep this in the family.”

Full Story:

www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?031027fa_fact

We now know they lied about the threat of WMD's to justify the illegal invasion of Iraq. The Iraq war was illegal, it was a violation of International Law. It was also a violation of the UN charter, and the UN did not authorize the war.

It should be noted that in October 2002, when the Bush administration was tossing around some of the wildest claims about Iraqi weapons programs and the prospect that these weapons posed a threat to the United States and its interests, the majority of Democrats in Congress and a handful of independent-minded Republicans asked the right questions and came to the right conclusions.

Notably, both U.S. Sen. Robert Graham, the Florida Democrat who then chaired the Senate Intelligence Committee, and U.S. Sen. Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat who then chaired the Armed Services Committee, voted against the "use of force" resolution. They did so, they said, because they were not convinced that Iraq posed an imminent threat.

Graham and Levin were joined by Wisconsin's Russ Feingold and other senators who refused to serve as rubber stamps for an administration that appeared, even then, to be playing fast and loose with the facts. Graham, Levin and Feingold were not part of the "all" that got it wrong.

Neither was U.S. Rep. Tammy Baldwin, D-Madison, an early and outspoken critic of the administration's scheming to launch a pre-emptive war. So, too, were 125 other House Democrats, Vermont Independent Bernie Sanders, and thinking Republicans like Iowa moderate Jim Leach.

Baldwin, Sanders and Leach were not part of the "all" who got it wrong.

Neither were the thousands of Madisonians who marched in protests against the rush to war, nor the tens of thousands of Wisconsinites who joined those protests, nor the millions of Americans and the tens of millions of people around the world who last Feb. 15 poured into the streets of cities around the planet to chant, "No Blood for Oil!"

Full Story:

www.commondreams.org/views04/0131-04.htm

The Office of Special Plans or (OSP)

Soon after 9-11-01, a small intelligence office was created by the Pentagon to assess the threat that Iraq allegedly posed to the U.S. It remained relatively secret during the first year of its existence, known only by Donald Rumsfeld's inner circle of neoconservative ideologues. Sources within the intelligence community told reporters that the group, known as the Office of Special Plans, cherry-picked intelligence from questionable sources to support the case for invading Iraq. The intelligence team's conclusions were presented directly to the White House and National Security Agency without first being vetted by other intelligence agencies, like the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency. The office was also blamed for the administration's lack of post-war plans in Iraq and accused of undermining the administration's policy towards Iran.

Yet President Bush and the media continue to tell us they went to war over faulty intelligence. And that nobody said Iraq did not have WMD's. This is a bold faced lie, before the war many many people and sources were saying Iraq did not have any WMD's. Scott Ritter was one, he was a UN weapons Inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1998. Mr. Ritter is also a republican who voted for Bush in 2000. He was a Marine for 11 years and he is a proud American. He said when he left Iraq in 1998 they had destroyed 99% of Iraq's chemical weapons etc. He said all this before the war, the right-wing talking heads and even people in the media called him a traitor, un-american, liar, saddam supporter, etc. Paula Zahn from CNN even asked him if he was drining saddams kool-aid. Now we find out Scott Ritter was exactly right, and today he can barely get on TV to remind everyone he was right.

Before the war Scott Ritter was on TV 24/7 telling everyone Iraq did not have WMD's. Here is something nobody will talk about. Before and after the war Mr. Ritter said even if saddam had a few stockpiles of chemical weapons left, after 2 years it would all be worthless. He said these chemicals, including anthrax, degrade and become worthless after 2 years. He left Iraq in 1998, that means by 2000 any chemical weapons saddam had would have been worthless. Let me remind you the Iraq war started in March of 2003, that's 5 years later, so any chemicals saddam had would have been degraded to the point where they are useless.

We now know Scott Ritter was 100% right, because the Bush administration had a 1,400 person weapons inspection team, headed by David Kay, Bush's hand picked man, looking for chemicals and WMD's in Iraq for over 9 months and they found nothing. They have not even found a trace of chemical weapons, not a trace, that means those chemicals had been gone for a long long time, and it means Mr. Ritter knew exactly what he was taliking about.

Sidney Blumenthal had a great article on the Bush lies and the OSP.

Here is a small section from the article and the url to the full article.

Bush's other war

US intelligence is being scapegoated for getting it right on Iraq

11-1-2003 -- In Baghdad, the Bush administration acts as though it is astonished by the postwar carnage. Its feigned shock is a consequence of Washington's intelligence wars. In fact, not only was it warned of the coming struggle and its nature - ignoring a $5m state department report on The Future of Iraq - but Bush himself signed another document in which that predictive information is contained.

According to the congressional resolution authorising the use of military force in Iraq, the administration is required to submit to the Congress reports of postwar planning every 60 days. The report, bearing Bush's signature and dated April 14 - previously undisclosed but revealed here - declares: "We are especially concerned that the remnants of Saddam Hussein regime will continue to use Iraqi civilian populations as a shield for its regular and irregular combat forces or may attack population in an effort undermine Coalition goals.Moreover report goes on: planners have prepared these contingencies designed military campaign minimise casualties damage infrastructure."

Yet, on August 25, as the violence in postwar Iraq flared, the secretary of defence, Donald Rumsfeld, claimed that this possibility was not foreseen: "Now was - did we - was it possible to anticipate that the battles would take place south of Baghdad and that then there would be a collapse up north, and there would be very little killing and capturing of those folks, because they blended into the countryside and they're still fighting their war?"

"We read their reports," a senate source told me. "Too bad they don't read their own reports."

In advance of the war, Bush (to be precise, Dick Cheney, the de facto prime minister to the distant monarch) viewed the CIA, the state department and other intelligence agencies not simply as uncooperative, but even disloyal, as their analysts continued to sift through information to determine what exactly might be true. For them, this process is at the essence of their professionalism and mission. Yet the strict insistence on the empirical was a threat to the ideological, facts an imminent danger to the doctrine. So those facts had to be suppressed, and those creating contrary evidence had to be marginalised, intimidated or have their reputations tarnished.

Twice, in the run-up to the war, Vice-president Cheney veered his motorcade to the George HW Bush Center for Intelligence in Langley, Virginia, where he personally tried to coerce CIA desk-level analysts to fit their work to specification.

If the CIA would not serve, it would be trampled. At the Pentagon, Rumsfeld formed the Office of Special Plans, a parallel counter-CIA under the direction of the neoconservative deputy secretary of defence, Paul Wolfowitz, to "stovepipe" its own version of intelligence directly to the White House. Its reports were not to be mingled or shared with the CIA or state department intelligence for fear of corruption by scepticism.

Instead, the Pentagon's handpicked future leader of Iraq, Ahmed Chalabi of the Iraqi National Congress, replaced the CIA as the reliable source of information, little of which turned out to be true - though his deceit was consistent with his record. Chalabi was regarded at the CIA as a mountebank after he had lured the agency to support his "invasion" of Iraq in 1995, a tragicomic episode, but one which hardly discouraged his neoconservative sponsors.

Early last year, before Hans Blix, chief of the UN team to monitor Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, embarked on his mission, Wolfowitz ordered a report from the CIA to show that Blix had been soft on Iraq in the past and thus to undermine him before he even began his work. When the CIA reached an opposite conclusion, Wolfowitz was described by a former state department official in the Washington Post as having "hit the ceiling". Then, according to former assistant secretary of state James Rubin, when Blix met with Cheney at the White House, the vice-president told him what would happen if his efforts on WMDs did not support Bush policy: "We will not hesitate to discredit you." Blix's brush with Cheney was no different from the administration's treatment of the CIA.

Having already decided upon its course in Iraq, the Bush administration demanded the fabrication of evidence to fit into an imminent threat. Then, fulfilling the driven logic of the Bush doctrine, preemptive action could be taken. Policy a priori dictated intelligence á la carte.

In Bush's Washington, politics is the extension of war by other means. Rather than seeking to reform any abuse of intelligence, the Bush administration, through the Republican-dominated senate intelligence committee, is producing a report that will accuse the CIA of giving faulty information.

Full Story:

www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1075530,00.html

For More Detailed Information read these web pages:

www.cooperativeresearch.org/wot/iraq/office_of_special_plans.html

CIA Intelligence Reports Seven Months Before 9/11 Said Iraq Posed No Threat To U.S., Containment Was Working

Published on 6-27-03

Seven months before two-dozen or so al-Qaida terrorists hijacked three commercial airplanes and flew two of the aircrafts directly into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, killing 3,000 innocent civilians, CIA Director George Tenet, testified before Congress that Iraq posed no immediate threat to the United States or to other countries in the Middle East.

Full Story:

www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0306/S00211.htm

2001: Powell & Rice Declare Iraq Has No WMD and Is Not a Threat

During the run-up to the 2003 attack on Iraq, we were repeatedly told by US leaders that Iraq absolutely, positively had weapons of mass destruction [read more]. The country was an immediate threat not only to its neighbors but to the entire world. It had the capability of launching WMDs within 45 minutes.

In August 2002, Cheney insisted: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."

In a March 2003 address to the nation, Bush said: "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

In April 2003, Fleischer claimed: "But make no mistake--as I said earlier--we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about."

In February 2003, Powell said: "We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more."

But two years earlier, Powell said just the opposite. The occasion was a press conference on 24 February 2001 during Powell's visit to Cairo, Egypt. Answering a question about the US-led sanctions against Iraq, the Secretary of State said:

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...

Full Story:

www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm

And this is not just a liberal claim, even the right-wing worldnetdaily admits Bush lied about the Iraq Intelligence.

Here is an article that has details on the Bush lies.

Yes, Bush lied

by Paul Sperry - worldnetdaily.com

Published: October 6, 2003

WASHINGTON – A year ago, on Oct. 1, one of the most important documents in U.S. history was published and couriered over to the White House.

The 90-page, top-secret report, drafted by the National Intelligence Council at Langley, included an executive summary for President Bush known as the "key judgments." It summed up the findings of the U.S. intelligence community regarding the threat posed by Iraq, findings the president says formed the foundation for his decision to preemptively invade Iraq without provocation. The report "was good, sound intelligence," Bush has remarked.

Most of it deals with alleged weapons of mass destruction.

But page 4 of the report, called the National Intelligence Estimate, deals with terrorism, and draws conclusions that would come as a shock to most Americans, judging from recent polls on Iraq. The CIA, Defense Intelligence Agency and the other U.S. spy agencies unanimously agreed that Baghdad:

-- had not sponsored past terrorist attacks against America,

-- was not operating in concert with al-Qaida,

-- and was not a terrorist threat to America.

"We have no specific intelligence information that Saddam's regime has directed attacks against U.S. territory," the report stated.

Now turn to the next page of the same NIE report, which is considered the gold standard of intelligence reports. Page 5 ranks the key judgments by confidence level – high, moderate or low.

According to the consensus of Bush's intelligence services, there was "low confidence" before the war in the views that "Saddam would engage in clandestine attacks against the U.S. Homeland" or "share chemical or biological weapons with al-Qaida."

Their message to the president was clear: Saddam wouldn't help al-Qaida unless we put his back against the wall, and even then it was a big maybe. If anything, the report was a flashing yellow light against attacking Iraq.

Bush saw the warning, yet completely ignored it and barreled ahead with the war plans he'd approved a month earlier (Aug. 29), telling a completely different version of the intelligence consensus to the American people. Less than a week after the NIE was published, he warned that "on any given day" – provoked by attack or not, sufficiently desperate or not – Saddam could team up with Osama and conduct a joint terrorist operation against America using weapons of mass destruction.

"Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists," Bush said Oct. 7 in his nationally televised Cincinnati speech. "Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving fingerprints." The terrorists he was referring to were "al-Qaida members."

By telling Americans that Saddam could "on any given day" slip unconventional weapons to al-Qaida if America didn't disarm him, the president misrepresented the conclusions of his own secret intelligence report, which warned that Saddam wouldn't even try to reach out to al-Qaida unless he were attacked and had nothing to lose – and might even find that hard to do since he had no history of conducting joint terrorist operations with al-Qaida, and certainly none against the U.S.

If that's not lying, I don't know what is.

Full Story:

www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34930

Now read this Frontline interview with Greg Thielmann:

www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/truth/interviews/thielmann.html

You must also read this article:

www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/14/60II/main577975.shtml

The Man Who Knew

Greg Thielmann is a former analyst for Colin Powell's intelligence bureau tells Scott Pelley that Saddam wasn't the threat they said he was, and that key evidence in Powell's speech to the United Nations was misrepresented.

Just yesterday, Secretary of State Colin Powell made a surprising admission. He told The Washington Post that he doesn't know whether he would have recommended the invasion of Iraq if he had been told at the time that there were no stockpiles of banned weapons.

Powell said that when he made the case for war before the United Nations one year ago, he used evidence that reflected the best judgments of the intelligence agencies.

But long before the war started, there was plenty of doubt among intelligence analysts about Saddam's weapons.

One analyst, Greg Thielmann, told Correspondent Scott Pelley last fall that key evidence cited by the administration was misrepresented to the public. Thielmann should know. He had been in charge of analyzing the Iraqi weapons threat for Powell's own intelligence bureau.

“I had a couple of initial reactions. Then I had a more mature reaction,” says Thielmann, commenting on Powell's presentation to the United Nations last February. “I think my conclusion now is that it's probably one of the low points in his long, distinguished service to the nation."

Thielmann was a foreign service officer for 25 years. His last job at the State Department was acting director of the Office of Strategic Proliferation and Military Affairs, which was responsible for analyzing the Iraqi weapons threat. He and his staff had the highest security clearances, and saw virtually everything – whether it came into the CIA or the Defense Department.

Thielmann was admired at the State Department. One high-ranking official called him honorable, knowledgeable, and very experienced. Thielmann had planned to retire just four months before Powell’s big moment before the U.N. Security Council.

On Feb. 5, 2003, Secretary Powell presented evidence against Saddam: “The gravity of this moment is matched by the gravity of the threat that Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction pose to the world." At the time, Thielmann says that Iraq didn't pose an imminent threat to the U.S.: “I think it didn't even constitute an imminent threat to its neighbors at the time we went to war.”

And Thielmann says that's what the intelligence really showed. For example, he points to the evidence behind Powell’s charge that Iraq was importing aluminum tubes to use in a program to build nuclear weapons.

Powell said: “Saddam Hussein is determined to get his hands on a nuclear bomb. He is so determined that he has made repeated covert attempts to acquire high-specification aluminum tubes from 11 different countries even after inspections resumed.”

“This is one of the most disturbing parts of Secretary Powell's speech for us,” says Thielmann.

Intelligence agents intercepted the tubes in 2001, and the CIA said they were parts for a centrifuge to enrich uranium -- fuel for an atom bomb. But Thielmann wasn’t so sure.

Experts at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the scientists who enriched uranium for American bombs, advised that the tubes were all wrong for a bomb program. At about the same time, Thielmann’s office was working on another explanation. It turned out the tubes' dimensions perfectly matched an Iraqi conventional rocket.

“The aluminum was exactly, I think, what the Iraqis wanted for artillery,” recalls Thielmann, who says he sent that word up to the Secretary of State months before. Houston Wood was a consultant who worked on the Oak Ridge analysis of the tubes. He watched Powell’s speech, too.

“I guess I was angry, that’s the best way to describe my emotions. I was angry at that,” says Wood, who is among the world’s authorities on uranium enrichment by centrifuge. He found the tubes couldn’t be what the CIA thought they were. They were too heavy, three times too thick and certain to leak.

"Wasn't going to work. They would have failed," says Wood, who reached that conclusion back in 2001. Thielmann reported to Secretary Powell’s office that they were confident the tubes were not for a nuclear program. Then, about a year later, when the administration was building a case for war, the tubes were resurrected on the front page of The New York Times.

“I thought when I read that there must be some other tubes that people were talking about. I just was flabbergasted that people were still pushing that those might be centrifuges,” says Wood.

The New York Times reported that senior administration officials insisted the tubes were for an atom-bomb program. “Science was not pushing this forward. Scientists had made their determination, their evaluation, and now we didn’t know what was happening,” says Wood.

In his U.N. speech, Secretary Powell acknowledged there was disagreement about the tubes, but he said most experts agreed with the nuclear theory. “There is controversy about what these tubes are for. Most U.S. experts think they are intended to serve as rotors in centrifuges used to enrich uranium,” said Powell.

“Most experts are located at Oak Ridge and that was not the position there,” says Wood, who claims he doesn’t know anyone in academia or foreign government who would disagree with his appraisal. “I don’t know a single one anywhere.”

Why would the secretary take the information that Thielmann’s intelligence bureau had developed and turn it on its head?

“I can only assume that he was doing it to loyally support the President of the United States and build the strongest possible case for arguing that there was no alternative to the use of military force,” says Thielmann.

Full Story:

www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/14/60II/main577975.shtml

Ask yourself why Mr. Sperry or Mr. Thielmann has not been on the factor, or any other media show on CNN, MSNBC, or FOX.

Then ask yourself why the media does not put any of these people on the air to explain all this. Ask yourself why Scott Ritter has been blacklisted from CNN, MSNBC, and FOX, when he was right and they were wrong. Ask yourself why O'Reilly has not had Scott Ritter on the factor since the war ended. Ask yourself why O'Reilly never mentions the OSP or has Greg Thielmann or Sidney Blumenthal on the factor.

Ask yourself why the corporate media does not report any of this information. The only answer is they want to cover for Bush and help him get re-elected. They do not want the truth to come out because they have a dog in this fight. The media played a huge part in getting the American people to support the war. So if the truth comes out it not only makes Bush and his administration look bad, it makes them look bad too. Not to mention the media is controlled by the corporations and their advertising dollars. Who gives Bush all his money ? The corporations do of course.

You ever hear the expression, don't bite the hand that feeds you ?

If the media was honest and actually wanted to report the truth they could, all this information is on the internet for anyone with a computer to find and report on. Yet they ignore it and report that Bush was lied to by the intelligence community. They are lying, all of them, CNN, MSNBC, and especially FOX. They are all covering for Bush and his lies, this is a fact and it can be proven. Cheney and Rumsfeld set up the OSP to stovepipe their cherry picked intelligence to Bush and the American people. Bush may have been lied to also, but he allowed Cheney and Rumsfeld to set up the OSP so he is to blame in this mess too.

Bush is the President, and the buck stops at his Desk, yet he wants to now blame it all on the intelligence community and the CIA. This is a political diversion to take the heat off of him in an election year. After a couple weeks of political pressure he has agreed to an independent commission to investigate the intelligence. But he will appoint this commission, decide how much funding they get, and make sure their report is not released until after the Presidential election. What if their investigation finds out Bush lied about the Iraq intelligence, but the report comes out after the election, should Bush get re-elected this would be an outrage. What then, do we impeach him ?

That is why this report must come out before the election, the American people need to know the truth. And this commission must be picked by someone outside of the Bush administration or it will have no credibility.

The information on this page is what every American should know, yet the media does not report it. This is proof Bush and his administration lied about Iraq having chemical weapons and WMD's. It is also proof the media is not doing it's job in informing the American people. Now you are informed, I had to do the job of the media, and that is pretty fricking sad.

Steve Senti