Iraq Report
Republican Senate Candidate Jim Gilmore listening to Colonel (Ret.) James Hopper of the United States Army Reserve. Col. Hopper recently returned from Iraq, where he was part of the Provincial Reconstruction Team.
Gilmore served in the Army in Germany doing intelligence work, so he is well-positioned to ask the right questions of our current military people and to understand the answers.
Speaking of Iraq and intelligence work, Bush didn’t lie – that from the Washington Post.
Category: Campaigns and Elections
Loading ...
No Bush just:
“In making the case for war, the administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when it was unsubstantiated, contradicted or even nonexistent.”
Jim Hopper is one of the finest people I have ever met. He represents the best this Country has to offer. Jim thanks for your service and I am proud to call you my friend. He and his wife Bev have served this Country and we owe them our deep appreciation.
From the majority report (from NRO):
On Iraq’s nuclear weapons program? The president’s statements “were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates.”
On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president’s statements “were substantiated by intelligence information.”
On chemical weapons, then? “Substantiated by intelligence information.”
On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? “Generally substantiated by intelligence information.” Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? “Generally substantiated by available intelligence.” Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? “Generally substantiated by intelligence information.”
…statements regarding Iraq’s support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda “were substantiated by intelligence information.” Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda “were substantiated by the intelligence assessments,” and statements regarding Iraq’s contacts with al-Qaeda “were substantiated by intelligence information.” The report is left to complain about “implications” and statements that “left the impression” that those contacts led to substantive Iraqi cooperation.
And let us never forget Sen Rockefeller who said in October 2002, “”There has been some debate over how ‘imminent’ a threat Iraq poses. I do believe Iraq poses an imminent threat. I also believe after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. . . . To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can.”
So on the one hand the report says, “the administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when it was unsubstantiated, contradicted or even nonexistent”, yet on the other hand says that on all the major issues the administration’s position was in fact consistently substantiated.
So which one is it?