Following Bush and Hadley's lead, media figures continued to falsely claim that White House, Congress saw "same intelligence" on Iraq
In recent days, media figures have continued to repeat false claims by President Bush and national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley that the White House and Congress examined the "same intelligence" on the Iraqi threat during the buildup to war in late 2002. The media's frequent repetition of this claim provides ballast for the administration's attacks on Democrats, who are demanding that the Senate Intelligence Committee meet its promise of completing "phase two" of its investigation of pre-war intelligence, which is to include an examination into the administration's use, and possible misuse, of that intelligence. But Congress did not have access to the "same intelligence" on Iraq as the Bush administration. The White House typically receives a greater amount of intelligence on a daily basis than Congress, as Media Matters for America has noted. Moreover, there is ample evidence that the Bush administration played an active role in decisions to limit the intelligence delivered to Capitol Hill and utilized "unique" intelligence sources during the year prior to the war.
In a November 11 Veterans Day speech at Pennsylvania's Tobyhanna Army Depot, Bush criticized leading Democrats for their recent push to complete the intelligence committee's investigation into his administration's use of prewar intelligence on Iraq. He accused these lawmakers of attempting to "rewrite the history of how that war began" and further stated that "more than a hundred Democrats in the House and the Senate -- who had access to the same intelligence -- voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power." In a press conference a day earlier, Hadley stated, "Seventy-seven senators, representing both sides of the aisle ... all believed, based on the same intelligence, that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and imposed an enormous threat to his neighbors and to the world at large."
In a November 12 Washington Post article, staff writers Walter Pincus and Dana Milbank directly addressed Bush and Hadley's claim that they saw the "same intelligence" as Congress. They wrote, "Bush and his aides had access to much more voluminous intelligence information than did lawmakers, who were dependent on the administration to provide the material."
Indeed, the Bush administration was not merely a recipient of intelligence, but also a participant in the decisions regarding what intelligence on Iraq would be emphasized and disseminated. For example, the CIA sent Congress 15 intelligence assessments in 2002 substantiating the White House's claim that Iraq had acquired aluminum tubes designed to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons. According to The New York Times, however, "not one of them" included crucial dissenting views pertaining to the probable use of the tubes. The Times further reported that "the dissenting views were repeatedly discussed in meetings and telephone calls" between the CIA and administration officials. New evidence, such as the Downing Street Memo, has similarly depicted the administration as an active participant in the interagency debates over the Iraq intelligence.
The administration's use of intelligence provided by captured Al Qaeda operative Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi further demonstrated its disregard for dissenting views within the intelligence community. In early 2002, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) sent a report to the National Security Council and the White House that expressed serious doubts about the information provided by al-Libi. Despite the DIA's clear objections, his claims later became the basis for the alleged Al Qaeda-Iraq link put forth by then-Secretary of State Colin Powell in his February 5, 2003, speech before the United Nations Security Council.
The White House also received intelligence from outside channels with no link to Congress. For example, the White House relied heavily on the Office of Special Plans (OSP), a Department of Defense operation set up in late 2001 to work on issues related to a potential conflict between the U.S. and Iraq. Within the OSP, a two-man intelligence operation called the Counter Terrorism Evaluation Group (CTEG) compiled information on the Iraqi threat from classified intelligence reports and, in some cases, directly from the primary sources. In particular, CTEG utilized information from the Iraqi National Congress, a group of exiles led by Ahmed Chalabi and long distrusted by intelligence officials. A November 7 Slate.com article described how CTEG's now-discredited intelligence assessments regularly bypassed traditional channels and instead traveled directly to senior administration officials:
The information CTEG put together was treated differently than other intelligence. Unlike other reports, CTEG's conclusions about Iraq's training of jihadists in the use of explosives and weapons of mass destruction were never distributed to the many different agencies in the intelligence community.
Moreover, the White House limited the ability of lawmakers to speak publicly about the major intelligence assessment on Iraq that they did receive, the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE).
Notwithstanding clear evidence that the administration had greater access to intelligence, several reporters -- such as ABC News correspondent Jake Tapper, Fox News correspondent Greg Kelly, and NBC News chief White House correspondent David Gregory -- responded to Bush's speech by citing without challenge the claim that he and Congress "saw the same intelligence." And New York Times reporter Richard W. Stevenson reported the claim uncritically in a November 12 article.
In the days since the address, numerous conservative media figures have repeated the claim as fact. These include Human Events editor Terry Jeffrey, Wall Street Journal columnist John Fund, syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer, National Journal editor Rich Lowry, and Weekly Standard editor Fred Barnes, as well as Fox News hosts Neil Cavuto and Chris Wallace.
From the November 11 edition of Fox News' DaySide:
JULIET HUDDY (co-host): Greg, I'm going to start with you. You obviously watched the president's speech. What was different today?
KELLY: Well, this whole theme, this attack, really, on Democrats who have been deeply critical of the administration on the whole question of prewar intelligence. The president has had difficulty on the issue, and Republicans have been kind of clamoring for what they call an Iraq pushback, kind of reminding the Democrats, saying, "Hey, a lot of you -- in fact, more than 100 in the Senate and in the House -- saw the same intelligence that the administration did and voted for the war."
From the November 11 broadcast of ABC's World News Tonight:
TAPPER: Well, Bob [Woodruff, anchor], the president took the occasion of his Veterans Day speech to respond to that charge, the accusation that his administration twisted intelligence to take the country to war. Speaking at an Army depot near Scranton, Pennsylvania, the president charged critics with hypocrisy, saying many Democrats also believed the same intelligence reports that Saddam Hussein had a dangerous arsenal.
BUSH: While it's perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began.
From the November 11 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
GREGORY: But the argument that he's making today is, "Don't accuse me and my administration of manipulating intelligence when you were looking at the same intelligence that I was working off of, the same intelligence the Clinton administration saw, the same that the U.N. did, the same that was generally agreed upon worldwide." And what Democrats are saying today is, "Look, that fundamentally misses the point. Yes, it's true that two investigations, the Senate and the president's own intelligence investigation found no evidence of any pressure on the part of the administration on intelligence analysts when it came to Iraq."
From the November 11 edition of Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto:
CAVUTO: Yes, but Fred Barnes, if it's research that was flawed and all, it's the same intelligence that the Intelligence Committee had, that the Select Intelligence Committee had, that the data and the intelligence was the same for all those parties. So, are Democrats and those who are now being critical of the war changing the playing pieces after the fact?
BARNES: Well, of course they are.
From the November 11 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
WOLF BLITZER (host): But you say, Terry, that the Democrats were looking at the same intelligence the president was looking at. But the intelligence community is part of the executive branch of the U.S. government; the legislative branch, Congress doesn't have an intelligence gathering community, they rely on what the executive branch is doing, the president is in charge of the executive branch.
JEFFREY: I mean, that's a good point. I mean, the person who was particularly responsible, who was the DCI [director of central intelligence] at the time, he was the person who was appointed by Bill Clinton. Formerly, he was a staffer to Patrick Leahy, one of the senior Democrats in the United States Senate. The National Intelligence Estimate, Wolf, that was produced in October of 2002 for the United States Congress, was requested by Senator [Richard J.] Durbin [D-IL], Senator [Dianne] Feinstein [D-CA], Senator [Bob] Graham [D-FL], and Senator [Carl] Levin [D-MI], all Democrats on the intelligence committee, provided to them under the authority of George Tenet, Bill Clinton's CIA director, the same information that the president had.
BLITZER: So the argument he is making, and it's a fair argument, presumably, that the president is as much a victim of bad intelligence as these Democratic lawmakers.
From the November 11 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight:
FUND: One of the things we have to recall here is, every leading Democrat, including the Democrats who had access to the same intelligence information like [Sen.] Jay Rockefeller [D-WV], approved of the war in Iraq. They felt there were WMDs there. The Clinton administration felt there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Everybody made this mistake.
From the November 11 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:
KRAUTHAMMER: So I think this is serious. I think it's really incomprehensible, given the fact that Democrats looked at the same intelligence, had the same conclusion, and that the Clinton administration looked at the same evidence. There was only two years between the war in Iraq, and Clinton leaving office. Do the Democrats imagine that Clinton had real evidence of real weapons, and in those two intervening years, Saddam disarmed, Bush knew about it and lied about it?
From the November 11 edition of PBS' The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer:
LOWRY: The State Department dissented on the notorious aluminum tubes and said they're probably not for a nuclear program, but then he explains the French came over and said, look, we've tested these things; we think they are for a nuclear program and the State Department dissented on a lot of the nuclear stuff but it was there on the chem and bio. So there's a reason why the administration was saying all these things, and then many Democrats were saying the same thing because they were all looking at the same body of intelligence.
From the November 12 edition of Fox News' The Beltway Boys:
BARNES: And this campaign against Bush and this intelligence subject, I think, is shameless, really cynical. And but, as, as you said, Mort, I agree, it has taken its toll. And it's not going to be dealt with just by presidential speeches. I thought the one on, on Friday was very good, the president was very emotional. But it needs more than that. You know, they had a couple days ago, they had Steve Hadley, the national security adviser, come down to the White House briefing and point up the hypocrisy of Democrats and all their statements before the war, which were the same ones which were based on the same intelligence that Bush looked at. And they were saying the same things Bush was.
From the November 13 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday:
WALLACE: But, Juan [Williams, NPR political correspondent], given the fact -- and, you know, we saw it with Jay Rockefeller today -- given the fact that the Democrats saw basically the same intelligence the president did and made statements, by and large, that were just as alarmist, how are they going to be able to win or even continue to make the argument that he hyped the intelligence, he was acting in bad faith?
"The White House typically receives a greater amount of intelligence..."
__________________
TYPICALLY. In other words, no proof from MM yet.
"[T]here is ample evidence that the Bush administration played an active role in decisions to limit the intelligence delivered to Capitol Hill and utilized 'unique' intelligence sources during the year prior to the war."
_______________________
AMPLE EVIDENCE NOT SHOWN. In other words, no concrete proof from MM yet.
The rest of the thread is meaningless, since the entire thing hinges on the theory that the White House saw more intel. on this issue than everyone else, and MM has not provided sufficient evidence to back up that theory.
On Sept 7. 2002 Bush said, I would remind you, when the inspectors were in Iraq, when they were finally denied access, an IAEA report came out saying Iraq was six months away from a (nuclear weapon), I dont know what more you want. How about some intelligence that actually exists. Since there WAS NO SUCH REPORT, didnt exist, Bush pulled it directly out of his ass and it was the polar opposite of the IAEAs actual position which was that they had destroyed Iraqs nuclear capability in 91 and had seen no evidence it had been reconstituted. This is not a mistake made by the CIA, it was NOT a misinterpretation it was an outright lie and distortion of intelligence. 12 Times they sent reports on the aluminum tubes to congress not ONCE did it include the substantial opposition of the DOE scientists. Spin till you get nasuea this one is clear cut.
12 Times they sent reports on the aluminum tubes to congress not ONCE did it include the substantial opposition of the DOE scientists.
This, and Media Matters' article, underplays that opposition by suggesting it was merely "dissent" or "dissenting views." In fact, the administration's experts in the field were reportedly unanimous on the point:
"...the government's centrifuge scientists--at the Energy Department's Oak Ridge National Laboratory and its sister institutions--unanimously regarded this possibility [that they could be intended for use in centrifuge work] as implausible.
"In late 2001, experts at Oak Ridge asked an alumnus, Houston G. Wood III, to review the controversy. Wood, founder of the Oak Ridge centrifuge physics department, is widely acknowledged to be among the most eminent living experts.
"Speaking publicly for the first time, Wood said in an interview that 'it would have been extremely difficult to make these tubes into centrifuges. It stretches the imagination to come up with a way. I do not know any real centrifuge experts that feel differently.'" (Washington Post, Aug. 10, 2003)
Peter D. Zimmerman, former chief scientist at the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency:
"In this case, the experts were at Z Division at Livermore [Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory] and in DOE intelligence here in town, and they were convinced that no way in hell were these likely to be centrifuge tubes." (Quoted in the same article)
The only people who are known to have said otherwise were intelligence spooks in other branches with no expertise in either rocketry or nuclear weapons. If all of this is true (and there's a great deal of info available on the tubes that makes the administration's case look like the complete joke it was), it's very wrong to portray these views as "dissenting." It was, in fact, the Bush view that was dissenting.
The reason everyone is saying it ... is because that's what happened.
I think if you do your research you will see that Durbin, Polosi were on the Intelligence Committee.
You people are crazy .... it's right in front of your face and still want to change it.
The facts are the facts ... They saw the same info.
Check out the video clip. [link to www.gop.com]
Also, check out the ad that is debunked by factcheck. This is of course from moveon.org [link to www.factcheck.org]
navyseal,
We did do the research.Not only do we have quotes on papers, we have those idiots saying it on NATIONAL TELEVISION...You know, where real news programs air? Anyway,you still have no rebuttal for my earlier post.
Reminder for the soft brained:
(Sorry, you can't debunk that one dufus.BAMMMM!!!!
[article originally ran in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer on 6/5/99])
Any comments? Then I second the earlier "DISMISSED" !
I think if you do your research you will see that Durbin, Polosi were on the Intelligence Committee.
You people are crazy .... it's right in front of your face and still want to change it.
by "brainwashed navyseal" ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I just watched the "show" put on by the GOP that you posted.Thank You for allowing us all to see just how successfully cunning and decietful the Bush Administration was in "tricking" our Democratic Leaders into "falling" for the faulty intellegence they gave them.Wow, even the members of the Intellegence Commitee was intentionally left in the dark.What I saw were good,honorable people who believed what they were told and spoke out openly in support of the president all the while, he was lying to them.The same Democrats,namely,John Edwards went on record to let all Americans know that he was sorry he got "duped" into voting to Authorise this war.What The bush Administration also does not want America to know,while selectivly displaying quotes as if there was nothing said before or after, is that John Kerry specifically authorised the war ( IF ALL OTHER OPTIONS WERE EXHAUSTED) That was left out too yet it Bush didn't want to quote that part.....Why? Can you say "cherry picking?"
check out the ad that is debunked by factcheck. This is of course from moveon.org
I did. For those who couldn't be bothered, the ad says "They lied" - with quotes from Bush administration officials - and "They died" - with a list of war dead.
The objections raised are nitpicking at best, along the lines of "well, you know, if they really believed it, it wasn't a lie. Gee whiz." A couple are howlers, though, for example where it says Bush didn't lie when he said "we found the weapons of mass destruction" because he actually meant "we" found something else instead. Nor did he lie when he said that there was "no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties" because "the word 'ties' can cover any connection, however weak." By which argument, of course, it becomes equally true to say the US had "ties" to both Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, as well as the Taliban and now has ties to a whole laundry list of dictatorial regimes and terrorist movements.
It also refers to Cheney's remark that we would be "greeted as liberators" as just his "opinion" - and, we are apparently supposed to gather, therefore nothing by which any member of the public should have been influenced.
But even at that, the item concludes by saying "much of what is quoted in this ad was, even in context, false or misleading." They just weren't, well, you know, lies.
However, recall that a "lie" is best defined as a statement made with the intent to deceive and it becomes clear that many if not all of the quotes are indeed lies and that FactCheck's fact checking needs a check-up of its own.
Oh, and one other thing, navyseals: If you'd bothered to read with your eyes instead of your presumptions, you would have noticed that the ad was not from MoveOn but from a coalition of which MoveOn a member. Why FactCheck mentioned MoveOn as opposed to, say, the AFSC, Greenpeace, NAACP, Pax Christi, Tikkun, Veterans for Peace, or any of the 33 other national organizations that are in the coalition, I don't know. I suppose the answer could be interesting.
MM should add Tim Russert to the list of "journalists" who are saying that Congress saw the same intelligence as Bush. He said this as a matter-of-fact given on Meet the Press on Sunday, Nov. 13.
And - not to be a nag (repeating myself from a message on a similar forum) - I hope you all caught the editorial on this issue in Tuesday's New York Times.
Awesome and hard-hitting ...
What is it with this week the Right is trotting out all these old warhorses (pardon the pun) and showing them off like new born foals. This angle and the aluminium tube story both of which have been rebuffed are polished up and held high as shiny new. Is it just become the standard now say it enough and it is true whether it is or not?
I think that this issue being raised is a derivative of the famous straw man argument anyway.
The Democrats did see much of the same intelligence that Bush saw.
That is irrelevant.
President Clinton saw much of the same intelligence and didn't invade.
Congress saw much of the same intelligence and did not tell Bush that he should invade no matter what.
Bush chose to invade when he knew that there was doubt about the evidence indicting Saddam and he knew that the inspectors had not found any WMD's.
Bush failed to highlight the doubts and the questions concerning the threat that Saddam posed.
The fact that much of the same evidence was seen by all is irrelevant. The problem is what Bush did with it.
And it is the failure of the Democrats to highlight this fact in the past that has allowed the Republicans to use this irrelevant fact over and over again.
John Kerry was on Tavis Smiley last night, and he managed to make this point last night, but it is 13 months too late of course.
dem in texas, I think its one thing and perfectly legitimate for any politician to question the decision or the prosecution of the war all they want. What is unacceptable, it to LIE themselves and accuse the President of LYING, when there is NO credible effort that the President systematically and intentionally lied to convince America. He believed in the mission strongly and won the debate. There's a big difference and personally, I think the Democrats will pay a big price for this behavior.
In fact Bush and his administration did lie a couple of times.
I do think that saying that the flaw here is Bush lying does constitute a weak argument. It is much more persuasive to assert that Bush deceived and distorted evidence and failed to inform the American public of the questionable nature of much of his 'evidence'.
The Bush Administration did not give us an accurate picture of the reliability of the evidence that they had. In a couple of instances they lied, but mostly they simply deceived an audience that refused to drill down and look at the facts in-depth.
The Bush Administration also clearly had an agenda that is now clear, an agenda to invade Iraq for which they created a justification for. That should upset every American. Everyone should reject being manipulated the way that Bush did, whether he did so by lying, deceit, or omission of contrary evidence.
It is a sign that most Americans finally do reject the manipulation by Bush that he is so low in the polls.
perfectstorm - Thursday November 17, 2005 01:27:20 PM EST
You are of course flat out wrong. On Sept 7, 2002 Bush said, I would remind you that when the inspectors were in Iraq when they were finally denied access an IAEA report came out saying Iraq was six months away from a (nuclear) weapon. I dont know what more evidence you want. Since not only was there no such report, but the IAEAs actual position was the polar opposite of that there can be NO reasonable argument that Bush did NOT lie. Since he continually pushed deceptive reports on both the aluminum tubes and the supposed mobile biological weapons labs LONG after they had been discredited. I say its the republicans that will pay the price once the FACTS become well known, that is IF the SCLM ever gets around to publicizing the actual facts.
The Democrats did see much of the same intelligence that Bush saw. That is irrelevant. President Clinton saw much of the same intelligence and didn't invade.
**********************
The difference is Clinton was President before 9/11 occurred...there would have been no public support to invade Iraq then as we had just not lost 3000 Americans to a terrorist attack on our own soil. The risks that Saddam had WMD's and may hand them to terrorists for more attacks was too great, worldwide terrorism is interconnected - that is why the Democrats gave Bush the authority then and are now trying to backtrack to make political hay.
Politics, pure and simple.
tommy - Thursday November 17, 2005 01:28:08 PM EST -
Lotta bunk in that statement. The CIA said directly that Iraq was not likely to either attack the US nor allow their weapons to be used by terrorists. Bush tweaked the intelligence. He sent 12 reports on aluminum tubes to Congress all of which omitted the conclusion of our countries top experts on Gas Centrifuges who were virtualy unanimous in their conclusion that the tubes were NOT for GCs. Add to that Bush telling outright lies like when he made up a non existant IAEA report and it is a lot more than politics to say Bush was distorting intelligence. Hold the dems responsible for their vote, I plan to. Dont even try to pretend Bush did NOT distorty intelligence and LIE about Iraq. It is an untennable position.
While world terrorism may be interconnected since the CIA said they had no evidence of ANY Iraqi involvement in international terrorism for a decade before the invasion, and since al Quedas stated purpose was to overthrow secular regimes like Iraqs it makes NO sense whatsoever to claim they would be in cahoots. Which there was no evidence of anyway. The potential for a threat is not a threat that demands immediate drastic actions. You keep saying the risk was too great but in truth where was the risk? Iraq was weakened. Condalizzard Rice and Powell both said Iraq was conatained, even Kuwait opposed the invasion. Your assertion is about like you claiming to a judge that you had to murder your nieghbor because you didnt get along and he had a job so one day he MIGHT buy a gun and you couldnt take the risk.
Add to that Bush telling outright lies like when he made up a non existant IAEA report and it is a lot more than politics to say Bush was distorting intelligence. Hold the dems responsible for their vote, I plan to. Dont even try to pretend Bush did NOT distorty intelligence and LIE about Iraq. It is an untennable position.
********************
solon,
You continue to fabricate and lie ourself when you claim there is absolute proof that Bush LIED! - You know there is not, you cannot and never have proven it, as nobody can. So, you and other left wing radicals float on this Bush LIED island by yourselves, while even well intentioned and well reasoned Democrats don't even maintain "Bush lied to get us into this illegal War".
So you can keep saying it over and over and over - and it's doesn't ring any truer as time goes by. Do yourself and your credibility a favor, and give up.
tommy - Thursday November 17, 2005 02:18:38 PM EST
Ridiculous, what is making up a report that never existed if it is NOT A LIE? How is making up a report that never existed NOT a lie? When he was challenged by the IAEA saying no such report existed did he say he had made a mistake? NO he tried a series of excuses NONE of which EVER supported his assertion which he NEVER repudiated. THAT IS LYING, you just saying "it isnt a lie WAAAAAHHHH, without explaining how making up a report that not only never existed but completely misrepresented the position of the agency he was citing can be anything OTHER THAN A LIE means YOU are lying.
Here is a clue, when you MAKE SOMETHING UP that doesnt exist to make an assertion completely contraindicated by and completly contradicted by the FACTS ITS CALLED LYING. It will take more than YOU LYING by simply saying WWAAAAAHHHH he didnt either lie. It will take an explanation on how making up somthing that doesnt exist to make an assertion contradicted by the facts can possibly be anything other than a LIE. Bush did this, Bush LIED QED
by solon - Thursday November 17, 2005 02:40:51 PM EST -
It's really not reasonable, even if one agrees with your allegation, that for Bush to misspeak or misname one of the endless acronyms that make up the US Government, the United Nations and so forth, is reasonable grounds to conclude without question that this is all a premeditated, calculated lie, based on that one understandable error, to satisfy the evil Bush and Cheney's unrelenting thirst for dead bodies and torture, while lavishing untold riches on their buddies in BIG BUSINESS. I hope you don't mind if those of us more reasonable and in touch with the real world hold off on our conclusions at this time.
red_october - Thursday November 17, 2005 02:55:38 PM EST
Had he come out and said he mispoke, I would accept that he didnt. NO one made the claim he asserted NO ONE. So no, since he made excuses to keep the lie alive instead of coming clean this is a lie. Straight out and without reasonable argument it wasnt
Solon,
I respectfully wish to direct your attention to the following written by Byron York
(see [link to www.nationalreview.com]
Another Bush statement that Milbank labeled "dubious, if not wrong" was something the president said last September during a news conference with British prime minister Tony Blair. The president "cited a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA] saying the Iraqis were 'six months away from developing a weapon,'" Milbank wrote. But Milbank said the IAEA report, which was issued in 1998, "made no such assertion."
In response, the White House argued that the president had simply misspoken. "It was in fact the International Institute for Strategic Studies [IISS] that issued the report concluding that Iraq could develop nuclear weapons in as few as six months," Fleischer wrote. "The source may be different, but the underlying fact remains the same." And in fact, the IISS had finished a report, which was released the Monday after Bush's Saturday statement, which said Iraq could "assemble nuclear weapons within months if fissile material from foreign sources were obtained."
And even the IAEA report cited by Milbank was far less conclusive than he implied. The Post quoted a portion of the report that said the IAEA "has found no indication of Iraq having achieved its program goal of producing nuclear weapons or of Iraq having retained a physical capability for the production of weapon-usable nuclear material or having clandestinely obtained such material." But Milbank did not quote the next portion of the report, which began, "At the same time, the IAEA points out the limitations inherent in a countrywide verification process and consequently its inability to guarantee that all readily concealable items have been found." The IAEA said that inspectors were not allowed to visit new weapons sites, and as a result, "the level of assurance the IAEA can give that prohibited activities are not taking place in Iraq is significantly reduced."
--------- It seems to me this article negates your assertion that Bush lied.
Have a good one, and thanks for the reference regarding the countries ranked by reporters.
anotheramerican - Thursday November 17, 2005 02:57:32 PM EST
No it doesnt for several reasons. First Bush CLAIMED it said Iraq was six months away from a nuclear weapon. No possible reading of the IAEA report can come up with that interpretation. Saying we aknowlege the limitations of our intelligence cannot turn the CLAIM that they said Iraq was six months from a weapon into a true statement.
As to the IISS report. First it came out a couple of days AFTER Bush made this assertion, one that began "I WOULD REMIND YOU" it is physically impossible to assert he was saying I would remind you of a report when it wasnt even released yet. Second the IISS is an obscure international thinktank, mistaking it for the IAEA is like mistaking your high school drama award for an Oscar. Third, that report also did NOT make the claim Bush asserted but said IF Iraq could get enriched uranium they would be six months from a nuclear weapons, which the IAEA, remember the international agency, tasked with this exact obligation, the one Bush actually DID cite disputed this. So no, while this is the best spin that the White House could come up with it STILL doesnt show this was not a lie. IN FACT, it shows even more this was a LIE not a mistake, if it were a mistake Bush would have admitted it instead of this disengenuous attempt at explaining it away it is called Mens Rea, the actions of a guilty mind
solon,
What you fail to say about the "six months away" statment of yours is the International Institute for Strategic Studies finished a report that was released the Monday after what Bush said. It said Iraq could "assemble nuclear weapons within months if fissile material from foreign sources were obtained." You know that's what happened yet you continue to cherry pick your information to mischaracterize.
tommy - Thursday November 17, 2005 03:18:21 PM EST
No I dont, first noone in their right mind would confuse the IISS with the IAEA, second that is NOT what Bush claimed he claimed a report that said Iraq was six months away FROM a nuclear weapon not IF they get the most important component, the sine qua non OF nuclear weapons THEN they could get one in six months, thats like saying IF you give me the money I could buy a Ferrari. Third the IAEA, the agency that Bush WAS citing disputed this finding.
by solon - Thursday November 17, 2005 03:23:37 PM EST -
So this one isolated incident, if we take it at face value, is to you, absolute, conclusive proof that this is all some grand scheme involving international conspiracies and a calculated plan to mislead the people (even though this is the ONLY possible lie you can cite) into an unnecessary way that the evil doers in the White House wanted all along? Sorry, no sale solon. You need MORE, much, much more.
red_october - Thursday November 17, 2005 03:30:00 PM EST
This one example is compelling evidence that BUSH LIED, which is all I ever claimed it was.
I think Solon was only talking about lies. If you're talking about big fat misleading statements, you can find 237 others here.
Henry Waxman's report has them broken down by official and topic.
tommy - Thursday November 17, 2005 03:18:21 PM EST -
I want to commend tommy and Another American here. After putting this argument in this forum perhaps 20 times this is the first ATTEMPT by them to even address it. A failed attempt but a decent try and with reasonable arguments. Good job.
Solon wrote: I want to commend tommy and Another American here. After putting this argument in this forum perhaps 20 times this is the first ATTEMPT by them to even address it. A failed attempt but a decent try and with reasonable arguments. Good job.
Ahh.. your memory is about as good as mine.. I do remember bringing up the Byron York article at least once before, but perhaps it wasn't with you.
I do not log in here much anymore, so I haven't had the opportunity to discuss this with you 20 times... If only I had the luxury.. :-) Take care.
Another American, I of course knew about the article. Which is why I had ready answers for it, I dont remember using them before, perhaps I forgot. My job takes me out of town twice a week for about 36 hrs at a time, many times thread dissapear before I get back to them, I almost never go into archives
solon wrote:
As to the IISS report. First it came out a couple of days AFTER Bush made this assertion, one that began "I WOULD REMIND YOU" it is physically impossible to assert he was saying I would remind you of a report when it wasnt even released yet.
--------
Solon, If I have my dates correct, (and please correct me if I'm wrong,) Bush made the misstatement regarding IAEA and IISS at a press conference on a Friday, September 7, 2002; Fleisher corrected it the next day and the IISS report was released the following Monday. Just because the report was released to the public the Monday after the statement does not mean that administration officials did not have it earlier.
It doesn't make sense that Mr. Bush would lie about something so easily proved. It makes less sense that Fleisher would use the IISS as a correction unless he already knew what was in the report.
solon wrote: Second the IISS is an obscure international thinktank, mistaking it for the IAEA is like mistaking your high school drama award for an Oscar.
------
Your characterization and comparison is not necissarily accurate. The International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) is considered one of the world’s leading authorities on political-military conflict.
Solon wrote: Third, that report also did NOT make the claim Bush asserted but said IF Iraq could get enriched uranium they would be six months from a nuclear weapons
------
If Mr. Bush was speaking extemporarily at a press conference it is quite possible that his interpretation of the report, (he no doubt had someone else give him a synopsis,) was that the Iraqi's are six months away from potentially making a nuclear weapon. (He may also have believed that.) To say he lied about it when it is easily fact-checked doesn't make sense.
quote from [link to www.iiss.org]
Iraq could assemble a nuclear weapon in months if it had foreign help, a report into Baghdad's arms programmes has concluded.
...The London-based IISS, founded in 1958 and now with offices in Washington and Singapore, says Iraq could "probably assemble" nuclear weapons in months if Saddam Hussein could get fissile material from foreign sources but that Iraq does not have the facilities to make enough material for a nuclear weapon itself.
...The report also assesses Iraq's biological, chemical and ballistic missile capability. It estimates that Iraq retained "perhaps thousands of litres of anthrax" from before the Gulf War.
Saddam could resume making biological weapons within weeks and could have produced thousands of litres of anthrax, botulinum toxin and other agents since weapons inspections ended in 1998, it says.
On chemical weapons the report says Saddam probably has a few hundred tonnes of mustard gas from before the Gulf War as well as "precursors" for a few hundred tonnes of sarin and perhaps the same amount of VX.
Saddam could resume making chemical weapons in months and could have made hundreds of tonnes of mustard and nerve gases since 1998, the report adds.
Saddam has probably about 12 al-Hussein missiles, with a range of 650km, but would need several years and much foreign aid to build long-range missiles, according to the IISS.
----------
Anybody interested could have read that IISS report and they did. To say Bush lied, is to take what had happened and force fit them into the anti-Bush agenda. For each of your reasons that supposedly 'prove' Bush lied, there is a reasonable conclusion that he did not. (I know I didn't change your mind, but you have to realize you have not changed mine.)
anotheramerican - Thursday November 17, 2005 04:26:17 PM EST
No there is not a reasonanble explanation for mistaking the IISS for the very agency tasked with the monitering of Iraqs nuclear program. There is no explanation for telling the reporters I WOULD REMIND YOU about a report that had not yet been released. It is well within Bushs ongoing pattern to lie about things easily checked, he lied about who would benifit from his tax cuts, that was easy enough to check, he lied about the cost of this prescription drug benifits even though the government had a five month old study proving he was lying, he lied when he said he brought dems and republicans together to pass a patients bill of rights when it was easy enough to check on the FACT that he vetoed the bill.
Your best argument is that Bush could have just been wrong, mistaking the claim that Iraq COULD get a bomb in six months IF they could get enriched uranium with they are six months FROM a nuclear weapon period. I would accept that IF they had when talking about this admitted this mistake, they did NOT. In fact this was one of a series of excuses, they also claimed the meant a series of London Times articles, (except these also did not make the claim rather they said they were six month from enriching uranium, they also claimed they meant a 91 IAEA report except the IAEA claimed they had no such report then either and exactly WHAT would a 91 report have to do in context with 2002 anyway 91 was BEFORE its program was destroyed.
I dont think any reasonable argument can be made, not excuses but reasonable arguments that Bush WASNT lying It involves a rationale like he was just wrong and refusing to admit he was wrong, so making a string of excuses none of which made it clear the original assertion was TOTALLY unsupported, but thats STILL doesnt mean it was a lie. No this line of argument simply cannot hold up. Bush lied on this one.
solon,
I wish I had time to go into your reply. Without you providing specifics, it is hard to refute what you consider lies. (Even so, I don't have the time right now.)
Perhaps next time...
Take care everyone!
"It seems to me this article negates your assertion that Bush lied." --anotheramerican
---------------------------------------
You are absolutely right. The President is just incompetent. Trying to make it seem more than that is hyperbole.
open_mind - Thursday November 17, 2005 03:15:39 PM EST
No it doesnt read my resonse
Tommy,
I used to think Bush lied, but you and others have convinced me that is not true.
He is just incompetent. It appears he was manipulated by people who had no interest in the truth, but were much more interested in marketing their faulty ideas. They were the big criminals in this. Bush is just the face man.
open mind, maybe someone can explain to me how making up a report that never existed and asseting for the IAEA a position the polar opposite of their ACTUAL position does not constitute a lie.
open mind, maybe someone can explain to me how making up a report that never existed and asseting for the IAEA a position the polar opposite of their ACTUAL position does not constitute a lie....by solon
*********************
solon,
Unless you have proof that does not exist that Bush KNOWINGLY made up the report and not actually believed, as he did, the report existed - then you have no case for lying........but you know that, don't you?
tommy - Thursday November 17, 2005 02:53:43 PM EST
How about this for proof, A) There was no such report, nothing like it from the IAEA so exactly where did it come from, and just happen to coincedentally push his agenda. B) his actions when it became public there was no such report, he didnt back off his assertion and say he made a mistake he just kept bringing up increasingly obscure sources implying they had made this claim though NOT ONE OF THEM DID. IF you make a mistake you aknowlege it UNLESS you want to continue to back up the claim that is unsupportable, when you take that road it is clear you are LYING
If I were president and someone put into my speech a demonstrably false claim I would fire that person and admit the error, that didnt happen. You are only making excuses for a lie, not showing there was no lie
Tommy,
I used to think Bush lied, but you and others have convinced me that is not true. He is just incompetent. It appears he was manipulated by people who had no interest in the truth, but were much more interested in marketing their faulty ideas. They were the big criminals in this. Bush is just the face man...by open_mind
***********************
open_mind,
I have no evidence to disagree with anything you've said here.
open_mind, Assuming you're correct and Bush is incompetent, what does that make you think of those Democrats that this incompetent moron, by their own accusations, outfoxed into starting a war? So if we accept your theory that Bush is ncompetant, it seems we are stuck with the choice of having someone incompetant run the country, or someone so stupid they were duped by an incompetant. Where do you come down on this? Any way you slice it, it seems like the smarter one out of the two, is the incompetant one.
"open_mind, Assuming you're correct and Bush is incompetent, what does that make you think of those Democrats that this incompetent moron, by their own accusations, outfoxed into starting a war? So if we accept your theory that Bush is ncompetant, it seems we are stuck with the choice of having someone incompetant run the country, or someone so stupid they were duped by an incompetant. Where do you come down on this? Any way you slice it, it seems like the smarter one out of the two, is the incompetant one." --red_october
--------------------------------
I believe the Democrats who voted for this authorization were just as lazy at best and treasonous at worst as the Republicans who did and the people in the Bush Administration who lustfully wanted this war. I will be happy as pie if we throw all of the people who contributed to this action out on their ear the next time they are up for election. Are you with me?
by open_mind - Thursday November 17, 2005 03:12:42 PM
I am absolutely not with you because I don't share your perspective in the first place. I believe the removal of Saddam was necessary and the world, and Americans are much better off without him in the long run. I think that the war in Iraq has gone very well and that soon, there will be a working democracy that will join us in the fight against terrorism, instead of another Iran or N. Korea or Syria.
I was merely putting myself in your shoes to the extent that if I thought Bush was an incompetant, it would occur to me that he was not so incompetant to outfox those individuals that you suggest should be in charge. Again, assuming your scenario. In plain language, if you think Bush is dumb, then those Democrats in the Senate that he bambozzled must have the IQ of a paperweight and you want them in charge. No, but thanks anyway.
red october,
Exactly - they want to have it both ways;
1) Bush is stupid, incompetent, an idiot, etc.......
2) Bush is so smart he fooled all the good Democrats by misleading them into this War.
Which is it?
tommy - Thursday November 17, 2005 03:24:08 PM EST -
Or
3) Bush is just smart enough to hire good liars. Actually I dont think Bush is that stupid, he his political instincts are too good, he is intellectually lazy, but not really stupid in my mind
"I was merely putting myself in your shoes to the extent that if I thought Bush was an incompetant, it would occur to me that he was not so incompetant to outfox those individuals that you suggest should be in charge. Again, assuming your scenario. In plain language, if you think Bush is dumb, then those Democrats in the Senate that he bambozzled must have the IQ of a paperweight and you want them in charge. No, but thanks anyway." --red_october
---------------------------------------
Sorry, you are mistaken. I want nothing to do with "Democrats in the Senate that he bambozzled". As I previously stated, I hope they are thrown out with the rest of the trash. Please pay attention.
open_mind - Thursday November 17, 2005 03:49:15 PM EST
I am with you on that one
The risks that Saddam had WMD's and may hand them to terrorists for more attacks was too great, worldwide terrorism is interconnected - that is why the Democrats gave Bush the authority then and are now trying to backtrack to make political hay. --tommy
----------------------------------------
WMD in Iraq: Evidence and Implications pp.48-49
2. Was there reason to believe that Saddam Hussein would turn over unconventional weapons or WMD capability to Al Qaeda or other terrorists?
The president presented this possibility as the ultimate danger and the centerpiece of his case for war. The most strongly worded of many such warnings came in the 2003 State of the Union speech: “Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans—this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known.” In fact, however, there was no positive evidence to support the claim that Iraq would have transferred WMD or agents to terrorist groups and much evidence to counter it.
Bin Laden and Saddam were known to detest and fear each other, the one for his radical religious beliefs and the other for his aggressively secular rule and persecution of Islamists. Bin Laden labeled the Iraqi ruler an infidel and an apostate, had offered to go to battle against him after the invasion of Kuwait in 1990, and had frequently called for his overthrow.[119] The fact that they were strategic adversaries does not rule out a tactical alliance based on a common antagonism to the United States. However, although there have been periodic meetings between Iraqi and Al Qaeda agents, and visits by Al Qaeda agents to Baghdad, the most intensive searching over the last two years has produced no solid evidence of a cooperative relationship between Saddam’s government and Al Qaeda.
There were more than words for guidance. Terrorism expert Rohan Gunaratna has pointed out that the Iraqi regime had a long history of sponsoring terrorism against Israel, Kuwait, and Iran, providing money and weapons to these groups. Yet over many years Saddam did not transfer chemical, biological, or radiological materials or weapons to any of them “probably because he knew that they could one day be used against his secular regime.”[120]
In the judgment of U.S. intelligence, a transfer of WMD by Saddam to terrorists was likely only if he were “sufficiently desperate” in the face of an impending invasion. Even then, the NIE concluded, he would likely use his own operatives before terrorists. [121]
Even without the particular relationship between Saddam and bin Laden, the notion that any government would turn over its principal security assets to people it could not control is highly dubious. States have multiple interests and land, people, and resources to protect. They have a future. Governments that made such a transfer would put themselves at the mercy of groups that have none of these. Terrorists would not even have to use the weapons but merely allow the transfer to become known to U.S. intelligence to call down the full wrath of the United States on the donor state, thereby opening opportunities for themselves. Moreover, governments with the wherewithal to have acquired such weapons and the ambition to want them used are likely to have their own means of delivering them—through people who take orders. In the 1993 assassination attempt on former president George H. W. Bush, for example, Saddam relied on his own intelligence operatives. All in all, governments would have little to gain and perhaps everything to lose by giving their WMD to terrorists.
--------------------
The IC believed Saddam would most likely use WMD in response to an attack. They also believed he would only carry out attacks using controllable assets. Saying he would give the WMD's to terrorists is in direct conflict with what the IC could reasonably support at the time.
open_mind,
If you want to live in a world full of "what the experts speculate and assert, etc.....blah, blah, blah" full of risks of what Saddam may or may not have done at any given minute, considering he was a loose cannon who slaughtered his own citizens, that's fine.
I would rather err on the side of caution of what Saddam was capable of, given his history of what we knew for sure - that he was an evil, murderous dictator.
We disagree.
tommy - Thursday November 17, 2005 02:18:38 PM EST
If you want to live in a world full of "what the experts speculate and assert, etc.....blah, blah, blah"<<
In that case the CIA and other experts cost too much money, if we are just going to ignore them and say we cant trust them we should fire them hire Hollywood screenwriters and call it the dept of making sh*t up.
Well if you dont get along with your nieghbor then you better go kill him since you cant take the chance that MAYBE, POSSSIBLY, in spite of all the experts telling you different he MIGHT one day buy a gun and shoot you.
Well if you dont get along with your nieghbor then you better go kill him since you cant take the chance that MAYBE, POSSSIBLY, in spite of all the experts telling you different he MIGHT one day buy a gun and shoot you.
******************
solon, You continue this idiotic analogy of some home invasion with being Presidednt and having the responsibility of protecting nearly 300 million people. Try another, please.
"solon, You continue this idiotic analogy of some home invasion with being Presidednt and having the responsibility of protecting nearly 300 million people. Try another, please." --tommy
--------------------------------------------
Are you denigrating solon's obligation to protect his family?
Are you denigrating solon's obligation to protect his family?
by open_mind
************************
No, I am simply saying to compare a home invasion to the national security of a country is a riduculous analogy. As a family in a single home, a joint decision is made with little or no ramifications beyond that family. As a country, it's hardly the same thing.
tommy,
Your quibble is just a question of scale. Scale has nothing to do with the crux of the analogy.
It is a very good analogy.
Scale has nothing to do with the crux of the analogy.
********************
Really? If I stub my toe, it hurts like hell. If I have a brain tumor, it hurst like hell.
Good analogy? No. The ramifications are worlds apart. Do you understand now?
tommy - Thursday November 17, 2005 03:26:22 PM EST
The logic is exactly the same which is why the analogy hold up. It is treating the potential for a threat as if it were a threat that HAD to be immediatly taken care of. The potential for a threat should not be treated the same as a threat otherwise we need to invade Mars since the POTENTIAL exists for them to shoot death rays at us. POTENTIAL threats are nearly infinite
solon I like your analogy, but may I add something to it?
A new family moves into the neighborhood, rumor has it the husband has a police record (assault), a hot temper and owns an arsenal of guns. He's not very friendly, mostly sneers ominously at the other neighbors.
The neighbors are convinced he's dangerous. So they jump him one night and kill him before he can hurt any of them.
Come to find out only a couple of those rumors were true. He did have a police record, and a hot temper, but didn't have even one gun in the house. Oh well.
Taz - Thursday November 17, 2005 03:37:45 PM ES
Yeah, I like that one too. Its actually more specific.
I know it is easy to bring up a scalable example. Bravo on that.
If you are saying that murdering one person (in solon's analogy) is no big deal and murdering 100,000 (as the administration has arguably done) is just a question of scale, I would agree on that academic point, but ALL murder is wrong as Moses told us. You can't compare murder to a stubbed toe.
tommy - Thursday November 17, 2005 02:56:28 PM EST -
It is a good analogy since the logic is the same. You are treating the mere possibility or potential of a threat as if it were the same as an immediate threat, one that needs immediate response, the reason you dont like the analogy is because it is a good one not because it is a bad one.
Now Solon, there is a legal difference. You could only get away with shooting your neighbor if you controlled all three branches of government. Otherwise you'd probably go to prison for it.
Tommy,
You can have your faith-based logic all you want. It appears that many of your arguments hinge on the worst possible scenario-however unlikely it may be. That is just a cop-out IMO to believe conclusions and theories that are not at all supported by any evidence whatsoever.
Yes, we disagree.
open_mind,
I prefer to prepare for the worst possible scenario while hoping it never happens, than only prepare for a rosy one and thus get blindsided when something worse happens. I believe too many lives, including you and your family, would want it my way.
"I prefer to prepare for the worst possible scenario while hoping it never happens, than only prepare for a rosy one and thus get blindsided when something worse happens. I believe too many lives, including you and your family, would want it my way." --tommy
--------------------------------------------
Tommy, the problem with using your logic is that you can support any self-serving argument or conclusion with it. What is the use of having an intelligence agency if its analysis and recommendations are either ignored or in some cases blatantly distorted?
The President was fear-mongering and you ate it up. It is time to step away from the trough.
open_mind,
I understand what you are saying and I egree to a point - but when it comes to national security in light of 9/11 and terrorists who want to destroy us for sport, I am sorry - we need to do what it takes to protect ourselves and if that means going above and beyond intelligence, which was flawed at best, when there is a grave and gathering threat like Saddam - then we do it.
"The Democrats did see much of the same intelligence that Bush saw. That is irrelevant." (dem in texas)
No it isn't!! I'm not going to give the Democrats a pass here, it's hypocritical. The only Democrats in Congress that get a pass and have the right to speak up now are those members who opposed the war from the beginning and said as much.
To these johnnie come lately Democrats with there hands up now yelling "me too! me too!" I ask, why didn't you fight like hell against this President and this war before it began? A lot of us private citizens knew this was an unjust war from the start (or even before!), and we weren't in possession of any of the intelligence!
Taz - Thursday November 17, 2005 02:46:33 PM EST
I'm with you on that, the dems dont get a pass from me either. I was saying the intelligence wasnt there, they dont get to say they were fooled.
On a related matter, administration officials (Rumsfeld, Bush, Hadley) and their apologists (McCain, Torie Clark, et al.) have recently been pounding on the talking point "... the French, Germans, and Russians all thought Saddam had WMD ..." Kudos to a CNN fact check which went to the videotape to show Chirac, Putin, and Schroeder all saying in no uncertain terms that they were NOT CONVINCED that Saddam had WMD. There were specific assertions that Saddam had no nuclear program. The statement that the French, Germans, and Russians agreed that Saddam had WMD is a flat out lie.
Keep any links you have to that one. That lie is thrown around here quite a bit by the neocons. A careful examination of statements shows no such corroboration of our WMD intell by those nations. I wonder where this lie started? Maybe MMFA can address it.