‘Bush Lied’? No, Not Really, According To The…Democrats?
The “Bush lied, people died” line doesn’t match what Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee found:
There’s no question that the administration, and particularly Vice President Cheney, spoke with too much certainty at times and failed to anticipate or prepare the American people for the enormous undertaking in Iraq.
But dive into [Sen. Jay] Rockefeller’s report, in search of where exactly President Bush lied about what his intelligence agencies were telling him about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and you may be surprised by what you find.
On Iraq’s nuclear weapons program? The president’s statements “were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates.”
On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president’s statements “were substantiated by intelligence information.”
On chemical weapons, then? “Substantiated by intelligence information.”
On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? “Generally substantiated by intelligence information.” Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? “Generally substantiated by available intelligence.” Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? “Generally substantiated by intelligence information.”
As you read through the report, you begin to think maybe you’ve mistakenly picked up the minority dissent. But, no, this is the Rockefeller indictment. So, you think, the smoking gun must appear in the section on Bush’s claims about Saddam Hussein’s alleged ties to terrorism.
But statements regarding Iraq’s support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda “were substantiated by intelligence information.” Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda “were substantiated by the intelligence assessments,” and statements regarding Iraq’s contacts with al-Qaeda “were substantiated by intelligence information.” The report is left to complain about “implications” and statements that “left the impression” that those contacts led to substantive Iraqi cooperation.
Here is the section relating to the Republicans on the committee:
In the report’s final section, the committee takes issue with Bush’s statements about Saddam Hussein’s intentions and what the future might have held. But was that really a question of misrepresenting intelligence, or was it a question of judgment that politicians are expected to make?
After all, it was not Bush, but Rockefeller, who said in October 2002: “There has been some debate over how ‘imminent’ a threat Iraq poses. I do believe Iraq poses an imminent threat. I also believe after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. . . . To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can.”
Rockefeller was reminded of that statement by the committee’s vice chairman, Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.), who with three other Republican senators filed a minority dissent that includes many other such statements from Democratic senators who had access to the intelligence reports that Bush read. The dissenters assert that they were cut out of the report’s preparation, allowing for a great deal of skewing and partisanship, but that even so, “the reports essentially validate what we have been saying all along: that policymakers’ statements were substantiated by the intelligence.”
Why does it matter, at this late date? The Rockefeller report will not cause a spike in “Bush Lied” mug sales, and the Bond dissent will not lead anyone to scrape the “Bush Lied” bumper sticker off his or her car.
But the phony “Bush lied” story line distracts from the biggest prewar failure: the fact that so much of the intelligence upon which Bush and Rockefeller and everyone else relied turned out to be tragically, catastrophically wrong.
And it trivializes a double dilemma that President Bill Clinton faced before Bush and that President Obama or McCain may well face after: when to act on a threat in the inevitable absence of perfect intelligence and how to mobilize popular support for such action, if deemed essential for national security, in a democracy that will always, and rightly, be reluctant.
Ed informs us that:
The New York Sun reminds everyone that in January 2003, the State department also had intelligence of ties between AQ and Saddam Hussein, and it came from the same group that dissented on the status of the Iraqi nuclear-weapons program:
His words demolish a talking point for Democrats who still say Al Qaeda had nothing to do with Iraq until the coalition of the willing invaded. Mr. Ford wrote that the former emir of Al Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Musab Zarqawi “has had a good relationship with Iraqi intelligence officials.” He added that intelligence on Qaeda “revealed the presence of safe house facilities in the city as well as the clear intent to remain in Baghdad. Also, foreign NGO workers outside of Iraq who are believed to provide support to al-Qaeda have also expressed their intent to set up shop in Baghdad.”
One reads this and thinks:it’s really too bad that when this story of Dems on the Intel Committee plotting against Bush broke in 2003, the mainstream press ignored it, taking umbrage that anyone would leak a memo (!) while ignoring its content. Why, suddenly, is the WaPo deciding, after 5 years of supporting and promoting the “Bush lied” meme, to clarify?
1) Perhaps they see things improving so much in Iraq that there is going to be a slow turning around of the narrative - like turning around the Titanic - so that Democrats can stop pretending they never voted for the action, and get ready to claim a share in victory. Then it gives room to the presumed Democrat president to settle the Iraq matter with an American “presence” in Iraq - comparable to our presences in Germany, and elsewhere - so that he can get on with the business of “changing” America domestically. After all, the WaPo editorial board warned Obama just last week that he needed to update his thinking on Iraq.
2) Perhaps they see that the relentless pounding the press has given Bush for the last 5 years has had enough of an impact for him to have any sort of rehabilitation, either in the polls or in history, and so they figure they can put away the flamethrowers.
3) Perhaps there are still some journalists who are more interested in telling the whole story than in framing and enshrining a narrative.
Loading ...
June 9, 2008 - 07:46 AM on June 9th, 2008
BILL CLINTON lied every time he opened his mouth and even lied in his sleep
June 9, 2008 - 08:42 AM on June 9th, 2008
Actually, Bush never lied about WMD. However the commentary has always been that the intelligence was cherry-picked.
NY-David
June 9, 2008 - 09:03 AM on June 9th, 2008
Truth and reality has never been a prerequisite for Democrite talking points. Another example is the “Mission Accomplished” quote they endlessly repeat and smirk about. Fact is it was referring to the deployment of the ship, which had ended and indeed its mission had been accomplished. Even if someone wants to expand the meaning, it’s still true. Iraq was very successfully invaded and Saddam deposed.
But BHDS sufferers can’t help themselves with a deliberate misuse, all while thinking themselves very clever.
June 9, 2008 - 09:20 AM on June 9th, 2008
Even Bush’s closest handler (Karen Hughes) said that the “Mission Accomplished” thing on the carrier was in bad taste. Add the various spin on it from the miliary on why he was in a fighter jet (the helicopter couldn’t make the distance, amoung others) and then the further unwinding of the war made it into the joke that it was.
Yes, that particular part was accomplished, but what difference when the war was going badly. Oh yes, and he was about the run for re-election. Again mission accomplished (unfortunately, in my mind).
NY-David
June 9, 2008 - 02:00 PM on June 9th, 2008
NYD, according to General Tommy Franks, he asked the POTUS for the “Mission Accomplished”. It was a message to the troops that we happened to get to witness. It was a thank-you for a job well done by them, and from there, the message was quickly lost on those that wanted it to be. I don’t believe that Bush lied, nor do I think the Democrats like Rockefeller, Clinton, Kerry etc., that came out in 02′ and 03′ and reiterated what the WH was saying, were lying..They all saw the same reports. Bush didn’t get anything that the intelligence committee, and ranking members of other committees didn’t get. Refresh yourself on the Hoekstra/Hartman fight, as it is the perfect example of how some Democrats have tried to lie and say they were kept in the dark, when in actuality, they had everything right in front of them.
June 9, 2008 - 02:57 PM on June 9th, 2008
My overwelming issue was that there was such an atmosphere of “if you question the President, you are not patriotic”. I hold both sides of Congress out for this as well for having access to better information then the rest of us and instead of doing dilligence (ie, their jobs), they went along with somthing that many regret. I can’t read inside Bush’s heart, so I can’t decide that he lied, so I’m left with stating that he’s an idiot and just didn’t know better.
Our forces have changed their tactics and amoung other things, have changed things for the better.
Let’s hope they can make it last until the Iraqi’s can take over. Its the only other thing I can do is hope.
One other thing that I do, an you can as well is go over to http://www.anysoldier.com and get a service person’s address. Send them something and a quick note that we American’s support them.
NY-David
June 9, 2008 - 11:25 PM on June 9th, 2008
Here’s a bit of information from someone who actually had access to classified information on Nuclear Biological and Chemical weapons back in the 80s. All of the evidence that has come out of Iraq is indicative of a regime either involved in producing nerve agent, or preparing to do so. There is no reason for a country with the issues that Iraq had to be spending millions on thousands of chemical warfare suits or tens of thousands of doses of nerve agent antidote (atropine) unless they intend to be deploying it in a combat zone. Both of these were found in a number of stockpiles around the country. All of them were from post 1998 production. Were I an analyst watching for signs that someone was playing with toys they shouldn’t have, orders for huge quantities of atropine would set the bells ringing and sirens wailing.
Another little known fact (I read about it in a book about Special Forces operations in Afghanistan and Iraq called “Masters of Chaos”) is that Ansar al Islam (later renamed Al Quaeda in Iraq) was apparently training with chemical weapons production and deployment in an area not far from the Iranian border. While stockpiles of chemical weapons weren’t found, manufacturing and deployment instruction materials were found as well as low density agent.
Considering the ease of production of some agents, the passing of technical data and training to the terrorists was more than adequate reason to remove Saddam. The screw ups from the interim government caused the current situation. Most of the cities were happy to be liberated, but 1% of the population supplemented and puched by foreign nationals is still a fairly substantial fighting forcee, especially in urban environments.