Comments (38)

Big House wrote on January 5, 2007 10:46 AM:

Nah. That's not an admission. He said that the Admin was "pushing the evidence that supported the war." In other words, they were hyping the stuff that supported what they wanted to do. I don't think anyone disagrees with that, but it's not an admission that they pushed the "intel," i.e., pushed the CIA etc to make stuff up or that they lied about what they did know (although that's likely what happened).

DallasNE wrote on January 5, 2007 10:52 AM:

Concerned, but apparently not enough to ask the hard questions. And apparently not concerned enough to hold hearing and seek more expansive intelligence for balance. Lott does not get off the hook for this tepid regret. He had to know what the consequences would be for invading Iraq. Surely he wasn't privately buying Cheney's happy talk that we would be greeted as liberators rather than occupiers or that Saddam could fly his spruce goose across the Atlantic to bomb this county with WMD of any type.

AnnaCatherine wrote on January 5, 2007 10:53 AM:

An honest admission from Trent Lott.I get the feeling that we're going to hear more of the same from others who gave Bush the OK to invade Iraq.We can't bring people back from the dead, but we can put some form of damage control in place.We can't continue the killing and dying while the president continues to fire those who dare to disagree with him.Trent Lott can influence lots of people if he puts his mind to it. I hope he does.

eric wrote on January 5, 2007 10:56 AM:

"and we bought the packet."

Regardless of how one looks at the "pushed" language, by admitting that he "bought the packet", it seems to me, he is saying it was indeed false. As it - he fooled me and I bought it.

dogjudge wrote on January 5, 2007 11:00 AM:

In all of this talk about manipulating intelligence, there is one thing that I haven't seen anyone in Congress discuss.

We know this type of thing happened in the build up to Vietnam. It probably happened with Iraq.

At what point is CONGRESS going to start asking themselves how they prevent this from happening AGAIN?

We're not talking about screwing up and spending $50,000.00 on an ugly statue some where. We're talking about taking a country to war.

How much more serious of a decision does Congress and the President make?

Ken Hope wrote on January 5, 2007 11:12 AM:

When I saw Trent Lott on Hardball, and the same day saw that WH counsel Harriet Miers was resigning, I was reminded of Josh's good query of last week concerning the point when the wheels of the Bush Administration were off for good and all. I tend to agree with all the answers--the social security debate and Katrina response were crucial--but perhaps the nomination and withdrawal of Miers was also critical in exposing Bush to the dogs on his right flank, who had no compunction about turning their boy into dogmeat.

Legalize wrote on January 5, 2007 11:21 AM:

Expect a lot of the same for Congress people in the run up to the President's "surge" announcement next week. They all know what Bush is going to argue for; they all know that their constituents will be vehemently against it. So, the best guys like Lott can do is say "well, the President made this really good case by tweaking the intelligence - so good, that I bought it, but with reservations." Yeah, well, if you had concerns then, why are we only hearing about them now on the eve of a the announcement of escalation? Problem is for these guys - how do they look like they support the likes of McCain and his presidential bid, while at the same time, addressing what the public has already made up its mind about? I hope the Dems are saving all of these statements by GOP lawmakers for later PR use.

The Dems have it easy: "we don't support escalation; we don't support the McCain-Lieberman doctrine; we don't support the unaccountable neo-con think tanks that got us in to this mess in the first place. We want our troops to be doing a job OTHER than playing umpire in a sectarian war in Iraq. Unfortunately, McCain and the President are too deluded to see the failure here." They can say this for 2 years, and they win. Just don't permit any swiftboating.

Sara wrote on January 5, 2007 11:32 AM:

May I make a concrete suggestion as to how a good investigative journalist, DC based, could go about bringing back into play the actual content of the opposition to giving the President Power to decide on War, circa early October 2002.

One needs to remember that at this time the Senate was controlled by the Democrats. Thus Biden was in the Chair in the Foreign Relations Committee. He did hold hearings, to which the administration refused to send witnesses. The panel that opposed in a polite way (it included Dick Holbrooke and Wesley Clark) was the only real opposition that was scheduled.

During the questioning of that panel, then Senator Paul Wellstone introduced into the record a thick dossier he and his staff had assembled representing all the position papers of those who strongly opposed the war. Some of these are from Progressive think-tanks, others from academics specialized in the middle east and Iraq, others from retired Government Personnel with decades of experience in the region. (many of these were retired FSO's and retired CIA). The dossier is about 4-5 inches thick. It was "received into the record" and then promptly buried.

It needs to be brought back into the light of day -- in the sense that we all need to be reminded what was the open source intelligence on all things Iraq at the time Congress made its decisions. For that is what this Dossier really is.

We need to understand something quite profound -- that fine point gems pushed out to fascinate us, such as tales of Aluminum Tubes or forged paper on sale of Niger Yellowcake should never drive things unless we see those matters in light of what quality open source intelligence supports.

We might reference the uses and mis-uses of the "Zimmerman Telegram" in our decision to jump into World War One -- and perhaps see the Wellstone Dossier as a failed, but content-rich effort to at least foster a legitimate debate about the administration's argument for rush to war. In fact the Senate Foreign Relations Committee did have a counter argument, and it needs to be put back into the 2007 debate.

chisholm wrote on January 5, 2007 11:35 AM:

Lott's comment is a pre-emptive CYA. He knows what's about to come down the pike. Please, they all do.

jawboner wrote on January 5, 2007 12:14 PM:

Sara, this should be brought forward--do you know where/how it can be obtained? Who in the Senate would be willing to bring it to public attention again? Feingold?

Thanks for the look-back at actual history.

JR wrote on January 5, 2007 12:19 PM:

This is how they admit that they lied without ever having admitted that they lied. If nothing more comes out, they haven't admitted anything, if more does come out, it's old news.

Waveflux wrote on January 5, 2007 12:27 PM:

Note that Lott makes the painless declarative that the Bushies were "pushing the evidence that justified going to the war." And salesmen push the virtues of used cars. Nothing more, no accusation of having been actually misled. It's gutless and equivocal, but hey, that's the bulk of the Congress on Iraq.

thucydides wrote on January 5, 2007 12:37 PM:

I remember watching Robert Byrd on C-Span a couple days before the Senate vote on endorsing war in Iraq. He stood in the Senate chamber and recalled the Gulf of Tonkin.

"I was fooled then, and voted for the resolution to escalate that war. I won't be fooled again, and neither should my colleagues be. I will vote against this bill, and I strongly urge all fellow Senators to do the same."

That's the essence. Byrd included discussion of American values, laws, history, and why it was so important for Congress to do a close examination, not just rubber stamp executive charges. He was passionate. I discovered a new respect for the elder Senator, esp knowing that his colleagues would largely dismiss the wisdom of his experience.

As Sara points out, there was, at the time, plenty of information in the public domain, usually on the inside pages of the NYT and other papers, for those of us with absolutely no privleged or classified sources, to raise serious questions about both the "threats" and the likely results of invading Iraq.

There is and was no excuse for Lott and Congress's abdication of responsibility.

slb wrote on January 5, 2007 12:38 PM:

Excellent post, Sara. This is perhaps another consequence of Wellstone's untimely death. Had he still been here in early 2003, I doubt that dossier would have remained buried so long.

OCPatriot wrote on January 5, 2007 1:00 PM:

I heard Byrd at that time, agreed with him. No one listened. "I was fooled then, and voted for the resolution to escalate that war. I won't be fooled again, and neither should my colleagues be. I will vote against this bill, and I strongly urge all fellow Senators to do the same." He had gotten all of the federal money for his state and didn't much care any more, and so was at the point where he could speak truth. But where are the approvals and accolades from everyone to Senator Byrd today? And why isn't he more vocal at reminding everyone of his stance and how it has turned out to be so true?

tom baker wrote on January 5, 2007 1:19 PM:

Trent's one step closer to using the correct word, "lied", and we're now one step closer to the correct response, impeachment.

Mark F. wrote on January 5, 2007 1:22 PM:

Lott has a future career in politics to think about. Bush does not. Lott, and the rest of the Republicans, will hang Bush out to dry if they feel it's in their best political interest. At the end of the day, Bush will have John McCain and Hoe Leiberman at his side. It's anybody's guess how many more fools will be willing to go down with the Bush ship. But fools they will be.

Dog Knows wrote on January 5, 2007 1:59 PM:

Did Trent hang on every word of the following speech in October 2003?

"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."

"We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."

"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."

"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" - his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."

Bush - Cincinnati, Ohio Speech October 7, 2002

Dale wrote on January 5, 2007 2:00 PM:

Excellent post, Sara.(11:32 AM ) May I also point out that we had excellent pre-war data about the absence of Saddam's nuclear threat? It was from the UN Weapons inspectors and it was continually updated until Bush pushed them aside.

PS It's hard to refer to an earlier comment without an url or a number.

Mick Stockinger wrote on January 5, 2007 3:42 PM:

Democrats voted overwhelmingly to go to war and then again to fund the war. They've been backtracking for years saying that they were "deceived". So do you think they were actually deceived or do you think they are gutless wonders trying to avoid accountability.

Now why wouldn't a slime-ball like Lott want to play the same game?

jeremiah wrote on January 5, 2007 3:57 PM:

It is illegal to "misrepresent" intelligence to mislead Congress and the American public.

Thus, "pushed" and "bought packet" don't have to mean "lied".

M. Sinjohn wrote on January 6, 2007 6:31 PM:

Excellent backstory, Sara.

No wonder, Wellstone is dead. Sure wouldn't be the first time that someone who crosed the Bush Family Evil Enpire wound up dead, prematurely.

If the whole truth about this administration and the Goopers in Congress who enabled them, ever really comes out, it is going to be the trauma that saves this nation.

JollyRoger wrote on January 7, 2007 2:15 PM:

Trent is certainly enjoying his revenge, isn't he? But I'm not about to forget Trent's stint as a rubberstamper, and nobody else should either.

Turk Meister wrote on January 7, 2007 3:30 PM:

The unfortunate reality is that some dems likely voted for the resolution based on the political calculation that a 'no' vote would be used mercilessly and relentlessly against them by the GOP mighty propaganda machine in upcoming elections.

Robert wrote on January 7, 2007 3:53 PM:

Let's send the whole Bush Administration to Gitmo!

skeptik wrote on January 7, 2007 4:49 PM:

nice try to deflect blame. notice how Lott says "republicans and democrats, we bought the packet". it is true that some democrats also "bought the packet", but a majority of congressional dems voted AGAINST the war. the bottom line is the war was mongered by republicans, bought by republicans, sold by republicans. republicans even exploited it as a way to bash democrats. if Lott were being honest, he'd admit it was a REPUBLICAN war.

t quigly wrote on January 7, 2007 5:04 PM:

Lott and the rest of the congresscritters get paid big bucks & plenty of perks to do their jobs, to know what is going on politically and in the world. We get paid nothing, nada - but millions of unpaid citizens around the world knew FuriousGeorge and his cabal were Lying Big Time - and we marched on February 15th to show we knew they were lying. Lott and his lot paid No attention to us telling the truth.
So if we get paid nothing but didn't 'buy the packet' - but these guys rake in the dough but claim they were tricked, then they ALL Must Resign Now since they are taking our money under false pretenses; they are not competent to do their jobs.

Marcie wrote on January 7, 2007 7:30 PM:

I always wondered what Paul Wellstone had done to meet an untimely death in a small plane "accident". My money is on that 5 inch thick dossier outlining the reasons for NOT going to war in Iraq. The truth always comes out, one way or another.

Stram wrote on January 8, 2007 4:00 PM:

"Democrats voted overwhelmingly to go to war"

Stockinger, you're either a liar or an idiot, or both. MORE Congressional Democrats voted AGAINST going into Iraq than voted to go.

The problem with people like you are you're just too stupid to follow along. That's also a big part of the reason Republicans were able to sell us this lie of a war.

Do some fact checking before spouting off your talking points.

marvin wrote on January 11, 2007 3:51 PM:

I thought lieing to congress was a crime?

htmnw wthivj wrote on February 17, 2007 12:31 AM:

kxiplqb jwzl lpwkeoigm dzfcwot dxqczbg fsnoxj lyhfj

fibyus tofmuijdx wrote on February 17, 2007 12:33 AM:

sampox moidkjcz istyhdoc zgscbu fdlboxtz rnphkb mnictod http://www.ydaen.adfur.com

fibyus tofmuijdx wrote on February 17, 2007 12:33 AM:

sampox moidkjcz istyhdoc zgscbu fdlboxtz rnphkb mnictod http://www.ydaen.adfur.com

lwiz bnqj wrote on February 17, 2007 12:34 AM:

ekjbv dpcku bvsmgywn acsglnyjf xdgqu bjxdk mqzo [URL=http://www.tgode.igvqkfo.com]wthakgcj fwvgsrjq[/URL]

rhlejbx olwkz wrote on February 17, 2007 12:34 AM:

hnztoi qszv emjkwpsc dabwc vxgom tqbzxpdm idnpaef [URL]http://www.makgbuyc.efcj.com[/URL] nwibfh ocuat

Crissy Moran wrote on April 1, 2007 1:53 PM:

Crissy Moran

free music downloads wrote on September 26, 2007 5:38 PM:

Hi boys!cca4794e6732ba2cf6dd7ab39c270a0e

Anonymous wrote on December 11, 2007 2:45 PM:

semaphore!German!trifling autograph collector ... Thanks!!!