Bush told Hussein attack unlikely.
By on Mar 2nd, 2006 at 11:55 am
Bush told Hussein attack unlikely.
Murray Waas reports that President Bush personally received a report in January 2003 stating “that U.S. intelligence agencies unanimously agreed that it was unlikely that Saddam would try to attack the United States — except if ‘ongoing military operations risked the imminent demise of his regime’ or if he intended to ‘extract revenge’ for such an assault.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
This is big news! It’s proof that he knew. Bush is at 34% now. 20s here he comes!
March 2nd, 2006 at 12:16 pmDon’t forget the Clinton administration said back in 1998 that Saadam was a danger and possibly had WMD. Don’t pin this on Bush.
March 2nd, 2006 at 12:26 pm2)
That was pre911 thinking… post 911 we should have taken into account that almost all the 911 terrorists were Saudis. Osama is a Saudi. The people sending them money were from Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. The Saudi clerics rile up their people against Israel and America… The Pakistan SSI supported Osama and the Taliban with money and weapons (on Americas behalf) and Paksitans head nuke scientist and the military sold WMDs to Libya, Iran, and North Korea…
http://www.nationalreview.com/document/document042602.asp
March 2nd, 2006 at 12:32 pmDon’t pin things and events on Clinton ex post facto.
March 2nd, 2006 at 12:33 pmDon’t blame Bush’s lies on Clinton! Its there in black and white, he is a liar and perhaps worse. This treasonous man must be impeached and brought to justice.
March 2nd, 2006 at 12:34 pmClinton had to say that to defend our daily bombings and murderous sanctions…not to say he deserves an award for that.
Fortunately for us, “America’s Last Elected President” wasn’t dumb enough to believe his own BS and invade.
Bush did this to impress “Daddy” and help out his friends. Is there really any doubt at this point?
March 2nd, 2006 at 12:35 pmIt may even be good news! I’m believing that a tipping point has been reached to where even die-hard conservative appointees, employees and hopefully even our elected representatives are realizing that enough is enough, and support for removal from power of the Bush regime will become universal across all party lines.
March 2nd, 2006 at 12:36 pmStand up and be heard now for the sake of our national security, and by that I mean the well-being of American citizens and the good will towards each other and the rest of the human race. The current administration has promulgated the Divide and Conquer ideology, dividing our nation against itself by promoting intolerance. The foreign policies of invasion and exploitation have threatened national security at our borders.
We owe it to ourselves as Americans to throw the monkey of Ignorance and Deceit off our backs. Now.
Thank you.
These low approval ratings don’t mean anything if Congress doesn’t take action and begin investigating the possibility of impeachment.
I don’t think poll numbers do anything more than give the mainstream media something to talk about on a superficial level; most media outlets fail to thoroughly investigate the issues behnd the numbers.
March 2nd, 2006 at 12:37 pmre: #2
Hey Ray,
And how many deaths resulted from that statement? How many innocent civilians slain? How many American lives ruined?
Let’s not forget that Clinton also balanced the Budget and had the largest surplus on record. But you wingnuts have pretty selective memories about that, don’t you?
March 2nd, 2006 at 12:39 pmThose facts mean nothing! NOTHING! NOTHING!!!
March 2nd, 2006 at 12:49 pmDumbya was worried that Saddam’s OIL would attack America. He wasn’t worried that Saddam attacking us.
See how well that has worked out? Iraq’s OIL isn’t attacking ANYBODY now, including ordinary Iraqi’s.
March 2nd, 2006 at 12:50 pmWow, the lies just keep rolling in. Its becoming impossible to keep track of the imcopetence of just Bushs’ lying skills, unless I keep checking this website every hour hour. There no way “Joe six-pack” could ever keep up. “Where is Iraq and aren’t they our friends”. Burppp!!!
March 2nd, 2006 at 12:55 pmDon’t forget the Clinton administration said back in 1998 that Saadam was a danger and possibly had WMD. Don’t pin this on Bush.
Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton! Why do you wingers obsess over the Clintons so? Here’s a news flash: Bill Clinton is no longer the President. Bill Clinton didn’t order an illegal invasion of Iraq. Was he wrong in his assessment of Iraq’s WMD’s? Hell yes. But he did not compound that mistake by listening to the armchair generals and stink-tank warriors that Bush has surrounded himself with. Yes, as a matter of fact, the Iraq debacle/tragedy/blunder/clusterf#ck is wholly owned by Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld and low rent Kissinger wanna-be’s in the Administration.
March 2nd, 2006 at 1:02 pmI second what #13 says.
It’s been 5+ years since Clinton sat in the Oval Office. Yet all of Bush’s mistakes are somehow Clinton’s fault.
Seems silly.
March 2nd, 2006 at 1:14 pmIraq was never about Saddam, just as Iran is not about nuclear weapons. It’s about U.S. hegemony and control of energy resources.
March 2nd, 2006 at 1:15 pm#2, see #13, he’s got it right. Besides CLinton did not invade Iraq did he? When CLinton bombed Iraq, what did the republicans do? If the information comming from former Bush officials is true, Bush was looking for reasons to invade and ignored evidence that did not support this preconcieved view. Yet somehow Clinton is your main concern. Wow.
March 2nd, 2006 at 1:21 pm#2 I thought Republicans were the party of “personal responsibility”. How come they’re always blaming others for their mistakes?
March 2nd, 2006 at 1:26 pm#10, #17, & #18 – Hey, quit picking on me! It’s #3 you’re upset with! :)
March 2nd, 2006 at 1:54 pmLet me get this straight.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but Hussain wasn’t really an imminent threat to America? I mean, do you think Bush must feel a little silly right now?
Me neither.
March 2nd, 2006 at 2:14 pmBush was also told that the blue tubes were harmless. Didn’t stop him from pimping non-existant WMD.
March 2nd, 2006 at 2:25 pm.
RunningDogLackey,
I don’t think attacking Iraq impressed the smart Bush. That is why he stopped 250 meters short of attacking Baghdad. We were close enough for my field artillery unit to bomb the hell out of Saddam, but Bush Sr. was not dumb enough to get us into the war we are in now.
March 2nd, 2006 at 2:41 pmCrap! The link is broken. Anybody else have another source?
March 2nd, 2006 at 2:42 pmAs i recall, this is very old news: I remember reading in the media (yes, even in the media, for crying out loud) around September 2003 that the CIA had reported that Hussein was only a risk to the security of the U.S. if attacked. (Still looking for what I read; it’s out there.)
What’s interesting to me is ho, or why, this stuff is getting re-reported; I sense it is perhaps because American media is more receptive to printing the stuff it should have been trumpeting loudly before the war, but didn’t. (I admire Murray Waas, and have for some time, with his reporting on the Plame affair — I’m not suggesting he is pandering. Perhaps his editors are.) But, then again, is this stuff making the rounds on page one? And how many news cycles will it last before it’s replaced by some missing woman story or the like?
I find the Bush Katrina briefing video much the same — nothing read more starkly as a clear warning ofwhat was going to happen than the National Weather forecast readout predicting severe loss of life, destruction of homes, et. It was even clearer than anything in that video. Why does this video come up now and start a faux “debate” about whether Bush knew? He knew or should have known, and he did nothing. We knew that five days after the storm. There shouldn’t be an debate about it — the evidence is absolutely conclusive, and has been.
Is the rest of the country finally noticing what the rest of us have been knowing and saying for five years?
March 2nd, 2006 at 3:45 pmBut his mind was already made up — like Lola, whatever he wants, he gets.
March 2nd, 2006 at 4:02 pmSOmething to consider…with the new information out that the president recived two reports showing no threat and no intent of threat from sadaam, our much maligned intelligence agencies apparently were correct and then ignored.
March 2nd, 2006 at 5:40 pmThe intelligence that went awry was between W’s ears.
March 2nd, 2006 at 6:01 pmKelley
What we are today comes from our thoughts of yesterday, and our present thoughts build our life of tomorrow: Our life is the creation of our mind.
March 24th, 2008 at 10:20 am