Former Sen. Bob Graham: What I Knew Before the Invasion

In the past week President Bush has twice attacked Democrats for being hypocrites on the Iraq war. "ore than 100 Democrats in the House and Senate, who had access to the same intelligence, voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power," he said.

The president's attacks are outrageous. Yes, more than 100 Democrats voted to authorize him to take the nation to war. Most of them, though, like their Republican colleagues, did so in the legitimate belief that the president and his administration were truthful in their statements that Saddam Hussein was a gathering menace -- that if Hussein was not disarmed, the smoking gun would become a mushroom cloud.

The president has undermined trust. No longer will the members of Congress be entitled to accept his veracity. Caveat emptor has become the word. Every member of Congress is on his or her own to determine the truth.

As chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence during the tragedy of Sept. 11, 2001, and the run-up to the Iraq war, I probably had as much access to the intelligence on which the war was predicated as any other member of Congress.

I, too, presumed the president was being truthful -- until a series of events undercut that confidence.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/18/AR2005111802397_pf.html

Graham was a candidate in 2004, why didn't he disclose this back then? It would have helped to poke holes into Bush's teflon.

was crushed and vilified by talking heads.

because of all the redactions and said that it withheld vital information that the public should be aware of. But said that it would be unlawful for him to disclose the redactions. People who were paying attention to Graham are aware of how hard he was hitting the bushies. Every body wasn't paying attention though. :shrug:

short of revealing classified information. He said at the time when he was asked why he couldn't reveal the information to the public.... "I don't want to take a detour to the penitentiary." The rule of law meant something to him.

(In retaliation for his efforts to inform the public and his colleagues of a serious cover up in progress, the rightwingers tried to portray him as a doddering grandfather, ready for the rocking chair... busily jotting down minutia in his logbooks to while away his days in senility.)

He held up the 28 pages of blackened-out portions of the 9-11 report on the Senate floor. He gave press interviews about how an Iraq invasion would be a distraction from the war on terror/Osama bin Laden. He gave every hint he could without naming names, that Saudi involvement was detailed in the heavily redacted portions of the report. He shouted from the well of the Senate that his colleagues would have "BLOOD ON YOUR HANDS!!!" if they gave * the authority to use force against Iraq.


It is so painful to read this, now in the WP, two years later.

We in Florida were paying very close attention to Senator Graham in 2003. Then, as now, he is far ahead of the curve of many of his former colleagues.

When Bob Graham speaks, people should be listening.

BUSH INC STOLE THE ELECTION; THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN THEIR FIRST "CLUE" THAT THIS MISADMINISTRATION IS *NOT TRUTHFUL*

Graham expanded on his futile attempts to convince fellow Dem Senators to do the right thing based on what was obvious to them and dissuade them from acting with political expedience and voting for the war because he warned then in no uncertain terms that THEY WOULD HAVE BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS if they did so. He also essentially said that all understood the IWR was a vote for the war, given all that everyone clearly knew about Bushs intentions.