"Sandman" wrote in message

"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

Where is there any evidence that this is not what everyone in the
intelligence community believed?

You "news" sources have always been nothing but right-wing propaganda
media bobble-heads. Why someone who professes publicly to be a
political "independent" repeatedly does nothing but spout programmed
administration lies is utterly astounding.

It has lulled your dull mind to the *fact* that numerous sources in
the CIA, Defense Department, Department of the Secretary of State,
Pentagon, and independent WMD research institute spokesmen have
spoken out, on record, that Cheney twisted arms at the CIA numerous
times to "mold" the "intelligence" to the Cheney/Bush propaganda
agenda - IOW, that this and the British administrations *clearly*
"massaged" the so-called "intelligence" to deceive the world that
their outlandish version of the facts was nothing more than something
based on "solid intelligence". One small example: An expert
recently testified that this is the first time in history that a Vice
President has visited the CIA with "suggestions", which, according to
him, means only one thing within the way the CIA works: give the VP
what he wants, or look for another job.

Only rational conclusion: the so-called intelligence was so "cooked"
politically by Cheney, et. al., that the rationales reiterated for
going to war were mere political machinations based on false
propaganda based on complete distortions and direct contradictions of
what the real "intelligence" actually represented.

Here's a non-Republican, non-Democrat view of the behavior of the current
leading Democratic party presidential hopefuls:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/fe...dems-f08.shtml

Please note that this article was first published about a year ago, 8
February 2003.

"Following US Secretary of State Colin Powell's presentation to the United
Nations Security Council February 5, leading Democrats rushed to support the
Bush administration's war drive."

"In particular, the candidates for the 2004 Democratic presidential
nomination were most anxious, with one exception, to applaud Powell's
report."
"Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, a longtime supporter of a US war
on Iraq, was the most bloodthirsty, calling for an invasion in the coming
weeks. Lieberman suggested that UN support, while preferable, is not
necessary. "Patience is a virtue," he said, "but too much patience with
dangerous lawlessness is a vice."

"Kerry declared, "With such strong evidence in front of them, it is now
incumbent on the UN to respect its own mandates, and stand up for our common
goal of either bringing about Iraq's peaceful disarmament or moving forward
with the decisive military victory of a multilateral coalition."Sen. John
Edwards of North Carolina indicated his retroactive support for the Bush
administration, saying that he has "long argued that Saddam Hussein is a
grave threat and that he must be disarmed. Iraq's behavior during the past
few months has done nothing to change my mind." Edwards commented,
"Secretary of State Powell made a powerful case. This is a real challenge
for the Security Council to act."

"Kerry told Powell, "We are all gratified that the administration finally
came to the United Nations and made its case to the world. This is a
vindication of your position and that of many of us in the Congress who have
long pushed for something less unilateral and more the hard work of
diplomacy."

Quotes from leading non-presidential-candidate Democrats:

"Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota asserted that Powell
"made a powerful, methodical case that put the onus on Saddam Hussein now."
Asked how much longer the inspectors should be given, Daschle said, "I don't
know ... not indefinitely."

"Senator Joseph Biden of Delaware, top Democrat on the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee, called the Powell litany of lies a "powerful and
irrefutable case."

"Senator Hillary Clinton of New York termed it "compelling,"

"Massachusetts Senator Edward Kennedy said, "It's clear that, after today's
indictment, Saddam Hussein has only one final chance to comply and disarm."

"California's Senator Diane Feinstein declared that Powell made "the most
comprehensive and compelling case that may have been made," adding, "I no
longer think inspections are going to work."

"Representative Jim McDermott of Washington praised Powell's speech along
the same lines as Kerry. "I believe it's good they've come forward with the
information," he said. "They should have done it a long time ago. Give it to
the inspectors and let the inspectors go out and decide."

"Democratic House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi merely noted that Powell had
presented no new evidence. She said, "We must exhaust all alternatives, such
as the continuation of inspections, diplomacy and the leverage provided by
the threat of military action."

"Rep. Charles Rangel of New York came the closest to actually criticizing
Powell, commenting, "I've read things here that as a former federal
prosecutor I couldn't take to a grand jury. I feel sorry for Secretary
Powell. There's no way he's an Adlai Stevenson."