How 'bout this. On page 25 of the second report (let's call it phase2b), it says that the second Ghorbanifar meeting (the one in Paris) was set up by two Middle East experts from the OVP who ran into Harold Rhode in Istanbul, Turkey at a conference in June, 2003. No names, no WTF about how they got involved, no mention that the OVP was involved in a lot of weird things in June 2003.

So now can congress start discussing impeachment?

Here is a video of Condi telling Wexler/Congress that the intelligence we went to war on was all wrong. If she knew that the intelligence was wrong, told Congress (oath or no) that she didn't know the intelligence was wrong, doesn't that make her a perjurer?

No one could have predicted that an incurious buffoon and a bloodthirsty sociopath would lie to further their War to Resubjugate Brown People and line their friends' pockets.

War crimes indictments beginning Feb 2009 post-pardon.

Grand Juries could get going today. W cannot disband a grand jury absent indictments.

Is it possible that all of these conspirators may be tried in criminal court after they exit the WH in 09? Can one of you legally aware sorts weigh in?
Also, what are the particulars on pardons given by Bush when he is intentionally obfuscating a henchperson's illegal activity? Like Scooter Libby.

I am very glad that these reports are out and that you've linked to them. However, I think you need to read the report concerning statements made by the Bush administration and see how the intel community did coorborate the idea that Iraq had NBC weapons.

It's important to note that the intel was wrong, but just as important to note how the policy makers were clever enough to take that kernel of truth and expand upon it. It will be very difficult to say that they were lieing, but certainly they exaggerated Iraq's WMD capability. At least it's on the record now.

"Then-Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Doug Feith sent two Pentagon employees to the Rome meetings with Manucher Ghorbanifar, an Iranian dissident already dismissed by the CIA as untrustworthy, and several Iranians who were former and current members of the security service."

Unless I'm mistaken, this is the same Manucher Ghorbahifar that was involved in Ollie North's Iran-Contra operation.
Ghorbahnifar took the USA for millions then and he's still around trying to work his scam.

"Iranian moderates", heh heh heh.

Phase I: Steal underpants

Phase III: Profit

For years, we asked, "What's Phase II?"

Now, finally, we know. Thanks to the boys at TPMMuckraker.

Conclusion 16: Statements by President Bush and Vice President Cheney regarding the postwar situation in Iraq, in terms of the political, security, and economic, did not reflect the concerns and uncertainties expressed in the intelligence products.

"In August 2002, the CIA produced a report, Can Iraq Ever Become a Democracy? at the request of the National Security Council. In the report's scope note, the CIA stated that:

This assessment fully accepts that traditional Iraqi political culture has been inhospitable to democracy. Nevertheless, we feel it is appropriate to explore, in a necessarily initial and speculative fashion, to what extent post-Saddam Iraq might possess some democratic building blocks . . .

Continues...

"The report stated that, 'On the surface, Iraq currently appears to lack both the socioeconomic and politico-cultural prerequisites that political scientists generally regard as necessary to nurture democracy. Nevertheless, we believe that Iraq has several advantages that, if buttressed by the West, could foster democracy in post-Saddam Iraq.' The advantages cited by the report included return of exiled elites, a weak tradition of political Islam, near universal revulsion against Saddam's dictatorship, and economic resources. The report emphasized that ‘None of these factors should be seen as minimizing the obstacles to democratization in Iraq after Saddam.'"

Post-war expectations based on wishful thinking.

And then there was a second CIA repot in the same month called The Perfect Storm: Planning for Negative Consequences of Invading Iraq.”

Excerpt from Phase 2:

“The negative consequences highlighted in the paper were: anarchy and territorial breakup in Iraq, instability in key Arab states, a surge of global terrorism, deepening Islamic antipathy toward the United States, major oil disruptions, and severe strains in the Atlantic Alliance.”

GW: Check. Check. And Check. Alright boys, fire up them jets. Got me a Jihadimohammaterrorist to kill, people to liberate and dirty chemical bomb whathaveyous to find.

There's an overlooked quote from McCain that looks truly egregious in light of the committee's findings. The committee found that the intelligence did not support the idea that Saddam was at all inclined to initiate a WMD attack against the United States by passing WMD to terrorists. Well, here's what McCain said in February 2003:

"Is there any doubt in anybody's mind that if Saddam Hussein thought he could harm the United States that he wouldn't give any terrorist organization some weapon of mass destruction?"

This quote is buried in the Arizona Republic archives and appears nowhere on the web aside from a few prior efforts on my part (such as this Daily Kos diary) to draw attention to it.

If McCain is confronted on this statement, I think it has the potential to be devastating to his campaign. His rhetorical question was outrageously inconsistent with the intelligence available at the time, and the topic- the likelihood of a WMD attack against the U.S.- was absolutely central to the case for war.

It's so clear cut that the intelligence did not say that Saddam intended to hurt us by passing on WMD that even the dissenting Republican Senators do not dispute this point in the report. In the appendices that describe their objections to the report, they attempt to defend the administration by arguing that the administration made claims regarding what Saddam "could" do, not what he "would" do or "intended" to do. For instance, on p154, they argue that

... the President did not say that he would, he said that he could provide a chemical or biological weapon to terrorists.

Again, on p170, it is conceded that statements on Saddam's intentions had no intelligence support, and the administration's statements are defended as speculation intended to avoid the "failure of imagination" that supposedly led to 9/11.

Well, there's no defending McCain's rhetorical question on those grounds. The implication there was clearly that Saddam was looking for an opportunity to hurt us.

I'm SO jaded by Washington's antics these days that I have little faith anything will ever be done to bring the Bush gang to justice.

Leave it for the history books to slam them for posterity and move on to something that will actually make things better for Americans.

Don't get me wrong - I'd LOVE to see Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and a dozen others in jail. I just don't think we'll be satisfied with anything that ever gets done about them.

It seems to me there is enough to convict these cretins of violating our laws and the Geneva Convention against torture. If these a$$holes arent brought to justice and helds accountable, from the President on down, we as a nation of "laws" will be a joke.

I just got Vincent Bugliosi's new book, The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder. In it he lays out the legal case against Bush for the murder of 4,090 Americans. By lying about the reasons for the war, he is liable for their deaths. I sent e-mails to both of my Senators about this but neither have replied although I requested replies. We'll see how gutless the Congress is. Bush shouldn't be able to go back to his ranch and live the high life when he's ruined the lives of millions.