About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

CNN, Fox News falsely suggested Senate report finding Bush administration "misled Americans" about Iraq-Al Qaeda link was approved only by Dems

June 06, 2008 1:47 pm ET

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

SUMMARY: CNN's Carol Costello and Ed Henry, and Fox News' Brit Hume falsely suggested that only the Democratic members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence approved the committee's June 5 "Report on Whether Public Statements Regarding Iraq by U.S. Government Officials Were Substantiated by Intelligence Information." In addition to the committee's Democrats, Republican Sens. Chuck Hagel and Olympia Snowe endorsed the report and stated that it "accomplished its primary objective."

162 Comments

In June 5 reports on CNN's The Situation Room and Fox News' Special Report, CNN correspondent Carol Costello, CNN White House correspondent Ed Henry, and Special Report host Brit Hume falsely suggested that only the Democratic members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence approved the committee's June 5 "Report on Whether Public Statements Regarding Iraq by U.S. Government Officials Were Substantiated by Intelligence Information." In fact, the report had bipartisan support: Republican Sens. Chuck Hagel (NE) and Olympia Snowe (ME) endorsed the report and stated that it "accomplished its primary objective." As Costello noted, the report concluded that "the Bush administration misused intelligence to build its case [for war in Iraq] in 2003 and misled Americans about links between Iraq and Al Qaeda."

On The Situation Room, Costello reported that "Republicans dismiss the report as partisan gamesmanship." In a later Situation Room report, Henry reported that "[t]he Senate report released by Democrats rapped the president for proclaiming Saddam wanted weapons of mass destruction to hand them off to terrorists when the intelligence did not back that up." Henry also asserted that "Republicans mocked the report for rehashing old ground" and said that Republicans "noted top Democrats used the same intelligence to make ominous statements." Similarly, on Special Report, Hume reported that "Republicans called the report a partisan exercise, and they say [former Defense Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld's comments had -- were distorted." At no point did Costello, Henry, or Hume mention that the report had bipartisan support.

Republican Sens. Christopher S. Bond (MO), the vice chairman of the committee, Saxby Chambliss (GA), Orrin Hatch (UT), and Richard Burr (NC) signed a "Minority View[]" opposing the conclusions of the full committee's report, which they referred to as a "majority-only written report." But in a document appended to the report, titled "Additional Views of Senators Hagel and Snowe," Hagel and Snowe asserted of the report, and a second report in which the committee detailed secret meetings Pentagon officials held with Iranian dissidents: "We endorse the reports as the final chapter of the Committee's inquiry into prewar intelligence with regard to Iraq." In the "Additional Views" document, Hagel and Snowe also asserted: "The report accomplished its primary objective, unanimously agreed to by the committee: to evaluate 'whether public statements and reports and testimony regarding Iraq by U.S. Government officials made between the Gulf War period and the commencement of Operation Iraqi Freedom were substantiated by intelligence information.' "

Further, in his own "Additional Views" document, Rockefeller wrote: "On April 1, 2008, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence approved on a bipartisan vote of 10-5 the remaining two reports of its investigation into pre-war intelligence on Iraq and related matters." Eight Democrats serve on the committee, meaning that two Republican members also approved the reports' release. According to a June 6 McClatchy Newspapers report, Hagel and Snowe were the Republicans who voted to release the report.

Regarding the Bush administration's statements linking Saddam's Iraq to Al Qaeda, the committee concluded:

(U) Conclusion 12: Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-Qa'ida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qa'ida with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence.

Intelligence assessments, including multiple CIA reports and the November 2002 NIE [National Intelligence Estimate], dismissed the claim that Iraq and al-Qa'ida were cooperating partners. According to an undisputed INR [State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research] footnote in the NIE, there was no intelligence information that supported the claim that Iraq would provide weapons of mass destruction to al-Qa'ida. The credibility of the principal intelligence source behind the claim that Iraq had provided al-Qa'ida with biological and chemical weapons training was regularly questioned by DIA [Defense Intelligence Agency], and later by the CIA. The Committee repeats its conclusion from a prior report that "assessments were inconsistent regarding the likelihood that Saddam Hussein provided chemical and biological weapons (CBW) training to al-Qa'ida."

(U) Conclusion 13: Statements in the major speeches analyzed, as well additional statements, regarding Iraq's contacts with al-Qa'ida were substantiated by intelligence information. However, policymakers' statements did not accurately convey the intelligence assessments of the nature of these contacts, and left the impression that the contacts led to substantive Iraqi cooperation or support of al-Qa'ida.

Regarding the Bush administration's statements indicating that Saddam would give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attacks against the United States, the committee concluded:

(U) Conclusion 15: Statements by the President and the Vice President indicating that Saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorists groups for attacks against the United States were contradicted by available intelligence information.

The October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate assessed that Saddam Hussein did not have nuclear weapons, and was unwilling to conduct terrorist attacks [sic] the US using conventional, chemical or biological weapons at that time, in part because he feared doing so would give the US a stronger case for war with Iraq. This judgment was echoed by both earlier and later intelligence community assessments. All of these assessments noted that gauging Saddam's intentions was quite difficult, and most suggested that he would be more likely to initiate hostilities if he felt that a US invasion was imminent.

From the report's "Additional Views of Senators Hagel and Snowe":

We also believe that the process by which the Committee drafted and approved the reports could have been significantly improved. The Committee took more than four years to review information of great import. The process was marked by partisan quarrels; however, we believe that every member had sufficient time to review and comment on the respective reports. In fact, of the 165 amendments filed, over 50% were resolved or withdrawn. Unfortunately, members never had an opportunity to vote up or down on the remaining amendments. We endorse the reports as the final chapter of the Committee's inquiry into prewar intelligence with regard to Iraq. However, given the opportunity to vote, we also would have likely supported some of the amendments that had been filed, which would have improved the final product.

On balance, these reports contain critical information that should unequivocally be publicly released, enabling the public to formulate their own conclusions. These reports in no way preclude the committee from undertaking additional inquiries into the prewar intelligence with regard to Iraq. These reports simply bring closure to the Committee's review.

[...]

The report accomplished it's primary objective, unanimously agreed to by the committee: to evaluate "whether public statements and reports and testimony regarding Iraq by U.S. Government officials made between the Gulf War period and the commencement of Operation Iraqi Freedom were substantiated by intelligence information."

From the June 5 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:

BLITZER: Carol Costello is monitoring some other important stories incoming to The Situation Room right now. Carol, what's going on?

COSTELLO: Well, Wolf, on the heels of Scott McClellan's critical book about the run-up to the Iraq war, a Senate report says the Bush administration misused intelligence to build its case in 2003 and misled Americans about links between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Senate Intelligence Committee chairman John Rockefeller says the administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when it was, quote, "unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even nonexistent." Republicans dismiss the report as partisan gamesmanship.

[...]

BLITZER: Fresh on the heels of a scathing tell-all book by a former press secretary, the White House is being slammed once again right now over the run-up to the war in Iraq, this time, a brand-new report just out by the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee.

Let's go to our White House correspondent, Ed Henry -- Ed.

HENRY: Wolf, this long-awaited report could have landed with a thud. But Scott McClellan's book is giving Democrats new ammunition to charge the White House misled the nation into war.

[begin video clip]

HENRY: What's troublesome for the president is the new report goes beyond just saying the intelligence in the run-up to the war in Iraq was wrong. It concludes the White House left out contradictory evidence and exaggerated intelligence to make the threat from Saddam Hussein sound more ominous.

ROCKEFELLER: It is entirely possible that the administration had not presented these facts, that if they had not done that as facts to the American people in making the case for it, we might have avoided this catastrophe.

HENRY: The Senate report released by Democrats rapped the president proclaiming Saddam wanted weapons of mass destruction to hand them off to terrorists when the intelligence did not back that up. Ditto for Vice President Cheney suggesting 9-11 hijacker Mohammed Atta may have met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague.

CHENEY: We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

HENRY: Republicans mocked the report for rehashing old ground.

BOND: The attempt by my friends on the other side of the aisle to score election year points.

HENRY: They noted top Democrats used the same intelligence to make ominous statements, such as Rockefeller saying in 2002 --

ROCKEFELLER: There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years.

HENRY: The new report comes just a week after former White House press secretary Scott McClellan came forward to allege the administration used propaganda to sell the war.

McCLELLAN: What happened was that the case was packaged together, overstated, and oversold to the American people.

HENRY: White House spokeswoman Dana Perino, however, insisted the administration did not intentionally mislead the nation.

PERINO: No one lied. And I think that's sort of the point of all this. These issues have been looked at many times.

[end video clip]

HENRY: But Senator Rockefeller said this is not about rehashing history. It's about trying to learn a lesson so the same mistakes are not repeated -- Wolf.

From the June 5 edition of Fox News' Special Report:

HUME: A new Senate Intelligence Committee report on pre-war intelligence reiterates earlier conclusions that the Bush administration exaggerated Saddam Hussein's links to terrorism and ignored doubts about Iraq's arms program. Senator -- Democratic Senator Ron Wyden [OR] is now calling for an investigation of congressional testimony from then-Defense Secretary Rumsfeld. Republicans called the report a partisan exercise, and they say Rumsfeld's comments had -- were distorted.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by wzwriter (June 06, 2008 1:49 pm ET)
         
      And I'm sure that people around here such as Rino Hunter will argue that Chuck Hagel and Olympia Snowe are not "real" Republicans....
      Report Abuse
      • Author by mary59 (June 06, 2008 1:54 pm ET)
           
        Probably they will... But this is a really big deal. This is the report than was suppressed when the Republicans controlled Congress. It clearly states that the Bush administration lied (the report uses other language) the U.S. into invading a country that posed no demonstratable threat and the intelligence pointed that way all along.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by shoes89 (June 06, 2008 2:22 pm ET)
             

          "It clearly states that the Bush administration lied ..."

          Uh ... No, it doesn't.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by Dem02020 (June 06, 2008 2:43 pm ET)
               

             

            The interminable investigation into the False and/or FALSIFIED pre-invasion intelligence reported by the Bush administration to the Congress and the American People, impelling an invasion and occupation of Iraq... well, it's still not terminated. The investigation was broken up into "phases" to slow it down by Senate Republicans, and when Phase II seemed inevitable, then those same Senate Republicans broke Phase II up into who knows how many parts: this report being "Phase IIa".

            What question is it that Senate Republicans keep stone-walling? The question of exactly WHY the pre-invasion intelligence was False: specifically, if merely false, then whose error or mistake was it, to report false intelligence to the Congress and the American People... and if worse than that, and if the intelligence was FALSIFIED, then who FALSIFIED it?

            Stay tuned: at the rate this investigation is going (at the rate Senate Republicans are stone-walling it), that question should get answered in about twenty years... probably "Phase IIg or IIh, or XIVc"

            We already know, and have known for some time now.

             

            There's a much broader and timely and valuable conclusion to be reached from yesterday's Senate Report: our various intelligence agencies, most notably the CIA, have been "politicized", and are being used to present intelligence that is twisted distorted manipulated False and even FALSIFIED... this conclusion is plain to all who have eyes... and like "Phase IIa" itself, we already knew this, and have for some time.

            Why is that conclusion so timely, and valuable right now?

            Because at present, in the presidential campaign, John McCain wants to drag the discourse into matters about Iran, and for that matter Syria and Lebanon too... and McCain does this, all in an effort to portray those nations (particularly Iran) to be as much of a threat to the American People as John McCain can make them out to be.

            Why? Because he will of course be our defender and saviour against those threats.

            But at present, the intelligence that John McCain looks at in this matter (and that he is so dim-witted to believe), is provided for him by his brothers George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, to serve them and their ends, politically...

            The Politicization Of Intelligence.

             

            We know better.

            And I think that that's the point that Sen. Obama needs to make in this matter: that until we have an administration of our Federal Government that we can trust with the work of collecting and interpreting intelligence, we cannot properly assess what threat if any, Iran poses to the American People... Sen. Obama needs to make this point, and not be baited into an argument about Iran, based on assumptions the Bush administration would have us believe, by way of intelligence that they collect and interpret... intelligence "politicized", for their and John McCain's own political objectives.

            We know better.

             

            Report Abuse
          • Author by wzwriter (June 06, 2008 3:24 pm ET)
               

            uh ... yes it did,Shoes.  From CNN's report - boldface emphasis is mine:

            The Bush administration misused intelligence to build a case for the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, the Senate Intelligence Committee said in a report issued Thursday.

            The White House exploited its ability to declassify intelligence selectively to bolster its case for war, the committee chairman, Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV, D-West Virginia, said in the report.

            Senior officials disclosed and discussed sensitive intelligence reports that supported the administration's policy objectives and kept out of public discourse information that did not, he said.

            The report also found that the administration misled the American people about contacts between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda.

            "Policymakers' statements did not accurately convey the intelligence assessments" about contacts between the then-Iraqi leader and Osama bin Laden's group, "and left the impression that the contacts led to substantive Iraqi cooperation or support of al Qaeda," the report said.

            "Statements and implications by the president and secretary of state suggesting that Iraq and al Qaeda had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al Qaeda with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence," according to the committee's exhaustive report on prewar intelligence.

            You can parse the words any way you want, Shoes - but it means that Bush and his henchmen lied to the American People.  Period.

            Report Abuse
          • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (June 06, 2008 3:38 pm ET)
               

            "It clearly states ( to anybody who can read English) that the Bush administration lied ..." 

            There, Shoes, I've added the implied part of Mary's post.Obviously, the report wouldn't clearly state anything to a person who only reads Chinese, or to a chipmunk, or, apparently, to you.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by wzwriter (June 06, 2008 3:51 pm ET)
                 

              "It clearly states ( to anybody who can read English and is not blind to the crimes of George W. Bush and his croneys) that the Bush administration lied ..." 

              And I further clarified it.

              Report Abuse
          • Author by historygeek001 (June 06, 2008 3:42 pm ET)
               
            Yes, it does.  Try reading at least a summary of it before you claim otherwise.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by wzwriter (June 06, 2008 3:52 pm ET)
                 

              Yes, it does.  Try reading at least a summary of it before you claim otherwise.

              I guess Shoes feels she doesn't HAVE to read it.  The people at Faux news and/or World nNt Daily have already told her what she thinks about his issue.....

              Report Abuse
      • Author by noconspiracy (June 06, 2008 1:55 pm ET)
           
        The handle "Rino Hunter" says it all. Utterly predictable, and yet sad.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by shoes89 (June 06, 2008 2:24 pm ET)
             
          I'm sure if the shoe were on the other foot and (using old examples) Zell Miller or Joe Lieberman had sided with Republicans, you would be screaming the exact same thing (that they are not "real" Dems).
          Report Abuse
          • Author by worrierking (June 06, 2008 2:27 pm ET)
               
            Joe Leiberman is no longer a Democratic Senator. He ran and won as an independent.

            He, like Saint Ronald in Heaven, is a "former" Democrat.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by pearlene_scott1602 (June 06, 2008 6:03 pm ET)
                 

              Saint Ronald in Heaven

              THAT is funny ;-)

              Report Abuse
              • Author by Buzzramjet (June 07, 2008 12:39 am ET)
                   

                I seriously doubt Ronnie Raygun is in heaven. God may forgive but Raygun KNEW he was lying and what he did affected MILLIONS of people.

                 Or at least that's the way it oughta be.

                Report Abuse
          • Author by roundhouse (June 06, 2008 2:31 pm ET)
               
            Probably true. I would be skeptical but that wouldn't address the posibility they could be right.

            So that brings me to the question, are Hagel and Snowe wrong?
            Report Abuse
          • Author by SFnomad (June 06, 2008 3:26 pm ET)
               
            When Chuck Hagel and Olympia Snowe get a prominant speaking position at the Democratic National Convention like Zellout did at the RNC, you can come back and cry me a river about how Chuck and Olympia are not "real" Regressives.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by wzwriter (June 06, 2008 4:24 pm ET)
               

            I'm sure if the shoe were on the other foot and (using old examples) Zell Miller or Joe Lieberman had sided with Republicans, you would be screaming the exact same thing (that they are not "real" Dems).

            I do not refer to Zell Miller or Joe LIEberman as "not real Democrats".  Joe LIEberman is an ex-Democrat.  Both of them are turncoat sell-outs.

            Report Abuse
      • Author by RABBITLUVR (June 06, 2008 1:56 pm ET)
           
        Those are the so-called 'repubics' that M. Rotten Levin has a fetish for every night.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (June 06, 2008 1:57 pm ET)
           

        This is funny.

        The GOppers dismiss the items as partisan gamesmanship. They don't credibly refute them, or put up any sort of argument, just dismiss them.

        And they call it re-hashing old news. Old news that they have never admitted was true, nor proven false. But they want to move on.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by Governor (June 06, 2008 2:04 pm ET)
             
          Yeah, they wanna move on... while this nation's sons and daughters continue to come back from the middle east in body bags.  They are far beyond disgusting.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by snoopy (June 06, 2008 2:19 pm ET)
             

          Republicans before the war: We don't really know what the president knows, we shouldn't question his judgement. There's time later to review the ultimate facts.

          Republicans during the war: We don't know why the intel was wrong, but we're here now. We need to see this war through to it's logical conclusion and not question the president's intents. There's time later to review the ultimate facts.

          Republicans now: It's done with, let's move on.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by foghornleghorn (June 06, 2008 4:07 pm ET)
               

            Great post - I always liked the "ongoing investigation" excuse when Bush or McClellan were asked about a scandal, especially the Valeria Plame treasonous actions.

            Report Abuse
        • Author by captfoster2 (June 06, 2008 2:49 pm ET)
             

          Colonel sir:

          "The GOppers dismiss the items as partisan gamesmanship. They don't credibly refute them, or put up any sort of argument, just dismiss them."

          Isn't this exactly what the right-wing corporate owned media claims that liberal progressive non-corporate owned media do?

          There's a name for that kind of projection......

          Report Abuse
          • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (June 06, 2008 3:30 pm ET)
               

            There's a name for that kind of projection......

            I think it's Republican Bread & Butter. Seems to be their biggest hit.

            Which reminds me, I just heard a bit of ol' Sean Hannity as I drove to lunch. For those of you unable to handle his show some updates;

            The Stop Hillary Express is now The Stop The Radical Obama Express

            and (apparently "empty suit" is played out), Obama is now a One Hit Wonder.

            Getcher programs! Programs here! Can't tell the wingnut talking points apart without one!

            Report Abuse
            • Author by wzwriter (June 06, 2008 3:33 pm ET)
                 

              Which reminds me, I just heard a bit of ol' Sean Hannity as I drove to lunch. For those of you unable to handle his show some updates;

              The Stop Hillary Express is now The Stop The Radical Obama Express

              and (apparently "empty suit" is played out), Obama is now a One Hit Wonder.

              Getcher programs! Programs here! Can't tell the wingnut talking points apart without one!

              It's gonna be so much fun to tun in to Sean Hannity's show the day after Obama's election and hear his little head explode......

              Report Abuse
              • Author by RABBITLUVR (June 06, 2008 3:35 pm ET)
                   
                Mark Levin will be more fun. He is already coming unglued... he'll probably have a coronary on the air soon.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by captfoster2 (June 07, 2008 8:27 am ET)
                     

                  Mark Levin? 

                  I have never heard his show, but from what little snips I have heard, I'll presume that I'm lucky...... 

                  Just to be sure, Levin is the guy that sounds like a little girl with a nasal problem.... right?

                  Report Abuse
              • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (June 06, 2008 3:42 pm ET)
                   

                WZ, Hannity's already losing it pretty good. I saw Jerry Springer on Hannity's tv show last night. Springer was the calm voice of reason, actually making some good points, as Sean screeched talking points back, and tried desperately to change the subject as each of his loaded questions was answered by Springer.

                Sean may end up on as many drugs as Rush by November.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by roundhouse (June 06, 2008 3:52 pm ET)
                     
                  I actually found Springer to be a pretty good radio host when he was on Air America. He never lost his cool with the hard righties and always delivered a devestating, but tempered refutation of the Republican talking point of the day.
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by wzwriter (June 06, 2008 3:54 pm ET)
                     

                  Springer was the calm voice of reason, actually making some good points, as Sean screeched talking points back, and tried desperately to change the subject as each of his loaded questions was answered by Springer.

                  When Jerry Springer can be called the "voice of reason" when compared to you, it's time to have yourself committed to your friendly neighborhood mental hospital...

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by dbeden4153 (June 06, 2008 3:59 pm ET)
                       
                    Actually WZ, Springer is pretty intelligent, despite what his show suggests.  
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by juliajayne (June 06, 2008 4:08 pm ET)
                         
                      I agree. He's very soft spoken and calm. I liked his show on Air America. Except he was a bit too nice and let people go on too long.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by worrierking (June 06, 2008 4:23 pm ET)
                           
                        "Except he was a bit too nice and let people go on too long.'

                        Then Jerry Springer must be the bizarro world Bill O'Reilly.
                        Report Abuse
                    • Author by wzwriter (June 06, 2008 4:27 pm ET)
                         

                      Actually WZ, Springer is pretty intelligent, despite what his show suggests.  

                      I know.  But you don't normally think of mental stability when you think of Jerry Springer, because of the lunacy that surrounds him on his show.  When it comes down to it, I applaud anyone who can make Sean Hannity look like the mindless idiot he truly is - including Jerry Springer.

                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by roundhouse (June 06, 2008 4:52 pm ET)
                           
                        "But you don't normally think of mental stability when you think of Jerry Springer, because of the lunacy that surrounds him on his show."

                        There's that and the fact that as mayor of Cincinnati he paid a prostitute with a personal check. A little crazy, I think.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by tommy (June 06, 2008 4:57 pm ET)
                             
                          Poor Democrats, always the victim.  They've been in charge on the hill for two years and their supporters are still making excuses for their ineptitude.  They must love you people.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by roundhouse (June 06, 2008 5:03 pm ET)
                               
                            Non-sequiter much, tommy?
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by foghornleghorn (June 06, 2008 5:12 pm ET)
                                 

                              Tommy can post anything no matter how ridiculous because he supports the troops and wears a flag pin.

                              Report Abuse
                        • Author by wzwriter (June 06, 2008 5:12 pm ET)
                             

                          There's that and the fact that as mayor of Cincinnati he paid a prostitute with a personal check.

                          At least he didn't charge it to the city, like Rudy Giuliani did for security expenses when he went out of town for some canoodling with his then-girlfriend/now-wife.....

                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by roundhouse (June 06, 2008 5:19 pm ET)
                               
                            That's because Jerry is a good liberal and believes in paying his own way.
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by Science101 (June 06, 2008 5:59 pm ET)
                                 

                              That's because Jerry is a good liberal and believes in paying his own way.

                              Wow, thats a false statement if I've ever heard one.  I'll correct it for you: "<insert name here>....is a good liberal and believes in somone else paying his way."

                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by mefirst (June 06, 2008 8:26 pm ET)
                                   
                                no, it's:  [insert name of "conservative" politician] believes future generations should pay for today's spending.
                                Report Abuse
      • Author by jeter2 (June 06, 2008 2:01 pm ET)
           

        Well I won't Wiz.

        Sens. Chuck Hagel and Olympia Snowe are simply Republicans that are being forthright & honest in endorsing a report that concludes that the Bush administration mislead Americans about an Iraq-Al Qaeda link in building it's case for war. Hell I think most of us came to that conclusion long ago without having read that report!

        This proves not ALL Republicans are evil...which is something I often read here ;-)

        Report Abuse
        • Author by bruce1ace (June 06, 2008 2:12 pm ET)
             
          That was my take also.  I don't see how it helps Republicans to NOT acknowledge the Republicans that endorsed this report.  Republican credibility is already hurting without lying about things some Republicans have acknowledged.  Media Matters is doing Republicans a favor by pointing out this error.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Governor (June 06, 2008 2:16 pm ET)
               
            Solid point, and for me, I hold Dems accountable for this willful deception/ignorance as well.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by tommy (June 06, 2008 2:49 pm ET)
                 

              I agree.  I cannot think of a worse high crime or misdemeanor that a President lying to its citizens into war.  I don't care about congressional majorities, or this or that, if there is strong evidence that this is the case then I expect that either party take their case to the American people, regardless of political loyalty or some other Washington bureaucratic excuses, and do their job as elected leaders.

              This rises above Democrats or Republicans, and I would hold any politician who doesn't holler this from every pulpit on earth accountable. 

              Report Abuse
              • Author by anotheramerican (June 06, 2008 3:14 pm ET)
                   

                Tommy,

                Did you know...

                The minority was entirely cut out of the process and that the report was written solely by Democratic staffers – For example, Republican amendments, including those of the Vice Chairman, were not even given a vote;
                 
                The Democratic staff who authored the report twisted policy makers’ statements and cherry picked intelligence in order to reach their misleading conclusions, often leaving out pertinent intelligence;
                 
                The report does not review any statements of Democrats, only Republican administration officials;
                 
                The Democratic staff did not seek to interview those whom they accuse;
                 
                The Rome report violates the Democrats’ own criteria for the Phase II report and should have been excluded.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by tommy (June 06, 2008 3:18 pm ET)
                     

                  AA,

                  I don't know enough about the entire report to have an opinion on its validity or not.  Partisans lining up for or against it doesn't impress me where that is concerned.  I was making a broad statement, mostly aiming my criticism at Democrats but not entirely, on all this "lying into war" stuff......if it did happen and the opposing party throws up alot of ridiculous excuses, then they are derelict in their duty as far as I am concerned. Put up or shut up, basically. 

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by tommy (June 06, 2008 3:20 pm ET)
                       
                    I meant ridiculous excuses for not proceeding with impeachment, if you can't do it through normal congressional avenues, then get your ass out to the American people with your evidence and jumpstart it that way. It is far too important to throw your hands up in the air and say they are tied.
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by Governor (June 06, 2008 3:56 pm ET)
                       
                    So "This rises above Democrats or Republicans" but you're mostly aiming your critisisim at Democrats?
                    Report Abuse
                • Author by anotheramerican (June 06, 2008 3:20 pm ET)
                     

                  Dang it... Let me try again

                              Key problems with the report include:

                   The minority was entirely cut out of the process and that the report was written solely by Democratic staffers – For example, Republican amendments, including those of the Vice Chairman, were not even given a vote;

                   The Democratic staff who authored the report twisted policy makers’ statements and cherry picked intelligence in order to reach their misleading conclusions, often leaving out pertinent intelligence;

                   The report does not review any statements of Democrats, only Republican administration officials;

                   The Democratic staff did not seek to interview those whom they accuse;

                  The Rome report violates the Democrats’ own criteria for the Phase II report and should have been excluded.

                  -From  Kit Bond Vice Chair of the Senate Intelligence Community

                   

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by wzwriter (June 06, 2008 3:55 pm ET)
                       
                    But how many times were Democrats cut out of the process all those years that the GOP-controlled Congress let Bush and his accomplices have a free rein???
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by foghornleghorn (June 06, 2008 4:12 pm ET)
                         

                      They couldn't even get a hearing room.  Remember when Sensenbrenner came in and shut down the mic's?  This was a one-sided deception of the American people, and Tommy still blames the Democrats.  Have you said that you support the troops today?

                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by juliajayne (June 06, 2008 4:23 pm ET)
                           
                        They were pretty bold about shutting the Democrats out. It was disgraceful.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by roundhouse (June 06, 2008 4:35 pm ET)
                             
                          Who was it they shut down? Was it Conyers? I remember the hearings, which were forcibly made unofficial, being moved to a basement down the street from the white house.

                          Yeah, Republicans hit an all time low with that junk.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by juliajayne (June 06, 2008 4:57 pm ET)
                               
                            That was Conyers.
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by tommy (June 06, 2008 5:03 pm ET)
                                 
                              Poor Democrats, always the victim.  They've been in charge on the hill for two years now and their supporters are still making excuses for their ineptitude.  They must love you people.
                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by roundhouse (June 06, 2008 5:13 pm ET)
                                   
                                Ya know what, fella? I ain't gonna let you wreck my joy today. Because I'm feelin' it, aren't you? Something is changing in our culture. Conservatism has finally lost its stranglehold.

                                But you do realize you're blaming Democrats for the filthy amoral soul of Republicans? You get that, right? You might as well tell us that Democrats started the Iraq occupation. You do know that, had the rank and file Republican not been so concerned with shouting down the left, y'all could have joined us sensible liberals in protest. But no. You had to have your taste of victory.

                                So be it. Now pay the piper, boy.
                                Report Abuse
                                • Author by tommy (June 06, 2008 5:15 pm ET)
                                     
                                  Round, I am thrilled you are feelin' your joy today, and I don't want to be the one who wrecks it.......so celebrate my good man!  Enjoy!
                                  Report Abuse
                              • Author by foghornleghorn (June 06, 2008 5:14 pm ET)
                                   

                                Poor Republicans, always the victim.  They were in charge on the hill for 12 years now and their supporters are still making excuses for their ineptitude.  They must love you, Tommy.

                                There, I fixed your post for you.  Reads much clearer, don't you think?

                                Report Abuse
                                • Author by tommy (June 06, 2008 5:17 pm ET)
                                     

                                  Absolutely agree, Republicans whine as much as Democrats and if this were a conservative blog I would have said exactly what you just did.....so thank you.

                                   

                                  Report Abuse
                                • Author by princeofwheels (June 06, 2008 5:21 pm ET)
                                     

                                  Why don't the Conservative whinners just start their own party and leave the poor Republans to their business?

                                  Also, why didn't the Republan White House, Senate and House of R's pass drilling legislation when they had the chance? All of a sudden it is Carters' fault. Like I said, with leaders like Rush and Sissy Sean, they should sweep to victories on every poll they conduct on their shows. And maybe Fox could give these Cons a plugg now and then.

                                  Report Abuse
                • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (June 06, 2008 3:20 pm ET)
                     
                  Awesome plagiarizing, AA. Keep up the good work.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (June 06, 2008 3:32 pm ET)
                       
                    Ooops, sorry, AA. I should read further before posting. I only saw your initial plagiarized post, I see you added the credit in the last one.Looks like our little talks are helping you towards recovery! ;0)
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by anotheramerican (June 06, 2008 3:44 pm ET)
                         
                      (Must be Friday.) I slipped on two posts in this thread. Sorry if it caused any confusion. 
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (June 07, 2008 3:40 am ET)
                           

                        I don't think anybody's confused, AA. By "slipped" I'm assuming you mean "got caught lying" and as you're a well-known plagiarist and liar, everybody should be quite clear.

                        Please stop insulting the other posters intelligence . I can't believe you think anybody actually falls for your "hit post too soon/ inadvertently forgot the link" weasel maneuver.

                        No wait, don't stop. Your basement -level troll work is entertaining, and a good demonstration of conservative dishonesty and lack of personal accountability. Keep up the good work.

                        Report Abuse
          • Author by jeter2 (June 06, 2008 2:52 pm ET)
               

            Good point Bruce.

            Republicans have stood by & let Bush almost singlehandedly destroy the Republican Party. They also [with a little help from some Dems] allowed him to wage a war.

            I think the more Republicans that acknowledge that the Bush administration mislead us into war the more apt they are to begin to restore the credibility they lost.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by roundhouse (June 06, 2008 3:47 pm ET)
                 
              Maybe, Jeter.

              But I think what the Republicans did amounts to more than simply allowing Bush to destroy the party. I think they had a shovel and were doing a fair amount of digging of their own.

              And for that arrogance and complicity Republicans just might be facing a generation of political irrelevance. It's kinda unfortunate timing for Republicans that it's all come apart like this at just the moment such a charismatic figure like Obama has emerged.

              Sure would hate to be a Republican these days. No energy, no vigor, no creativity, no leadership, no trust, no ideas, no plans.

              Hope I'm wrong because it probably won't take long for Democrats to suffer the same fate if they're given the same single party dominance.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by juliajayne (June 06, 2008 3:52 pm ET)
                   
                It's hard out there for a pimp....er, I mean Republican.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by roundhouse (June 06, 2008 4:02 pm ET)
                     
                  Yeah, it really is. They can't get the money for the rent, even though they wade in lobbyists and special interests groups up to their eye-teeth. Meanwhile, barack has given all those bastids the boot.
                  Report Abuse
              • Author by jeter2 (June 06, 2008 4:29 pm ET)
                   

                Hope I'm wrong because it probably won't take long for Democrats to suffer the same fate if they're given the same single party dominance.

                Roundhouse, that brings to mind: Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely...

                I have always thought our government has operated more efficiently when power is shared, preferably a Democratic President & a majority Republican Congress, though it probably works fine either way.

                The Republicans have royally screwed up & deserve to remain the minority in the Senate & House & be driven out of the White House. We need a kind of cleansing to take place.

                I look forward to President Obama & a majority Democratic Congress. And if they can turn things around sufficiently I will be the first here to applaud their efforts. And if they don't, then voters will be voting Republicans back into Congress. It just goes round & round. Always has.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by roundhouse (June 06, 2008 4:47 pm ET)
                     
                  Well, I'm a firm believer that the success of the Democrats, and even Republicans, to get things done will depend on you and I staying active.

                  Eventhough Barack has set the right tone by saying no to lobbyist and PAC money, there will be no lack of monied interests actively seeking to worm their way into our white house. We can't let that happen.
                  Report Abuse
            • Author by wzwriter (June 06, 2008 3:57 pm ET)
                 

              I think the more Republicans that acknowledge that the Bush administration mislead us into war the more apt they are to begin to restore the credibility they lost.

              It's gonna take a lot of courage on their part, jeter, because folks like Mark Levin and Rino Hunter will be fighting them every inch of the way...

              Report Abuse
        • Author by mary59 (June 06, 2008 2:13 pm ET)
             
          Admit it; according to Tom Delay, you're a liberal with your sissy ideas. You probably look French and drink lattes.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by jeter2 (June 06, 2008 2:15 pm ET)
               
            I drink Green Tea...is that close enough ;-)
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (June 06, 2008 2:20 pm ET)
                 

              I don't think you're evil because you're a Republican, Jeter. I think you're evil because you're a Yanks fan.  :-O

              You're only mildly diabolical because you're a Republican.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by jeter2 (June 06, 2008 3:02 pm ET)
                   

                Colonel,

                When is the last time the Yanks won a World Series? Don't ya think we should be taken off the evil list? Give that honor to Red Sox fans ;-)

                Report Abuse
            • Author by snoopy (June 06, 2008 2:20 pm ET)
                 
              Green tea puts you in the communist category, comrade.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by mary59 (June 06, 2008 2:20 pm ET)
                 
              Hmm...that might get a pass. We need further study.. do you eat mashed potatoes with your bare hands, or do you use a forque?
              Report Abuse
              • Author by jeter2 (June 06, 2008 2:30 pm ET)
                   

                I actually prefer baked potatoes or potato salad, however when eating mashed potatoes I use a fork, sometimes with my elite pinky finger extended ;-)

                Report Abuse
        • Author by juliajayne (June 06, 2008 3:19 pm ET)
             

          This proves not ALL Republicans are evil...which is something I often read here ;-)

           

          • - jeter2 / Friday June 6, 2008 2:01:43 PM EDT

          Well my momma's evil and she just HAPPENS to be a Republican. Just coincidence I'm sure. :-)

          Report Abuse
          • Author by jeter2 (June 06, 2008 3:45 pm ET)
               

            Aw Julia, you think your Mom is evil? That's terrible! I mean terrible if she really is...and you're not just funning me.

            However, I do believe her being "evil" & a Republican is merely a coincidence...

            My Mom & Dad have always voted all over the place. Nixon, LBJ, Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Bush. No wonder my genes are all screwed up...politically ;-)

            Report Abuse
            • Author by juliajayne (June 06, 2008 3:56 pm ET)
                 

              Dude, I gave you a perfectly good set up. You were supposed to say "hey, if your Mom is evil, then the apple doesn't fall from the tree". Thanks for messing that up.

              Then I would say, "yeah, I cop to being evil and I'm mean as a junkyard dog also. Now don't make me hurt you, Dude." :-0)

              In any case....Grrrrrrr.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by jeter2 (June 06, 2008 4:04 pm ET)
                   

                Well grrrrrrr back at ya ;-)

                Can I help it if I'm a sensitive guy & felt bad that you had an evil Momma?

                Of course you're evil Julia, but I'm not gonna blame your sweet Republican Mom for that :-)

                Report Abuse
        • Author by wzwriter (June 06, 2008 3:31 pm ET)
             
          That's because you're not in the same category as Rino Hunter.  You see shades of gray - he only sees black or white.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by jeter2 (June 06, 2008 3:59 pm ET)
               

            Wiz, you just reminded me of a Billy Joel song [Shades Of Grey] that fits here:

            Some things were perfectly clear,

            seen with the vision of youth

            No doubts and nothing to fear,

            I claimed the corner on truth

            These days it's harder to say

            I know what I'm fighting for

            My faith is falling away

            I'm not that sure anymore

            Shades of grey wherever I go

            The more I find out the less that I know

            Black and white is how it should be

            But shades of grey are the colors I see

            Once there were trenches and walls

            and one point of every view

            Fight 'til the other man falls

            Kill him before he kills you

            These days the edges are blurred,

            I'm old and tired of war

            I hear the other man's words

            I'm not that sure anymore

            Shades of grey are all that I find

            When I look to the enemy line

            Black and white was so easy for me

            But shades of grey are the colors I see

            Now with the wisdom of years

            I try to reason things out

            And the only people I fear

            are those who never have doubts

            Save us all from arrogant men,

            and all the causes they're for

            I won't be righteous again

            I'm not that sure anymore

            Shades of grey are all that I find

            when I look to the enemy line

            There ain't no rainbows shining on me

            Shades of grey are the colours I see

            Shades of grey wherever I go

            The more I find out the less that I know

            There ain't no rainbows shining on me

            Shades of grey are the colors I see

            Report Abuse
            • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (June 06, 2008 4:03 pm ET)
                 
              Yankees and Billy Joel fan? Sorry, Jeter, the Evil alert level just went up.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by juliajayne (June 06, 2008 4:17 pm ET)
                   

                Can one be evil and sensitive at the same time?

                Report Abuse
              • Author by wzwriter (June 06, 2008 4:36 pm ET)
                   

                Yankees and Billy Joel fan? Sorry, Jeter, the Evil alert level just went up.

                I prefer to think of it as Jeter being in a New York State of Mind...  :-)

                Report Abuse
                • Author by juliajayne (June 06, 2008 4:59 pm ET)
                     
                  I always wondered if Jeter's real name is Vinny or Camine. 
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by juliajayne (June 06, 2008 5:01 pm ET)
                       
                    SB Carmine.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by eweston8542983 (June 06, 2008 8:55 pm ET)
                         
                      Is dat you Camembert?
                      Report Abuse
                    • Author by Craig (June 07, 2008 6:55 pm ET)
                         

                      Is Jeter The Big Ragu?

                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by jeter2 (June 07, 2008 10:44 pm ET)
                           

                        Ha! No it's not Vinny or Carmine [The Big Ragu]...it's Michael, but you guys can call me Mike :-)

                        Sorry to disappoint...I know Julia was hoping for something more ethnic sounding ;-)

                        And I look more like this [honest]...hope this works, if it comes out blank...no jokes ya here?

                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by eweston8542983 (June 07, 2008 11:17 pm ET)
                             
                          A nice ruffled well dressed look Jeter. Looks like you'd fit right in a high class action film.
                          Report Abuse
                        • Author by juliajayne (June 08, 2008 10:36 am ET)
                             
                          J2, Actually I'm pleased that your name isn't Vinny or Carmine. I just can't get into those names. Now do you tawk with a New Yawk accent?
                          Report Abuse
                        • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (June 09, 2008 2:45 am ET)
                             

                          That's why I hate you so much, Jeter. Besides being a Yankees fan, you look like that, & I look exactly like this--

                          Report Abuse
      • Author by Science101 (June 06, 2008 3:16 pm ET)
           

        It doesn't mean they aren't real republicans...but by historical standards, I dont see how too many of them could be considered that. 

        However, those two have been anti-war for a long, long time and have been advocating their stances.  This report comes to no surprise, nor does it reveal any new information at all.

        Its nothing more than Dem's ganging up on Bush Administration and a few lost dogs following.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by wzwriter (June 06, 2008 3:36 pm ET)
             

          Its nothing more than Dem's ganging up on Bush Administration and a few lost dogs following.

          Oh, boo-frickin'-hoo, Columbus.  Bush and his accomplices are finally being called to task for their illegal actions, and you call for a pity party......

          Report Abuse
          • Author by Science101 (June 06, 2008 6:02 pm ET)
               
            Hey I dont support Bush, so that doesn't effect me.  But there's a big difference between choosing wrong intelligence and illegal.  The same intel was made available to the rest of the administration and congress, and a vote was held.  If you're going to accuse anyone of doing something illegal, may as well over throw the entire congress and presidential administration.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by funnymanpants (June 06, 2008 7:07 pm ET)
                 

              Columbus wrote:

              >> But there's a big difference between choosing wrong intelligence and illegal.  

              Yes, there sure is. Choosing the wrong intelligence is not illegal. Waging a preventive war, like the one waged against Iraq, is clearly illegal according to international law. Further, Bush just didn't "choose wrong intelligence." He outright lied America into war.

              lnk 

               

              Report Abuse
        • Author by dbeden4153 (June 06, 2008 3:47 pm ET)
             

          "Its nothing more than Dem's ganging up on Bush Administration and a few lost dogs following."

          Aww, poor Bush, getting picked on by those awful Dems.  And all he did was lead a propaganda machine of misinformation and fear to invade a sovereign nation with no capability or intention of attacking us and, now, is setting up a permanent military junta so that the 100 years in Iraq could very well be a reality.

          My favorite quote from that article:

          "American negotiators are also demanding immunity from Iraqi law for US troops and contractors, and a free hand to carry out arrests and conduct military activities in Iraq without consulting the Baghdad government."

          emphasis mine.

          We are no longer even asking the Iraqis to "stand up so we can stand down."

          If you still support this war, you need to be taken out back and beat with a switch. 

          Report Abuse
    • Author by nerzog (June 06, 2008 1:59 pm ET)
         
      How long will it take the "Liberal Media" to deep-six this story? They killed the Pentagon Propaganda story within a few days.... will this one last a week? Do the "journalists" fear this story because they are complicit in the lies, or because it could lead to criminal prosecution of President Numbnuts and Dickless Cheney?

      This morning, Joe Scarborough laughed out loud as this story was read. Then he called it "old news" and repeated the lie that EVERYBODY thought Saddam had WMD... yada yada yada. Then he said what we REALLY need to investigate is why Obama stayed in that church for 20 years.

      The general attitude among the Media and Republicons is that this is "old news" and has already been settled. (?) These are the same people who dragged us through years of investigation, nightly news analysis, and an impeachment trial over President Clinton's hummer. What's wrong with this picture?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (June 06, 2008 2:04 pm ET)
           

        Nerz, that's what's cracking me up, and it seems to be going down just fine with the media and many of our fellow Americans. The dirtbags finally getting some blowback from their BS of the last 8 years, and calling it "old news".

        I'd like to see the defendant in a drawn out murder trial try that with the judge, as solid evidence surfaced. "Can't we move on and dismiss this, yerroner? Old news."

        Report Abuse
        • Author by jeter2 (June 06, 2008 2:14 pm ET)
             

          Nerzog & Colonel,

          It's too late for impeachment, but I believe Obama has said that if elected he would be open to the possibility of investigating potential high crimes in the Bush Administration.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by Governor (June 06, 2008 2:17 pm ET)
               
            No, Obama is not for that.  Nader is, though.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by wolf kotenberg (June 06, 2008 2:31 pm ET)
               
            Obama said we must move the nation forward in a different direction. The history books will punish forever.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by jeter2 (June 06, 2008 2:39 pm ET)
                 

              Wolf, here is what Obama said:

              "What I would want to do is to have my Justice Department and my Attorney General immediately review the information that's already there and to find out are there inquiries that need to be pursued. I can't prejudge that because we don't have access to all the material right now. I think that you are right, if crimes have been committed, they should be investigated. You're also right that I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt because I think we've got too many problems we've got to solve.

              So this is an area where I would want to exercise judgment -- I would want to find out directly from my Attorney General -- having pursued, having looked at what's out there right now -- are there possibilities of genuine crimes as opposed to really bad policies. And I think it's important-- one of the things we've got to figure out in our political culture generally is distinguishing betyween really dumb policies and policies that rise to the level of criminal activity. You know, I often get questions about impeachment at town hall meetings and I've said that is not something I think would be fruitful to pursue because I think that impeachment is something that should be reserved for exceptional circumstances. Now, if I found out that there were high officials who knowingly, consciously broke existing laws, engaged in coverups of those crimes with knowledge forefront, then I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law -- and I think that's roughly how I would look at it."

              Report Abuse
    • Author by DeminTX (June 06, 2008 2:03 pm ET)
         
      How can you MoveOn from an occupation that is still ongoing?  Oh, I get it, just continue to allow our troops to be target practice for IEDs and sniper fire, while dismissing the lies that put them there in the first place.  I'm sure the troops appreciate that.And, I'm not downplaying the job the troops are doing (I'm one of them and have been for 26 years).  But, you better be upfront with them on what they're to do and why they're to do it.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (June 06, 2008 2:11 pm ET)
           

        How can you MoveOn from an occupation that is still ongoing? 

        Good point, DeminTx. my murder trial analogy isn't really accurate.The defendant would have to be in the process of murdering additional victims during the trial as he asked the judge to "get over it".

        Report Abuse
        • Author by juliajayne (June 06, 2008 3:27 pm ET)
             
          The rightys on the radio - even Paul Harvey's fill in - Ron Chapman are in full court press downplaying the casualties as of late. To what purpose, I don't know. It sounds to me like they are glad only a select few are getting killed. I say when the number goes to zero, we will have something to really talk about. In the meantime, why they aren't just appalled that even one soldier is getting killed is a mystery to me.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by BottleBlonde (June 07, 2008 1:11 pm ET)
               

            On Friday I had to run out at lunchtime and listened to Rush Limbaugh telling us that the casualities on D-Day were greater than the casualities that have been suffered in the 5 years of the Iraq War. He said that D-Day dwarfed the current war, in fact. He also said that there were 2000 killed in the training leading up to D-Day. Both are false.

            According to the British D-Day museum's website, total Allied casualties on D-Day are estimated at 10,000, including 2500 dead.

            http://www.ddaymuseum.co.uk/faq.htm

            Because of advances in battlefield medical treatment and body armor, many more soldiers are living with wounds and many more soldiers are preventing from having mortal wounds. The coalition (mostly American forces) has had more than 33,000 casualites including 29,000 injured in Iraq currently according to http://icasualties.org/oif/

            According to the British paper The Guardian, http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2004/apr/24/secondworldwar.world under 800 people were casualties during a training exercise because German boats happened upon landing craft practicing on the British coastline.

            What did Rush tell Time Magazine a few years ago? "We lost over 1,000 soldiers in a training mission for D-day." That's not right, but now he's saying that it's twice that amount. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101040607-644143,00.html

             

            Report Abuse
    • Author by pete592 (June 06, 2008 2:37 pm ET)
         
      "I'm credible because I read the intelligence, David, and make it abundantly clear in plain terms that if we let up, we'll be attacked. And I firmly believe that."  --- W
      Report Abuse
    • Author by anotheramerican (June 06, 2008 2:50 pm ET)
         

      Regarding Hagel.  His Republican colleagues regard him warily. The White House barely speaks to him. He is reviled by his party's conservative base.

      Olympia Snowe is another outspoken critic of the Administration's handling of the war.

      No wonder these two supported the majority view. 

      Report Abuse
      • Author by dbeden4153 (June 06, 2008 3:08 pm ET)
           
        And that's strange, because except for the Iraq war, Chuck Hagel is a solid conservative and has been in lock-step with Bush on everything else.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by friedbergboy1422 (June 06, 2008 3:26 pm ET)
             

          DBED,

          It looks like AA lifted his quote from this article word for word

          http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/25/AR2007012502086.html

          Report Abuse
          • Author by dbeden4153 (June 06, 2008 3:31 pm ET)
               
            HAHAHAHAHA
            Report Abuse
            • Author by juliajayne (June 06, 2008 3:33 pm ET)
                 
              AA has been busted AGAIN. Sheesh.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by anotheramerican (June 06, 2008 4:26 pm ET)
                   
                In looking up Snowe I overlooked sourcing the Hagel quote. I'm guilty of hitting the post too soon. Sorry for the confusion. Glad you guys are getting a kick out of it. :-) 
                Report Abuse
                • Author by wzwriter (June 06, 2008 4:40 pm ET)
                     
                  Kinda makes you wish MMFA had an edit feature, doesn't it?  :-)
                  Report Abuse
          • Author by anotheramerican (June 06, 2008 3:35 pm ET)
               
            That's where I got it.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (June 06, 2008 3:47 pm ET)
                 

              Uhhh, yeah Barn, that's what you just got busted on. You don't have to explain it to the ones who busted you.

               

              Report Abuse
              • Author by juliajayne (June 06, 2008 4:02 pm ET)
                   
                Be nice to Barn. He couldn't find his comb this morning.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (June 07, 2008 3:48 am ET)
                     
                  Barney couldn't find his ass with both hands. He's pretty good at finding easily-debunked quotes with Google ,though. Not so good at passing them off as his own ideas. Har!
                  Report Abuse
        • Author by wzwriter (June 06, 2008 4:39 pm ET)
             

          And that's strange, because except for the Iraq war, Chuck Hagel is a solid conservative and has been in lock-step with Bush on everything else.

          That's the problem.  Unless you march 100% in lock-step on ALL issues with the Bush Misadministration, you're a RINO (if you're a Republican) or a marxist (if you're a Democrat)

          Report Abuse
      • Author by friedbergboy1422 (June 06, 2008 3:12 pm ET)
           

        AA,

        Could you please post quotes about the Republican base not liking Hagel?  Thanks in advance!

        Report Abuse
        • Author by anotheramerican (June 06, 2008 3:33 pm ET)
             

          Fried,

          My comment was simply that. It is well known that Hagel's criticism of the war is not appreciated by the Administration and the conservatives who support the war effort.  

          Report Abuse
          • Author by worrierking (June 06, 2008 3:45 pm ET)
               
            I once took a writing class and remember the teacher saying to try to get you point across with as few words as possible.

            You could have written "conservatives who support the war effort" as the 27 percenters.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by dbeden4153 (June 06, 2008 3:53 pm ET)
                 

              Last I heard it was down to 23%...anyone know the actual number?

               

              Report Abuse
              • Author by anotheramerican (June 06, 2008 4:27 pm ET)
                   
                Thomas Jefferson said that one person with courage is a majority.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by worrierking (June 06, 2008 4:30 pm ET)
                     
                  Then we can say that Chuck Hagel and Olympia Stowe are a majority of Republicans.
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by pearlene_scott1602 (June 06, 2008 7:59 pm ET)
                     

                  Thomas Jefferson said that one person with courage is a majority.

                  "He was so learned that he could name a horse in nine languages; so ignorant that he bought a cow to ride on" Benjamin Franklin

                  Report Abuse
            • Author by wzwriter (June 06, 2008 4:01 pm ET)
                 

              You could have written "conservatives who support the war effort" as the 27 percenters.

              You can also refer to them as "mentally deficient".

              Report Abuse
          • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (June 06, 2008 4:02 pm ET)
               
            If it's well known, why did you have to Google( and plagiarize) it?
            Report Abuse
          • Author by BottleBlonde (June 07, 2008 3:13 am ET)
               

            My comment was simply that. It is well known that Hagel's criticism of the war is not appreciated by the Administration and the conservatives who support the war effort.  Another American

            Your comment? Wasn't it someone else's comment you plagiarized, and not your comment?

            Report Abuse
            • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (June 07, 2008 3:53 am ET)
                 

              His comment, while "widely known" was something that he had to Google .And once again, AA got busted lying, and cutting & running.

              I apologize to all of the regulars who give AA a special cousin free pass for his polite-guy act, and who treat him with the kid gloves, but I just can't resist bagging on this pathetic, lying troll.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by BottleBlonde (June 07, 2008 12:40 pm ET)
                   
                I appreciate your efforts. I think the rightwingers on this site get too much of a pass. If only they could participate in honest debate it would be a better site.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by juliajayne (June 07, 2008 5:24 pm ET)
                   

                I bag on him because he labels himself a Christian and he acts and thinks like anything but IMO. Thus I do not give him a pass.

                Report Abuse
    • Author by representativepress (June 07, 2008 2:06 am ET)
         

      SEE VIDEO: War Crime Sold By Neocon Deception, IMPEACH NOW

      Read about UPI reporter revealing what Neocons told him before the war. 

      Report Abuse
    • Author by representativepress (June 07, 2008 4:54 am ET)
         
       See Video: Neocons Perle, Feith, Libby and others pushed for Iraq War  Neocons were conning the American people/.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by esperito3523 (June 07, 2008 8:33 am ET)
         
      that committee does not have any credibility. the same whose oversight brought us curve-ball. they should talk.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by eweston8542983 (June 07, 2008 12:27 pm ET)
         
      Their still trying, getting fewer and fewer buyers.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by spadeholder (June 08, 2008 2:42 am ET)
         
      Well we finally have 2 Reprublicans that have moved pass denial. But we still have the rest of the Republicans stuck in the denial stage and thier mouth pieces Fox News ane CNN, who seem to think falsey reporting this Senates select hearing findings being paritsan will somehow change history.  Would it have changed the facts if Hagel and/or Snowes hadn't agreed with it? At least were down to the Republican, excuse me, I meant Fox New and CNN, final defense, that this is simpley a partisan attempt by the Democrats.  LAME!!!!!!!!
      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.