Greenspan misquoted: Iraq war wasn't oil grab by the administration

[radioguy]

Greenspan: Ouster Of Hussein Crucial For Oil Security
By Bob Woodward
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, September 17, 2007

excerpt

In the interview, he clarified that sentence in his 531-page book, saying that while securing global oil supplies was "not the administration's motive," he had presented the White House with the case for why removing Hussein was important for the global economy.

"I was not saying that that's the administration's motive," Greenspan said in an interview Saturday, "I'm just saying that if somebody asked me, 'Are we fortunate in taking out Saddam?' I would say it was essential."

He said that in his discussions with President Bush and Vice President Cheney, "I have never heard them basically say, 'We've got to protect the oil supplies of the world,' but that would have been my motive." Greenspan said that he made his economic argument to White House officials and that one lower-level official, whom he declined to identify, told him, "Well, unfortunately, we can't talk about oil." Asked if he had made his point to Cheney specifically, Greenspan said yes, then added, "I talked to everybody about that."...



...As for Iraq, Greenspan said that at the time of the invasion, he believed, like Bush, that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction "because Saddam was acting so guiltily trying to protect something." While he was "reasonably sure he did not have an atomic weapon," he added, "my view was that if we do nothing, eventually he would gain control of a weapon."

His main support for Hussein's ouster, though, was economically motivated. "If Saddam Hussein had been head of Iraq and there was no oil under those sands," Greenspan said, "our response to him would not have been as strong as it was in the first gulf war. And the second gulf war is an extension of the first. My view is that Saddam, looking over his 30-year history, very clearly was giving evidence of moving towards controlling the Straits of Hormuz, where there are 17, 18, 19 million barrels a day" passing through.

Greenspan said disruption of even 3 to 4 million barrels a day could translate into oil prices as high as $120 a barrel -- far above even the recent highs of $80 set last week -- and the loss of anything more would mean "chaos" to the global economy.

Given that, "I'm saying taking Saddam out was essential," he said. But he added that he was not implying that the war was an oil grab.

"No, no, no," he said. Getting rid of Hussein achieved the purpose of "making certain that the existing system [of oil markets] continues to work, frankly, until we find other [energy supplies], which ultimately we will."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/16/AR2007091601287.html?hpid=topnews

[Bill]

There ya go.

It was all a big misunderstanding.

Kudos to the washington post and reliable and serious authority Bob Woodward for explaining it all away!

[Linkster]

Why not post the whole thing since most here dont have accounts at the WP - and it might frame the article a little better if you had left in the parts where he said "Though Greenspan's book is largely silent about Iraq, it is sharply critical of Bush and fellow Republicans on other matters, denouncing in particular what Greenspan calls the president's lack of fiscal discipline and the "dysfunctional government" he has presided over. In the interview, Greenspan said he had previously told Bush and Cheney of his critique. "They're not surprised by my conclusions," he said."

And he didnt say he was misquoted - "he said in an interview that the removal of Saddam Hussein had been "essential" to secure world oil supplies, a point he emphasized to the White House in private conversations before the 2003 invasion of Iraq."

[radioguy]

And he didnt say he was misquoted - "he said in an interview that the removal of Saddam Hussein had been "essential" to secure world oil supplies, a point he emphasized to the White House in private conversations before the 2003 invasion of Iraq."

You are correct. I shouldn't have used the word "Misquoted" in the title.

Other than that, the story stands on its merit.

[disrupter]

In otherwords there was no SANE, RATIONAL or TANGIBLE reason for invading Iraq.

it was all about metaphysics.

[Smurf-Herder]

In other words, he explained himself on TV this past weekend.

He was very clear that he himself thought Saddam should be removed, because it was all about "Oil Security" for everyone. It's on the network news shows. It'll probably be on YouTube soon.

[radioguy]

In otherwords there was no SANE, RATIONAL or TANGIBLE reason for invading Iraq.

How about a little reality check via the article I posted:

Greenspan said that at the time of the invasion, he believed, like Bush, that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction "because Saddam was acting so guiltily trying to protect something." While he was "reasonably sure he did not have an atomic weapon," he added, "my view was that if we do nothing, eventually he would gain control of a weapon."

Let us not forget these facts:

* The conclusions of American Intelligence agencies that Iraq had stock piles of WMD
* The conclusions of nearly every world wide intelligence agency that Iraq had stock piles of WMD
* Saddam's refusal to fully comply with UN Resolution 1441
* Saddam himself declaring he had WMD
* Saddam refusing to account for his declared WMD
* Saddam using WMD on his own people
* Saddam's financial support for terrorism
* Saddam providing safe refuge for known terrorists
* Saddam's record of aggression in the region

As I've just demonstrated, America did in fact have very sane and rational reasons for invading Iraq. So much so, that both the senate and the congress overwhelmingly voted to give the president authorization to use military force, and 33 other countries joined America in the fight.

Those confounded facts just ruin a good anti-American rant, don't they disrupter? :lmao2:

[Linkster]

Yep - those pretty much parallel the excuses that Japan used in its propaganda to sway the masses "in the homeland" after they attacked Pearl Harbor - damned US terrorists were ready to take over the world if they didnt stop us

[radioguy]

In other words, he explained himself on TV this past weekend.

He was very clear that he himself thought Saddam should be removed, because it was all about "Oil Security" for everyone. It's on the network news shows. It'll probably be on YouTube soon.

That is correct. Greenspan's concern was the oil reserves and how Saddam could effect the flow of oil with regards to both the American economy, as well as the global economy. Being chairman of the Federal Reserve, that was what he was supposed to be concerned about. But the original story about his book, took something he said out of context in order to bash the Bush administration, by accusing them of going to war with Iraq over oil. Something that Greenspan never believed, and therefore had to correct by speaking up publicly.

[radioguy]

Yep - those pretty much parallel the excuses that Japan used in its propaganda to sway the masses "in the homeland" after they attacked Pearl Harbor - damned US terrorists were ready to take over the world if they didnt stop us

What a pathetic, chicken shit response. I gave you more credit than to respond to facts with tripe like that. The United States was only one of dozens of other countries that believed the same, based on their own intelligence.

Care to refute what I listed, or is bullshit propaganda to justify your support for the positions of America's enemies all you can come up with?

[Linkster]

What a pathetic, chicken shit response. I gave you more credit than to respond to facts with tripe like that. The United States was only one of dozens of other countries that believed the same, based on their own intelligence.


First - I was actually tring out your methods to see if they would work - looks like us "other party" people that dont like to be associated with Repubs or Dems dont have the stock answers ready yet

And the US was one of many countries that were given the false intel by the idiots that were trying to out-talk the CIA when the CIA was proving that there were no WMDs - unfortunately when the lead undercover CIA agent that was tracking real nuclear material got outted by the White House, that trail and the work of dozens of undercover agents was stopped

[TheCenturion]

How about a little reality check via the article I posted:

Greenspan said that at the time of the invasion, he believed, like Bush, that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction "because Saddam was acting so guiltily trying to protect something." While he was "reasonably sure he did not have an atomic weapon," he added, "my view was that if we do nothing, eventually he would gain control of a weapon."

Let us not forget these facts:

* The conclusions of American Intelligence agencies that Iraq had stock piles of WMD
* The conclusions of nearly every world wide intelligence agency that Iraq had stock piles of WMD
* Saddam's refusal to fully comply with UN Resolution 1441
* Saddam himself declaring he had WMD
* Saddam refusing to account for his declared WMD
* Saddam using WMD on his own people
* Saddam's financial support for terrorism
* Saddam providing safe refuge for known terrorists
* Saddam's record of aggression in the region

As I've just demonstrated, America did in fact have very sane and rational reasons for invading Iraq. So much so, that both the senate and the congress overwhelmingly voted to give the president authorization to use military force, and 33 other countries joined America in the fight.

Those confounded facts just ruin a good anti-American rant, don't they disrupter? :lmao2:


Here's an emblematic example of the delusional state of denial that is pandemic among right-wing war worshipers. It's a case study of US Fascist Fanaticism and intellectual ineptitude.

The goose stepping brown-shirts who peddle these fetid lies have lead us into the quagmire of Iraq through a noxious brew of dissembling and deceit and are just as purposefully leading America over a cliff from which no recovery will be possible from a further catastrophe with Iran.

This compendium of right-wing excuses, obfuscation and spin is a textbook example of myopic dementia on a mass scale but none of it is relevant to the core issues. And Greenspan's statement is crystal clear: “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,” he says. And it's clear because, as desperately as Greenspan is now trying to "shove the toothpaste back in the tube", everybody in the reality based community has known and acknowledged these basic and obvious facts from the first day Bush's War Machinery began ramping up to commit the criminally insane disaster that Iraq could only be for America. And the millions of people around the globe who poured into the streets prior to Bush's Criminal Aggression against Iraq knew it then just as they still know it. Nothing has changed one iota. Except now, there are a few hundred thousand victims.

But even as many Germans continued to advocate for the Third Reich as it lay in the flaming ruins from allied bombs, these brain-dead Bushist Robots from Hell won't be satisfied until the same fate engulfs America as a consequence of their slavish and traitorous liturgy of death and destruction.

They don't deserve to be called Americans. Their mission is not to protect America and our cherished values of a liberal Democracy. Their only loyalty is to their Cabal of lying criminal sycophants whose mission is to wave a tacky little flag in our faces while they take America down into their cesspool of terminal fear, racism, xenophobia and hate and to force us to wallow in it with them.

It's not going to happen...ever.

[radioguy]

And the US was one of many countries that were given the false intel by the idiots that were trying to out-talk the CIA when the CIA was proving that there were no WMDs - unfortunately when the lead undercover CIA agent that was tracking real nuclear material got outted by the White House, that trail and the work of dozens of undercover agents was stopped

That is unsubstantiated bullshit Linkster. The Senate Intelligence Committee's report on Iraq's pre-war weapons capabilities, concluded unanimously that the CIA believed in each and every claim they made, which was that Iraq had both chemical and biological weapons, and was actively attempting to reconstitute its nuclear program. The CIA believed this for 3 years before Bush was elected into office. All you have to do is read transcripts of president Clinton's speeches, and the public comments made by several members of his administration.

[Linkster]

Wow - you really do believe everything that O'Rielly puts out - or is it Glen? Ive got to admit that occasionally I run into someone that is so blinded by anothers rants and corrupted history accounts, but it takes me by surprise every time it happens :thumbsup: You sir, have no idea what you are talking about and it would serve you well to go study for yourself instead of listening to the talkheads out there - it really makes you look bad
And Please dont start posting all the BS about Clinton and his CIA IE's and the stupid press releases you can find out on the boards - if you want to find out what was really happening with nuclear research and WMDs - go read some of the discussions on Valarie Plames group attempts to track real nuclear material and prevent it from falling into real terrorists hands - and go read up on how Iran really got their nuclear technology

[Smurf-Herder]

I save this for special occasions:

If The Bush Administration Lied About WMD, So Did These People -- Version 3.0
http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/demsonwmds.php/

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others.

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

[TheCenturion]

I save this for special occasions:

If The Bush Administration Lied About WMD, So Did These People -- Version 3.0
http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/demsonwmds.php/

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others.

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998


Thanks for that little exposition of self flagellation from Right Wing News...LOL
Here's something you're bound to find equally compelling. Good luck and let us know how you make out.

Join the Flat Earth Society

The Flat Earth Society is always pleased to welcome new members into its ranks. After all, the organization has been around for 451 years. If we failed to allow outsiders to join us, the whole organization wouldn't really be able to last too long, now, would it?

But we also cannot take the risk of simply letting anyone in that feels so inclined. Followers of Efimovich's teachings are always eager to infiltrate our group and undermine what we are trying to accomplish. So, to deal both with the painstakingly time-consuming task of interviewing each individual applicant separately, and to avoid being overwhelmed by the sheer numbers of those wishing to be a member of the Flat Earth Society, we have developed an easier way to screen applicants, and get them out and working in as short a time as possible.

To that end, we have put together this survey. Fill in every blank below, and then press the "Send" button to transmit your application for approval by one of our fine Flat Earth Society officers. The results will be sent back to you as pass/fail only, and you should receive notification and further instructions within two weeks. http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm

[Smurf-Herder]

Thanks for that little exercise in flagellation from Right Wing News...LOL Here's something you're bound to find equally compelling. Good luck and let us know how you make out.

Join the Flat Earth Society

The Flat Earth Society is always pleased to welcome new members into its ranks. After all, the organization has been around for 451 years. If we failed to allow outsiders to join us, the whole organization wouldn't really be able to last too long, now, would it?

But we also cannot take the risk of simply letting anyone in that feels so inclined. Followers of Efimovich's teachings are always eager to infiltrate our group and undermine what we are trying to accomplish. So, to deal both with the painstakingly time-consuming task of interviewing each individual applicant separately, and to avoid being overwhelmed by the sheer numbers of those wishing to be a member of the Flat Earth Society, we have developed an easier way to screen applicants, and get them out and working in as short a time as possible.

To that end, we have put together this survey. Fill in every blank below, and then press the "Send" button to transmit your application for approval by one of our fine Flat Earth Society officers. The results will be sent back to you as pass/fail only, and you should receive notification and further instructions within two weeks. http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm


Typical elitist, Libero-fascist putdown. :hammer:

[Linkster]

Typical elitist, Libero-fascist putdown. :hammer:

But a good expected response to a typical conservative-fascist putdown :lmao2:

[radioguy]

You are very misinformed Linkster. Does accusing me of spouting the words of pundits and political commentators help you to justify your warped beliefs? It must, because you haven't a clue where I get my information from. I happen to have read the more than 500 page Senate report and have a copy of it on my computer for reference. I also have a copy of the 9/11 commission report, along with the Silberman Robb report too.

I have presented the facts, not false information. My words are backed up by the conclusions of the most credible investigations that have taken place on these issues, rather than the conspiracy crap you regurgitate from far left anti-American websites.

I told you where my fact come from, now how about you telling me where you get your misinformation from?

[Linkster]

Im getting my information from the report from the Senate Intelligence Committee - at Congressional Record: July 8, 2004 (Senate)
Page S7811-S7819
Is that authoratative enough?

[radioguy]

Im getting my information from the report from the Senate Intelligence Committee - at Congressional Record: July 8, 2004 (Senate)
Page S7811-S7819
Is that authoratative enough?

Be more specific... What information did you get from there?

[Linkster]

The information to counter your claim that "The Senate Intelligence Committee's report on Iraq's pre-war weapons capabilities, concluded unanimously that the CIA believed in each and every claim they made, which was that Iraq had both chemical and biological weapons, and was actively attempting to reconstitute its nuclear program"

Unfortunately - the CIA didnt make those claims as was proven in the report - Im also surprised that you even bother with the Silberman Robb report since that had nothing to do with the misinformation - wasnt it a report specifically looking at whether the administration pressured the CIA - and concluded that they didnt - that they just took the intel and changed it

[radioguy]

Unfortunately - the CIA didnt make those claims as was proven in the report - Im also surprised that you even bother with the Silberman Robb report since that had nothing to do with the misinformation - wasnt it a report specifically looking at whether the administration pressured the CIA - and concluded that they didnt - that they just took the intel and changed it

Two things wrong here Linkster.

1. In the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, which is compiled by the Intelligence Community and supervised by the CIA, clearly stated that Iraq "is reconstituting its nuclear program," and "has chemical and biological weapons."

So if you would Linkster, please direct me to the page number in the Senate report, where it is "proven" that the CIA didn't make those claims. I can't seem to find it anywhere.

2. The Silberman Robb report also looked at the Presidents Daily Briefs and other intelligence information that only the president received in the lead up to the war in Iraq. One of their many conclusions was that the president did not receive any report that indicated anything different that the NIE contained, or different than what the senate and congress received.

So Linkster, would you be so kind as to direct me to the page in that report where it was determined that the administration "took the intel and changed it", because once again, I can't seem to find any such determination anywhere within that report.

I know you wouldn't be making this information up, right Linkster?

I mean, that would make you a liar if you were, right?

So I anxiously await for those page numbers so I can see for myself that what you have stated is true.

[Linkster]

1. I already did - I even posted the page numbers for you

2. I was referring to the purpose of the Silberman Robb report and asking a question - I was not making any assertions based on it as to the changing of the data - that was a separate comment on my part that was an overall general comment on what happened - not what was in that specific report - which is why I asked the question

[radioguy]

1. I already did - I even posted the page numbers for you

2. I was referring to the purpose of the Silberman Robb report and asking a question - I was not making any assertions based on it as to the changing of the data - that was a separate comment on my part that was an overall general comment on what happened - not what was in that specific report - which is why I asked the question

1. Talk about lies and deception... You are the king of them tonight aren't you Linkster? You stated that "the CIA didn't make those claims as was proven in the report". The "report" was the Senate Intelligence Committee's report, which I have read in full. It does not in any way, shape or form back up your accusations.

You stated that you already posted the page number, but that was a page number to the statements made on the Senate floor from Senator Levin (http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2004_cr/levin070804.html). What is said on the Senate floor is useless, because the senators are not under oath. Their statements are only exercises in political grand standing and you know it.

Even with that in mind, I read it anyway and guess what Linkster? It doesn't back up your statements. It does not state anything at all about the CIA's beliefs about Iraq's nuclear program.

So Linkster, were you lying about reading that document, or lying about what you read?

And while you ponder which answer will make you look like less of a liar, how about you either retract the statement, or direct me to the page in the senate report that backs up your bullshit?

Good luck, because I already know it doesn't exist.

2. OK, now that I have read your statement again, I suppose it is possible that you meant those remarks as questions, even though there were no question marks present. So your questions were:

a) wasnt it a report specifically looking at whether the administration pressured the CIA?
b) and concluded that they didn't?
c) that they just took the intel and changed it?

Answers:
a) NO. not specifically as I stated in my previous post.
b) CORRECT. That was one of their conclusions.
c) FALSE. No investigation to date, has ever concluded that president Bush or any members of his administration ever changed, altered or manipulated any of the published intelligence reports they received.

[Linkster]

I owe you an apology as I was talking about something completely different than you were - and it is my mistake - I totally agree that the intelligence community basically "cooked the books"(or used the group-thing agreement approach) when it came to the run-up to the war and this was concluded in the Senate report
The CIA did have those beliefs within the analytical division - the undercover field office had a little different take on it but they were not part of the NIE - which was a shame - of course they should have just listened to the DOE and realized the bias they were showing at the time

[TheCenturion]

On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior IA officers. Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam’s inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again.

Nor was the intelligence included in the National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002, which stated categorically that Iraq possessed WMD. No one in Congress was aware of the secret intelligence that Saddam had no WMD as the House of Representatives and the Senate voted, a week after the submission of the NIE, on the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq. The information, moreover, was not circulated within the CIA among those agents involved in operations to prove whether Saddam had WMD.

On April 23, 2006, CBS’s “60 Minutes” interviewed Tyler Drumheller, the former CIA chief of clandestine operations for Europe, who disclosed that the agency had received documentary intelligence from Naji Sabri, Saddam’s foreign minister, that Saddam did not have WMD. “We continued to validate him the whole way through,” said Drumheller. “The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming, and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy, to justify the policy.”

I guess some people are just big fans of idiot liars, we can’t blame them for that! Oh wait, yes… yes, we can

[radioguy]

I owe you an apology as I was talking about something completely different than you were - and it is my mistake - I totally agree that the intelligence community basically "cooked the books"(or used the group-thing agreement approach) when it came to the run-up to the war and this was concluded in the Senate report
The CIA did have those beliefs within the analytical division - the undercover field office had a little different take on it but they were not part of the NIE - which was a shame - of course they should have just listened to the DOE and realized the bias they were showing at the time

Finally, someone who has the integrity and fortitude to admit when they have made a mistake. In my years of posting on various websites, there have been very few on the left that posses such honesty, and I commend you Linkster for having the guts to apologize. In fact, I am more inclined to believe your not on the political left, because the odds of finding a liberal who could be so honest, are about the same as me hitting all 6 numbers on Lotto.

And btw, the Senate report concluded that the CIA didn't "Cook the books". They determined that CIA analysts truly believed in the conclusions they came to, even though most of those conclusions turned out to be wrong. What they in essence did, was take the "Better safe than sorry" approach when they assessed Iraq's threat. The attacks of 9/11 were considered by analysts, to be a failure on their part, because they never saw it coming. So when they did their assessments, the last thing they wanted to do was say Saddam was not a threat and then the US suffer an attack that originated from Iraq. So if analysts had anything indicating that he was a threat, thats what they concluded.

[TheCenturion]

I owe you an apology as I was talking about something completely different than you were - and it is my mistake - I totally agree that the intelligence community basically "cooked the books"(or used the group-thing agreement approach) when it came to the run-up to the war and this was concluded in the Senate report
The CIA did have those beliefs within the analytical division - the undercover field office had a little different take on it but they were not part of the NIE - which was a shame - of course they should have just listened to the DOE and realized the bias they were showing at the time

But of course, even if the Bush Gang believed these lies and were not cynically using them as an alibi for their illegal schemes (which - of course - they were), none of it was a justification for invading another sovereign nation. There was never any question as to whether Iraq could actually deploy WMDs. They couldn't. Everybody, except the right-wing Kool-Aid swilling lemmings who get their information from Fox "News" with their comic book scenarios about "drones of death" knew that. Just prior to Bush's starting the war, Hans Blix reported that Iraq was complying completely with the UNSCOM inspection regimen. So, whether Iraq had these weapons or not was a moot issue all along. The invasion of Iraq was based on lies. And Bush squandered the trust of The American People and the credibility of our country by broadcasting those lies to The World. If the rumors convince me you are running a crack house in my neighborhood, I may or may not be correct in determining you are a threat to my kids. But if I decide to arbitrarily grab a shotgun and invade your home as a vigilante, it doesn't matter whether I'm right or wrong about it. I'm going to go to jail. And that's exactly where Bush and Cheney belong today.

[Linkster]

The funny part about Greenspan explaning this issue - in a later interview he said that his opinion was invading Iraq was about the oil - not the administrations - and he justified it with a statement about protecting the Straits of Hormuz

My view is that Saddam, looking over his 30-year history, very clearly was giving evidence of moving towards controlling the Straits of Hormuz, where there are 17, 18, 19 million barrels a day" passing through

For anyone that knows their geography - and every Jr high school student should - Saddam would have had to go through either Iran or Saudi Arabia and the UAE to get to the Straits - he sure didnt have any air or naval power - and that would have been quite the tall order - and simply put - isn't/wasn't going to happen

[radioguy]

The funny part about Greenspan explaning this issue - in a later interview he said that his opinion was invading Iraq was about the oil - not the administrations - and he justified it with a statement about protecting the Straits of Hormuz

My view is that Saddam, looking over his 30-year history, very clearly was giving evidence of moving towards controlling the Straits of Hormuz, where there are 17, 18, 19 million barrels a day" passing through

For anyone that knows their geography - and every Jr high school student should - Saddam would have had to go through either Iran or Saudi Arabia and the UAE to get to the Straits - he sure didnt have any air or naval power - and that would have been quite the tall order - and simply put - isn't/wasn't going to happen

I agree with everything you just said.

It's funny though. After we have had this long debate where we finally agreed with the facts leading up to the war, where both you and I laid them out, Centurion still responds with a post that smacks right in the face of the facts. It's all about blaming Bush to him and he will only accept facts that fit his rage.

He is the perfect example of the problem I have with the liberal left. With them, no lie is to great to embrace, and no fact is too solid to disregard.

[TheCenturion]

I agree with everything you just said.

It's funny though. After we have had this long debate where we finally agreed with the facts leading up to the war, where both you and I laid them out, Centurion still responds with a post that smacks right in the face of the facts. It's all about blaming Bush to him and he will only accept facts that fit his rage.

He is the perfect example of the problem I have with the liberal left. With them, no lie is to great to embrace, and no fact is too solid to disregard.


Ha! What brazen and audacious temerity to actually assign responsibility to the "President" and so called Commander And Chief for dragging the country into a wholly illegal military occupation and subsequent bloody quagmire based on totally false information and fear mongering propaganda. Of course, my mistake. It was - naturally - Clinton's fault. What could have come over me?

This is what annoys me the most about the rabid, delusional Monkey right. There is no amount of criminality, no outrage against the country or humanity in general, and no amount of staggering ineptitude worthy of anything but a Medal Of Freedom or a promotion for those who commit these horrific acts as long as there is an alibi, a cover up, or some line of sophist bullshit handy.

Accountability - Responsibility - and Loyalty to any rule of International and Constitutional Law or principle of common decency whatsoever is always 100% absent from their conduct. And the only semblance of loyalty they ever demonstrate is mindless goose stepping with their cult of fascist criminal thugs, smear and slime merchants and political whores.

For one of them to dare uttering the terms "fact" or"truth" makes me break into uncontrollable paroxysms of laughter.

[TheCenturion]

Editor’s Note: As George W. Bush tries to squeeze 16 more months of political advantage from America’s 9/11 memories, it is worth recalling how different history might have been had the Bush administration heeded intelligence warnings in the summer of 2001.

Bush’s supporters have worked mightily to foist off blame for the attacks on the Clinton administration, but the truth is that the key developments in the emergence of Osama bin Laden and his terrorist band date back to the Reagan-Bush years of the 1980s – and the missed opportunities to stop the attacks fell heavily on George W. Bush’s watch.

That reality is recalled in this excerpt from the new book, Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush:

http://consortiumnews.com/2007/091107.html

During the lazy summer of 2001, relatively few Americans had even heard of al-Qaeda, which in Arabic means “the base.” This organization of Islamic extremists had taken shape during the CIA-supported war against the Soviet occupation in Afghanistan in the 1980s.

In the years of the late Cold War, CIA Director William J. Casey and other anti-Soviet hard-liners viewed Islamic fundamentalism as a tool to pry historically Muslim territories in the southern Soviet Union away from Moscow and its atheistic communist government.

So, besides arming a multinational force of Islamists to fight in Afghanistan, the CIA printed thousands of copies of the Koran and smuggled them into the Soviet Union.

In another trade-off for the Afghan war, the CIA looked the other way while Pakistan was developing its nuclear bomb. The CIA wanted nothing to interfere with the vital cooperation that Pakistani intelligence was providing in funneling weapons to the anti-Soviet Afghan rebels and their Islamic allies, including bin Laden.

But after the Soviets were driven from Afghanistan in 1989, many of the CIA-trained Islamist guerrillas turned their fury against other infidels encroaching on Muslim lands. The most obvious intruder was their old patron, the United States.

Bin Laden, the scion of a wealthy Saudi family which controlled much of the construction in the oil-rich kingdom, disdained the Saudi princes for their decadent ways and their reliance on the Americans for their security. The acetic and religious bin Laden grew more alienated from the Saudi power structure in 1990 when Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait.

Bin Laden despised Hussein as a secular leader of an Arab country and wanted him driven from Kuwait, but bin Laden was disgusted at the thought of non-Muslims setting up military bases near Islamic holy sites in Saudi Arabia.

He volunteered to raise an Islamic army of mujahedeen to push Hussein out of Kuwait. But the Saudi royals threw in their lot with the Americans, the British and a multinational force that succeeded in routing the Iraqi army in early 1991.

But, just as bin Laden had feared, the Americans did not dismantle their military bases in Saudi Arabia. They made them more permanent.

In the early 1990s, bin Laden moved his fledgling al-Qaeda organization to Sudan and built up an array of interrelated businesses as a framework for his political activities.

He reached out to Islamic extremists from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, Oman, Algeria, Libya, Tunisia, Morocco, Somalia and Eritrea. Many were exiles from losing battles against the power structures in their home countries.

During this transition period, bin Laden intensified his anti-American rhetoric and issued a fatwa – or religious order – in 1992 against U.S. “occupation” of Islamic lands. U.S. intelligence began to suspect that al-Qaeda was responsible for scattered attacks against U.S. targets in the Middle East and East Africa.

Escalation

By 1996, pressure from the United States and other countries persuaded the Sudanese government to expel bin Laden and his organization. Bin Laden left Sudan on May 19, 1996, and returned to his old sanctuary in Afghanistan.

Though in a weakened position, bin Laden began reviving al-Qaeda in the mountains of Afghanistan, with the protection of the Pakistani intelligence services and the fundamentalist Taliban government in Kabul.

Bin Laden rebuilt his financial structure, set up training camps and forged alliances with other extremist organizations, such as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad led by exile Ayman al-Zawahiri. On Feb. 23, 1998, a resurgent bin Laden issued another fatwa against the United States, specifically authorizing his followers to kill Americans whether they were civilian or military.

Five months later, on Aug. 7, 1998, al-Qaeda militants struck at the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. The bombing of the Nairobi embassy killed 12 Americans and 201 others.

In Dar es Salaam, 11 people died. Bin Laden declared publicly that if inciting attacks intended to drive Americans and Jews from the Islamic holy lands is a crime, “let history be a witness that I am a criminal.”

After the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, President Bill Clinton ordered heightened attention on bin Laden and al-Qaeda, looking for ways of getting the terrorist leader expelled from Afghanistan or killed.

On Aug. 20, 1998, the United States launched a missile strike against bin Laden’s Afghan base, killing about two dozen people but missing bin Laden, who was believed to have left the compound a few hours earlier.

Besides failing to kill bin Laden, Clinton earned the derision of Republicans and many Washington pundits, who accused him of a “wag-the-dog” attempt to distract attention from the scandal over his dalliance with Monica Lewinsky.

Millennium Plot

In the months that followed, as the U.S. government weighed additional countermoves, bin Laden’s operatives prepared for another strike inside the United States, this one to coincide with the Millennium celebrations at the end of 1999.

An intelligence report from the National Intelligence Council, which advises the President on emerging threats, warned that al-Qaeda should be expected to “retaliate in a spectacular way” for the 1998 cruise missile attack on Afghanistan.

Tipped by Jordanian intelligence on al-Qaeda’s plans, the Clinton administration ordered tightened security and got lucky when alert border guards at Port Angeles, Washington, apprehended Ahmed Rassam, who was on his way to Los Angeles to plant bombs at the international airport.

At the height of Campaign 2000, al-Qaeda took aim at another U.S. target, the destroyer USS Cole, as it docked in the port of Aden. On Oct. 12, 2000, al-Qaeda operatives piloted a small boat laden with explosives against the Cole’s hull, blasting a hole that killed 17 crew members and wounded another 40.

Back in Afghanistan, bin Laden anticipated – and desired – a retaliatory strike. He hoped to lure the United States deeper into a direct conflict with al-Qaeda, which would enhance his group’s reputation and – assuming a clumsy U.S. response – would radicalize the region’s Muslim populations.

Bin Laden evacuated al-Qaeda’s compound at the Kandahar airport and fled into the desert near Kabul and then to hideouts in Khowst and Jalalabad before returning to Kandahar where he alternated sleeping among a half dozen residences.

But lacking hard evidence proving who was behind the Cole bombing, Clinton didn’t order a retaliatory strike. Only during the transition to the Bush presidency did U.S. intelligence reach a conclusion that the attack was “a full-fledged al-Qaeda operation” under the direct supervision of bin Laden.

However, Clinton left a decision on what do next up to the incoming administration – and it didn’t agree with Clinton’s assessment that al-Qaeda ranked at the top of the U.S. threat list. From his opening days in office, Bush rebuffed recommendations from almost anyone who shared Clinton’s anxiety about terrorism.

On Jan. 31, 2001, just 11 days after Bush’s Inauguration, a bipartisan terrorism commission headed by former Senators Gary Hart and Warren Rudman unveiled its final report, bluntly warning that urgent steps were needed to prevent a terrorist attack on U.S. cities.

“States, terrorists and other disaffected groups will acquire weapons of mass destruction, and some will use them,” the report said. “Americans will likely die on American soil, possibly in large numbers.” Hart specifically noted that the nation was vulnerable to “a weapon of mass destruction in a high-rise building.”

The 9/11 Commission later wrote, “in February 2001, a source reported that an individual whom he identified as the big instructor (probably a reference to bin Laden) complained frequently that the United States had not yet attacked. According to the source, bin Laden wanted the United States to attack, and if it did not he would launch something bigger.”

By then, Muhamed Atta and other al-Qaeda operatives were moving into position for their next deadly operation. From safe houses in California and Florida, they enrolled in American flight schools and took lessons on how to fly commercial jetliners.

When congressional hearings on the Hart-Rudman findings were set for early May 2001, the Bush administration intervened to stop them. The presumed reasoning was that the Bush administration didn’t have much to show either in terms of accomplishments or plans of its own.

Instead of embracing the Hart-Rudman findings and getting to work on the recommendations, Bush set up a White House committee, headed by Vice President Dick Cheney, to examine the issue again and submit a report in fall 2001.

“The administration actually slowed down response to Hart-Rudman when momentum was building in the spring,” said former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich.

Alarm Bells

By late spring 2001, other alarm bells were ringing, frequently and loudly. Credible evidence of an impending attack began pouring in to U.S. intelligence agencies.

“It all came together in the third week of June,” said Richard Clarke, who was the White House coordinator for counter-terrorism. “The CIA’s view was that a major terrorist attack was coming in the next several weeks.”

In late June, CIA Director George Tenet was reported “nearly frantic” about the likelihood of an al-Qaeda attack. He was described as running around “with his hair on fire” because the warning system was “blinking red.”

On June 28, a written intelligence summary to Bush’s national security adviser Condoleezza Rice warned that “it is highly likely that a significant al-Qaeda attack is in the near future, within several weeks.”

On July 5, 2001, at a meeting in the White House Situation Room, counter-terrorism chief Clarke told officials from a dozen federal agencies that “something really spectacular is going to happen here, and it’s going to happen soon.”

But instead of sparking an intensified administration reaction to the danger, the flickering light of White House interest in the terror threat continued to sputter.

By July 10, senior CIA counter-terrorism officials, including Cofer Black, had collected a body of intelligence that they presented to Director Tenet.

“The briefing gave me literally made my hair stand on end,” Tenet wrote in his memoir, At the Center of the Storm. “When he was through, I picked up the big white secure phone on the left side of my desk – the one with a direct line to Condi Rice – and told her that I needed to see her immediately to provide an update on the al-Qa’ida threat.”

After reaching the White House, a CIA briefer, identified in Tenet’s book only as Rich B., started his presentation by saying: “There will be a significant terrorist attack in the coming weeks or months!”

Rich B. then displayed a chart showing “seven specific pieces of intelligence gathered over the past 24 hours, all of them predicting an imminent attack,” Tenet wrote. The briefer presented another chart with “the more chilling statements we had in our possession through intelligence.”

These comments included a mid-June statement by Osama bin Laden to trainees about an attack in the near future; talk about decisive acts and a “big event”; and fresh intelligence about predictions of “a stunning turn of events in the weeks ahead,” Tenet wrote.

Rich B. told Rice that the attack will be “spectacular” and designed to inflict heavy casualties against U.S. targets.

“Attack preparations have been made,” Rich B. said about al-Qaeda’s plans. “Multiple and simultaneous attacks are possible, and they will occur with little or no warning.”

When Rice asked what needed to be done, the CIA’s Black responded, “This country needs to go on a war footing now.” The CIA officials sought approval for broad covert-action authority that had been languishing since March, Tenet wrote.

Despite the July 10 briefing, other senior Bush administration officials continued to pooh-pooh the seriousness of the al-Qaeda threat. Two leading neoconservatives at the Pentagon – Stephen Cambone and Paul Wolfowitz – suggested that the CIA might be falling for a disinformation campaign, Tenet recalled.

But the evidence of an impending attack continued to pour in. At one CIA meeting in late July, Tenet wrote that Rich B. told senior officials bluntly, “they’re coming here,” a declaration that was followed by stunned silence.

[b]Stem Cells

Through the sweltering heat of July, Bush turned his attention to an issue dear to the hearts of his right-wing base, the use of human embryos in stem-cell research.

Medical scientists felt stem cells promised potential cures for debilitating and life-threatening injuries and illnesses, from spinal damage to Alzheimer’s disease. Yet, despite this promise, the Christian Right objected on moral grounds to the extraction of cells from embryos, even if they were destined for destruction as waste at fertility clinics.

Bush also was eyeing a month-long vacation at his ranch in Crawford, Texas.

While Atta and his team made final preparations, the U.S. press corps also missed the drama playing out inside the U.S. intelligence agencies. The hot stories that steamy summer were shark attacks and the mystery of a missing Capitol Hill intern Chandra Levy, who’d had an affair with Representative Gary Condit, a California Democrat.

The news media pretended that its obsession with Levy’s disappearance was a heartfelt concern to help her parents find their missing daughter; the sexual gossip about Levy and Condit proved to be a fortuitous byproduct.

Yet, as cable news played the Chandra Levy case 24/7, a far more significant life-or-death drama was playing out inside the FBI and CIA.

At the FBI’s Phoenix field office, FBI agent Kenneth Williams noted the curious fact that suspected followers of bin Laden were learning to fly airplanes at schools inside the United States.

Citing “an inordinate number of individuals of investigative interest” attending American flight schools, Williams sent a July 10, 2001, memo to FBI headquarters warning of the “possibility of a coordinated effort by Usama Bin Laden” to send student pilots to the United States. But the memo produced no follow-up.

National FBI officials seemed paralyzed at the thought of taking proactive measures. Instead they concentrated on what to do after an anticipated terror attack.

Then-acting FBI Director Thomas Pickard later told the 9/11 Commission that he discussed the intelligence threat reports with FBI special agents from around the country in a conference call on July 19, 2001. But Pickard said the focus was on having “evidence response teams” ready to respond quickly in the event of an attack.

CIA officials encountered similar foot-dragging at the White House. At least two officials in the CIA’s Counter-terrorism Center were so apoplectic about the blasé reactions from the Bush administration that they considered resigning and going public with their concerns.

Instead, the CIA hierarchy made one more stab at startling Bush into action.

Blunt Warning

On Aug. 6, 2001, the CIA dispatched senior analysts to brief Bush near the beginning of his month-long vacation at his Crawford ranch. They carried a highly classified report with the blunt title “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US.”

This Presidential Daily Brief summarized the history of bin Laden’s interest in launching attacks inside the United States and ended with a carefully phrased warning about recent intelligence threat data:

“FBI information … indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York. The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full field investigations throughout the US that it considers Bin Ladin-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our Embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group of Bin Ladin supporters was in the US planning attacks with explosives.”

Bush was not pleased by the CIA’s intrusion on his vacation nor with the report’s lack of specific targets and dates. He glared at the CIA briefer and snapped, “All right, you’ve covered your ass,” according to an account in author Ron Suskind’s The One Percent Doctrine, which relied heavily on senior CIA officials.

Putting the CIA’s warning in the back of his mind and ordering no special response, Bush returned to a vacation of fishing, clearing brush and working on a speech about stem-cell research.

Yet, inside the FBI as the month wore on, there were more warnings that went unheeded. FBI agents in Minneapolis arrested Zacarias Moussaoui in August because of his suspicious behavior in trying to learn to fly commercial jetliners when he lacked even rudimentary skills.

FBI agent Harry Samit, who interrogated Moussaoui, sent 70 warnings to his superiors about suspicions that the al-Qaeda operative had been taking flight training in Minnesota because he was planning to hijack a plane for a terrorist operation.

But FBI officials in Washington showed “criminal negligence” in blocking requests for a search warrant on Moussaoui’s computer or taking other preventive action, Samit testified more than four years later at Moussaoui’s criminal trial.

Another big part of the problem was the lack of urgency at the top. Counter-terrorism coordinator Clarke said the 9/11 attacks might have been averted if Bush had shown some initiative in “shaking the trees” by having high-level officials from the FBI, CIA, Customs and other federal agencies go back to their bureaucracies and demand any information about the terrorist threat.

If they had, they might well have found the memos from the FBI agents in Arizona and Minnesota.

Clarke contrasted President Clinton’s urgency over the intelligence warnings that preceded the Millennium events with the lackadaisical approach of Bush and his national security team.

“In December 1999, we received intelligence reports that there were going to be major al-Qaeda attacks,” Clarke said in an interview. “President Clinton asked his national security adviser Sandy Berger to hold daily meetings with the attorney general, the FBI director, the CIA director and stop the attacks.

“Every day they went back from the White House to the FBI, to the Justice Department, to the CIA and they shook the trees to find out if there was any information. You know, when you know the United States is going to be attacked, the top people in the United States government ought to be working hands-on to prevent it and working together.

“Now, contrast that with what happened in the summer of 2001, when we even had more clear indications that there was going to be an attack. Did the President ask for daily meetings of his team to try to stop the attack? Did Condi Rice hold meetings of her counterparts to try to stop the attack? No.”

In his book, Against All Enemies, Clarke offered other examples of pre-9/11 mistakes by the Bush administration, including a downgrading in importance of the counter-terrorism office, a shifting of budget priorities, an obsession with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and an emphasis on conservative ideological issues, such as Reagan’s missile defense program.

A more hierarchical White House structure also insulated Bush from direct contact with mid-level national security officials who had specialized on the al-Qaeda issue.

Possible Prevention

The chairman and vice chairman of the 9/11 Commission – New Jersey’s former Republican Governor Thomas Kean and former Democratic Indiana Representative Lee Hamilton, respectively – agreed that the 9/11 attacks could have been prevented.

“The whole story might have been different,” Kean said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on April 4, 2004. Kean cited a string of law-enforcement blunders including the “lack of coordination within the FBI” and the FBI’s failure to understand the significance of Moussaoui’s arrest in August while training to fly passenger jets.

Yet, as the clock ticked down to 9/11, the Bush administration continued to have other priorities. On Aug. 9, Bush gave a nationally televised speech on stem cells, delivering his judgment permitting federal funding for research on 60 preexisting stem-cell lines, but barring government support for work on any other lines of stem cells that would be derived from human embryos.

Scientists complained that the existing lines were too tainted with mouse cells and too limited to be of much value. But the national news media mostly hailed Bush’s split decision as “Solomon-like” and proof that he had greater gravitas than his critics would acknowledge.

CIA Director Tenet said he made one last push to focus Bush on the impending terrorism crisis, but the encounter veered off into meaningless small talk.

“A few weeks after the August 6 PDB was delivered, I followed it to Crawford to make sure the President stayed current on events,” Tenet wrote in his memoir. “This was my first visit to the ranch. I remember the President graciously driving me around the spread in his pickup and my trying to make small talk about the flora and the fauna, none of which were native to Queens,” where Tenet had grown up.

Bush and his senior advisers continued their hostility toward what they viewed as the old Clinton phobia about terrorism and this little-known group called al-Qaeda.

On Sept. 6, 2001, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld threatened a presidential veto of a proposal by Sen. Carl Levin, D-Michigan, seeking to transfer money from strategic missile defense to counter-terrorism.

Also on Sept. 6, former Sen. Hart was still trying to galvanize the Bush administration into showing some urgency about the terrorist threat. Hart met with Condoleezza Rice and urged the White House to move faster. Rice agreed to pass on Hart’s concerns to higher-ups.