In his November 14 Roll Call column (subscription required), executive editor Morton M. Kondracke cited a December 2005 Commentary article by editor-at-large Norman Podhoretz as a “devastating rebuttal to Democrats,” who have recently escalated criticism of the Bush administration over its alleged misrepresentation of prewar intelligence. But Podhoretz's article contains false claims -- which Kondracke repeated in his column -- about Iraq war intelligence: 1) that former senior Bush State Department official Lawrence Wilkerson said satellite evidence proved the existence of chemical weapons plants; and 2) that President Bush never claimed Iraq posed an imminent threat to the U.S.

Podhoretz's article lifted out of context a quote by Wilkerson, who recently has criticized the Bush administration, in order to assert that Wilkerson claimed that the French, British, and German governments saw evidence that would lead them to the conclusion that Saddam Hussein had chemical weapons plants. Podhoretz wrote: “But Wilkerson (in the process of a vicious attack on the President, the Vice President, and the Secretary of Defense for getting us into Iraq) is forced to acknowledge that the Bush administration did not lack for company in interpreting the available evidence as it did.” Podhoretz then lifted a quote from Wilkerson's October 19 speech at the New America Foundation, in which Wilkerson said one would “have to conclude” based on satellite photographs that Iraq had chemical weapons ammunition supply points (ASPs).

But Podhoretz omitted the section of Wilkerson's speech immediately before and after what he quoted in his article; in doing so, he altered the meaning of Wilkerson's statement.

Wilkerson said, “I saw information that would lead me to believe that Saddam Hussein, at least on occasion, was spoofing us, was giving us disinformation.” He then described the series of satellite photos that suggested the existence of ASPs in Iraq, as Podhoretz quoted. But Wilkerson continued: “Saddam Hussein really cared about deterring the Persians -- the Iranians -- and his own people. He didn't give a hang about us except on occasion. And so he had to convince those audiences that he still was a powerful man. So who better to do that through than the INC [Iraqi National Congress], Ahmed Chalabi [INC leader, now Iraqi deputy prime minister] and his boys, and by spoofing our eyes in the sky ... and the Brits and the French and the Germans, too.”

In his Roll Call column, Kondracke wrote, “Podhoretz cites statements by now-bitter Bush critic Lawrence Wilkerson ... as saying that France, Germany and Britain all believed in the WMD evidence Powell presented to the United Nations in 2003.” In fact, Podhoretz's assertion that Wilkerson said that those governments should have believed -- and did -- Powell's evidence is undermined by the full quote.

Podhoretz also claimed that “Bush consistently rejected imminence as a justification for war” and noted that Bush's 2003 State of the Union speech included the word “imminent” “precisely in order to repudiate it,” when the president said, “Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent.” Kondracke -- who has similarly claimed that Bush never said that Saddam posed an imminent threat, as Media Matters for America has noted -- wrote in his column that Podhorertz “rebuts charges, repeated last week by [Sen. Edward M.] Kennedy [D-MA], that Bush claimed that Iraq presented an 'imminent threat.' ”

As Media Matters has documented, although Bush never uttered the phrase “imminent threat,” he and members of his administration employed numerous synonyms of the word “imminent” and otherwise conveyed the same message: Bush called Iraq an “urgent threat”; Vice President Dick Cheney called Iraq a “mortal threat”; and other senior White House officials agreed in response to press questions that Iraq posed an “imminent threat.” Further, during an interview with White house communications director Dan Bartlett on January 26, 2003, CNN host Wolf Blitzer specifically asked whether Hussein represented an “imminent threat to U.S. interests,” Bartlett replied, “Well, of course he is.” In addition, during an October 7, 2002, speech in Cincinnati, Bush said, “America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.”

From Wilkerson's October 19 speech:

But I saw satellite evidence, and I've looked at satellite pictures for much of my career. I saw information that would lead me to believe that Saddam Hussein, at least on occasion, was spoofing us, was giving us disinformation. When you see a satellite photograph of all the signs of the chemical weapons ASP - Ammunition Supply Point - with chemical weapons, and you match all those signs with your matrix on what should show a chemical ASP, and they're there, you have to conclude that it's a chemical ASP especially when you see the next satellite photograph which shows the U.N. inspectors wheeling in in their white vehicles with black markings on them to that same ASP and everything is changed, everything is clean. None of those signs are there anymore. Well, Saddam Hussein really cared about deterring the Persians -- the Iranians -- and his own people. He didn't give a hang about us except on occasion. And so he had to convince those audiences that he still was a powerful man. So who better to do that through than the INC, Ahmed Chalabi and his boys, and by spoofing our eyes in the sky and our little HUMINT, and the Brits and the French and the Germans, too. That's all I can figure.

From Podhoretz's article in the December 2005 issue of Commentary:

But Wilkerson (in the process of a vicious attack on the President, the Vice President, and the Secretary of Defense for getting us into Iraq) is forced to acknowledge that the Bush administration did not lack for company in interpreting the available evidence as it did:

I can't tell you why the French, the Germans, the Brits, and us thought that most of the material, if not all of it, that we presented at the UN on 5 February 2003 was the truth. I can't. I've wrestled with it. [But] when you see a satellite photograph of all the signs of the chemical-weapons ASP--Ammunition Supply Point--with chemical weapons, and you match all those signs with your matrix on what should show a chemical ASP, and they're there, you have to conclude that it's a chemical ASP, especially when you see the next satellite photograph which shows the UN inspectors wheeling in their white vehicles with black markings on them to that same ASP, and everything is changed, everything is clean. . . . But George [Tenet] was convinced, John McLaughlin [Tenet's deputy] was convinced, that what we were presented [for Powell's UN speech] was accurate.

[...]

Still, even many who believed that Saddam did possess WMD, and was ruthless enough to use them, accused Bush of telling a different sort of lie by characterizing the risk as “imminent.” But this, too, is false: Bush consistently rejected imminence as a justification for war. Thus, in the State of the Union address he delivered only three months after 9/11, Bush declared that he would “not wait on events while dangers gather” and that he would “not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer.” Then, in a speech at West Point six months later, he reiterated the same point: “If we wait for threats to materialize, we will have waited too long.” And as if that were not clear enough, he went out of his way in his State of the Union address in 2003 (that is, three months before the invasion), to bring up the word “imminent” itself precisely in order to repudiate it:

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.

From Kondracke's November 14 Roll Call column (subscription required):

Even now, the most definitive defense of Bush has come from the outside -- from neo-conservative intellectual Norman Podhoretz in the December issue of Commentary. His piece, e-mailed widely, is a devastating rebuttal to Democrats.

[...]

Podhoretz cites statements by now-bitter Bush critic Lawrence Wilkerson, the ex-chief of staff to former Secretary of State Colin Powell, as saying that France, Germany and Britain all believed in the WMD evidence Powell presented to the United Nations in 2003, as did top officials of the CIA and even the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research.

[...]

The Commentary article also rebuts charges, repeated last week by Kennedy, that Bush claimed that Iraq presented an “imminent threat.” Podhoretz cites a unanimous Senate Intelligence Committee as absolving the administration of charges it pressured intelligence agencies.

[...]

Bush clearly believed prior to the war that Iraq possessed WMD. He undoubtedly argued for the war by accentuating positive intelligence and playing down internal caveats. What president wouldn't? Overall, it's evident he didn't “lie.” And Democrats should stop claiming that he did.