Media falsely reported that Bush "took responsibility" for flawed prewar intel
SUMMARY: Numerous media figures reported that President Bush had taken "responsibility" for flawed prewar intelligence. In fact, he did no such thing. Though he described the intelligence as "wrong" and accepted responsibility for "the decision to go into Iraq," he never stated he was responsible for the intelligence failures themselves.
Following the last of President Bush's four recent speeches on Iraq, numerous media figures reported that the president had taken "responsibility" for flawed prewar intelligence. But Bush did no such thing. While he described the intelligence as "wrong," accepted responsibility for "the decision to go into Iraq," and said he was "responsible for fixing what went wrong by reforming our intelligence capabilities," he never stated he was responsible for the intelligence failures themselves.
In his December 14 speech, Bush addressed the issue of the intelligence he used in making the case for the Iraq war:
BUSH: When we made the decision to go into Iraq, many intelligence agencies around the world judged that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction. This judgment was shared by the intelligence agencies of governments who did not support my decision to remove Saddam. And it is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. As president, I'm responsible for the decision to go into Iraq. And I'm also responsible for fixing what went wrong by reforming our intelligence capabilities. And we're doing just that.
While the media largely described Bush as accepting responsibility for the decision to go to war on the basis of faulty intelligence -- an accurate characterization -- several media figures misconstrued Bush's statement as an acceptance of blame for the bad intelligence itself. These included Fox News host Brit Hume, CNN hosts Wolf Blitzer and Soledad O'Brien, MSNBC anchor Chris Jansing, ABC host Robin Roberts, and National Public Radio (NPR) national political correspondent Mara Liasson.
Among those who misrepresented Bush's statement, Hume stands out. On the December 14 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, he asserted that Bush "said he takes full responsibility for the decision to invade and for any intelligence failures." Later in the show, Hume aired portions of his interview with President Bush -- conducted after the final speech -- in which the issue of prewar intelligence was discussed. As noted above, it is clear from the text of the speech that Bush did not accept "full responsibility" for the flawed intelligence. But if Hume had been confused about this point, his discussion with the president should have clarified it. During the interview, Bush defended himself against accusations that his administration misused the prewar intelligence by twice repeating the misleading claim that he and Congress "looked at the same intelligence" on the Iraqi threat -- a claim that would carry no weight if, in fact, he had earlier in the day accepted blame for "any intelligence failures":
BUSH: To the best of my ability, I have resisted dragging the presidency in the name-calling and the finger-pointing and the blaming. But no, you're right. And we took a pasting -- you know, a blasting -- and have begun, recently, to make the case in a more forceful way to the American people. First of all, rejecting this notion that, you know, we lied about intelligence, reminding people that some of those people making those accusations looked at the same intelligence I looked at and voted to send -- for the use of force in Iraq.
HUME: Tell me about the decision that was made to change all that, to make this set of speeches that you concluded today and to fire back in the ways that you and the others in the administration have been shooting back. How was that decision made? By whom, and what triggered it?
BUSH: Well, I think -- first of all, I was ready to make the case for Iraq coming out of the summer. And the problem was that strategy was derailed by [Hurricane] Katrina. For Katrina -- during Katrina -- it made it difficult to talk about anything other than Katrina. And so like anything else in the public arena, you have to understand the timing of how to take a message -- and so the decision was made after my foreign trips -- and remember, I was gone quite a while in the month of November, as well -- to come back here and to start laying out the case, as clearly as possible, not only in a series of speeches, but punching back when we were being treated unfairly. And one unfair treatment was this notion about -- that we had misused intelligence, particularly by the people that looked at the same intelligence I had.
From the December 14 edition of CNN's Live From ...:
BLITZER: Hi, Kyra [Phillips, anchor]. Thanks very much. Lots of news going on. Is there a new candidate for the White House in 2008? Speculation being fueled right now by a surprise announcement. We're checking the political pulse. Plus, on the eve of the historic election in Iraq, President Bush takes responsibility for bad intelligence. How will the nation move forward from here? We're looking at all of the sides.
From the December 14 edition of CNN's The Situation Room (4 p.m. ET edition):
BLITZER: Up next, the president today took responsibility for bad pre-Iraq war intelligence. Is that a smart strategy? I'll ask two experts, [CNN political contributor and Democratic strategist] Paul Begala, [former Rep.] J.C. Watts [R-OK], they're standing by, here in The Situation Room.
[...]
BLITZER: What do you think about the president? Let me play a sound bite first from what the president said on this whole issue of taking personal responsibility for the bad intelligence.
From the December 14 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:
HUME: Earlier in the day, in the last of four speeches on Iraq, Mr. Bush said he takes full responsibility for the decision to invade and for any intelligence failures. Fox News chief White House correspondent Carl Cameron reports.
[...]
LIASSON: In other words, he has been able to kind of admit mistakes. Like today in his speech, he said he admitted that the intelligence was wrong and he takes responsibility for it, but he would do it again anyway. And there is something empowering about saying that you are wrong and not have it be a kind of hari-kari moment.
From the December 15 edition of CNN's American Morning:
O'BRIEN: The president is taking responsibility for Iraq intelligence failures. Could he also clear up the big questions in the CIA leak investigation? Columnist Robert Novak, quoted as saying, he thinks President Bush knows who leaked Valerie Plame's name to the media.
From the December 15 broadcast of ABC's Good Morning America:
ROBERTS: As Iraqis make their historic trip to the polls, President Bush is accepting responsibility for the faulty intelligence which helped lead the country into war. The blunt admission comes in the last of the president's recent series of speeches designed to shore up public support.
From the December 15 edition of MSNBC News Live (10 a.m. hour):
JANSING: Well, in yesterday's speech -- you know, there was a series of four speeches that the president gave leading up to today's elections - he took responsibility for faulty intelligence leading up to the war, although he still does believe that it's helping create a free and democratic Iraq, and that's the right thing to do.
The idea that Congress as a whole saw the same intel data as the WHIGs and other neocon war planners is just plain false.
Bush sounds kind of whiny here, complaining about being blamed unfairly. News flash for Duhbya: YOU are the man who needs to stand up and take the heat. We all know it's hard work and all, but sometimes you just gotta face the music and take it like a man. Oh well, what can you expect from a serial underachiever with no significant qualifications, or even qualities, for the job he was handed. I've never heard him come close to acccepting responsibility for anything in 5 years.
I think the most interesting thing he said all week was that if he knew then what he knows now, he still would have gone into Iraq. Huh? Whay get any intelligence at all if that was the case? Sounds to me like reinforcement of the idea that this operation was going to happen no matter what.
I don’t believe the President takes full responsibility for the failed intelligence nor do I think he needs to. You don’t just show up for work on the first day of your term with your new CIA & FBI. He relied on information from people who had been doing their jobs, accumulating intelligence during the previous administration and longer. The intelligence came from institutions that have been working to protect this country for decades at least. Why would you expect this President to take full responsibility for the failure of agencies that began working on this stuff long before he took office? I think if you leave out the technical nuances, what he said was “I take responsibility” and that’s something we’ve been asking for a long time. I think we’re “splitting hairs” here when we don’t really need to.
Did he stop flogging the aluminum tubes can only be used for Gas Centrifuges canard AFTER being told by EVERY expert in the field it was implausible that they WOULD be used for that purpose much less ONLY used for that purpose? NO he continued to push it and send reports to Congress pushing it WITHOUT including the dissent from the experts. After he made up an IAEA report out of whole cloth that never existed did he come clean, claim a mistake and admit the story wasnt true? NO he falsely attributed it to another source he couldnt possibly have been using that ALSO didnt make the claim thereby trying to keep the claim without ANY way to back it up. Bush has a TON of responsibility for HIS actions in the intelligence for Iraq fiasco.
And then there's the Iraq/al Qaida tag-team lie, intended solely for the purpose of rallying behind the war the sizeable percentage of Americans who were outraged by Sept. 11th, but not outraged enough to actually educate themselves on any distinctions between foreign brown-looking desert-dwellers who talk funny. This was at the center of the case for war:
"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."
Bush, from his State of the Union.
Bush and his thugs insisted upon hammering that point over and over again, despite the fact that the notion was utterly rejected by nearly every expert on both Iraq and al Qaida. Even Bush's CIA lapdog Tenet was forced to admit, to congress, that the tale being spun by his boss was directly contrary to the view within the intelligence community--their conclusion was that the only scenario whereby they could see Hussein even considering doing something like that is if Iraq was attacked (the very thing for which Bush was agitating). Bush had left that small fact--the the intel community completely disagreed with the nonsense he was peddling--out of the general release material sent to congress, burying it in the classified version which hardly anyone in congress was allowed to see.
When bin Laden released a tape, prior to the American invasion, which condemned Hussein as a socialist and an infidel, called for the overthrow of his, and all other similar, regimes, and explicitly banned his followers from fighting on behalf of Hussein, Colin Powell was before the congress, telling them the tape proved the two were in league all along (because bin Laden had said it was all right to fight American invaders)
I agree that the President has no reason to take responsibility for the intelligence that was put before him. He DOES, however, have to take responsibility for the decisions he made as a result of that intelligence. This is WAR and it should not be entered into lightly. There was plenty of intelligence that contradicted the regurgitated nonsense he STILL keeps spouting. (But I guess Condi didn’t read those to him.) What bothers me most is that even after it has been disclosed that Saddam Hussein did NOT have weapons of mass destruction and that there was NO credible link between him and the demons that crashed airplanes into American landmarks, therefore no imminent or immediate threat to the U.S., he has the gall to say he would still make the same decision. That just proves to me that the “decision” was already made long before 9/11 and the intelligence was just whitewash.
I believe taking responsibility for the decisions is exactly what he did, that was my point. As far as the decision to go to war already being made, I believe that the decision that was already made was the one that would require Saddam to abide by the U.N. Security Counsel resolutions. His failure to do so is what led to the war. I don’t think anyone argues that Saddam failed to abide by the resolutions. As I’ve said before, when you’re talking about a WMD threat, I think you have to err on the side of the safety from the threat because the consequences of doing otherwise can be catastrophic. If the President had chosen to give Saddam more time and he had attacked our allies or us with WMD, wouldn’t that been a lot worse. Hind sight is always 20/20. The President did not have that luxury.
I believe taking responsibility for the decisions is exactly what he did, that was my point.
There's no "belief" involved here: all Bush did was pass the blame on to the intel community, exactly as he's done from the beginning. He's never taken responsibility for anything.
As far as the decision to go to war already being made, I believe that the decision that was already made was the one that would require Saddam to abide by the U.N. Security Counsel resolutions. His failure to do so is what led to the war.
No, that isn't what led to the war at all, and your attempt to consign, to some memory hole, the entirety of the known history leading up to the event is hereby dismissed. A hardcore cadre of warhawks within the Bush regime (which wanted a war for years before that regime came to power) outlined, as its rationale for war, a specific imminent threat from Iraq that was based on fairy tales originating within that same group. That was the proffered basis for war. Compliance or non-compliance with UN resolutions is a technical bureacratic matter--nations do not go to war over paperwork.
To point out the obvious, if the UN is to be the rationale, the UN gets to make the call. That didn't happen, because Bush withdrew from the process when he saw he was going to be outvoted.
As I’ve said before, when you’re talking about a WMD threat,
We aren't talking about that, here--we're talking about a non-threat
The difficulty with the U.N. making the call lies with the fact that certain U.N. members charged with the responsibility of making the decision, including France and Germany, were being bought and paid for by Saddam through the Oil For Food program. They received millions in “protection” money for their “no” vote to enforce the resolutions. That is what I call a stacked deck and of course the President knew he couldn't get the "vote" under those circumstances.
And this talk of a “non-threat”, in my opinion, is just crazy. What proof do we have that the weapons weren’t relocated in the months leading up to the war, maybe to Syria or Iran? Remember, the inspectors had access to only the areas Saddam allowed them to see and only when he wanted them to see them, thus the violation of the resolutions. I also think we get caught up in thinking that weapons of mass destruction have to be some huge stock piles of uranium or buildings filled with 55 gallon containers of Anthrax or Mustard gas. There are weapons the size of a suit case or smaller that are capable of killing millions. To assume that Iraq was a non-threat and no weapons existed just because they haven’t been located is a bit foolish.
The difficulty with the U.N. making the call lies with the fact that certain U.N. members charged with the responsibility of making the decision, including France and Germany, were being bought and paid for by Saddam through the Oil For Food program. They received millions in “protection” money for their “no” vote to enforce the resolutions. That is what I call a stacked deck and of course the President knew he couldn't get the "vote" under those circumstances.
If you want to hold on to that nonsense, there probably isn't anything anyone can do to set you straight. For my purposes here, it's sufficient to note that by doing so, you conclusively discredit your own earlier (false) assertion about UN resolutions somehow being behind the Bush war
And this talk of a “non-threat”, in my opinion, is just crazy.
It's a documented fact; whatever other characterization you choose to apply to it is entirely up to you.
What proof do we have that the weapons weren’t relocated in the months leading up to the war, maybe to Syria or Iran?
The documented fact that all weapons programs were shut down and all weapons destroyed way back in 1991 and 92. Documented, it's worth noting, by Bush's own handpicked weapons inspectors.
I also think we get caught up in thinking that weapons of mass destruction have to be some huge stock piles of uranium or buildings filled with 55 gallon containers of Anthrax or Mustard gas. There are weapons the size of a suit case or smaller that are capable of killing millions.
Without a delivery system capable of dispersing them, they're as useless as a pile of rocks, and Iraq had no such delivery systems of any kind, much less one that would fit inside a suitcase. Chemical weapons, the only WMDs with which Iraq was ever intimately acquainted, are virtually useless unless used in massive quantities. A suitcase nuke is state-of-the-art equipment that would be as beyond the capabilities of a Third World nation like Iraq as a warp drive for starships.
To assume that Iraq was a non-threat and no weapons existed just because they haven’t been located is a bit foolish.
Are you genuinely this ignorant or are you counting on everyone else being so? Despite some CYA wishful thinking here and there, the Duelfer report is, in its facts, fairly conclusive: Iraq went out of the WMD business in the early 1990s. They dismantled the programs, destroyed the weapons, had no capability to create any more of them, had made no moves to rebuild any of the programs, and, in fact, had no plans to do so in the forseeable future, either. From the horse's mouth:
"Saddam Husayn ended the nuclear program in 1991, following the Gulf War. ISG [Iraq Survey Group] found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program."
"While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad’s desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered."
"ISG judges that in 1991 and 1992, Iraq appears to have destroyed its undeclared stocks of BW weapons and probably destroyed remaining holdings of bulk BW agent."
"...ISG judges that Baghdad abandoned its existing BW program in the belief that it constituted a potential embarrassment, whose discovery would undercut Baghdad’s ability to reach its overarching goal of obtaining relief from UN sanctions. In practical terms, with the destruction of the Al Hakam facility, Iraq abandoned its ambition to obtain advanced BW weapons quickly. ISG found no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a new BW program or was conducting BW-specific work for military purposes... [T]here appears to be a complete absence of discussion or even interest in BW at the Presidential level [from the mid-1990s forward]."
"The former Regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions. Neither was there an identifiable group of WMD policy makers or planners separate from Saddam.
You sound like you believe Saddam was a good guy that was just misunderstood. Of course he got rid of all the weapons. That’s why when he was asked to produce the documentation proving the status of the disposal of his weapons stock piles, as he had agreed to do, he couldn’t come with it. That’s why he refused to grant unfettered access to the inspectors for all those years as he had agreed to. Why would he do that if he had nothing to hide? If he was so concerned about the sanctions why didn’t he just comply with what he had already agreed to do? Do you think it’s possible that he bought the inspectors “reports” just like he bought France and Germany for their Security Counsel vote? I admit, I don’t know. Saddam certainly acted like he had something to hide. The risk was too much to chance.
Oh, and I’m glad you’re not the President. Your 20th century ideas just won’t play here in the 21st century. Like a lot of things, 21st century weapons are getting smaller and more sophisticated. Gone are the days when countries need massive delivery systems for their weapons and there is certainly an underground market available to those who want to acquire them. You don’t have to develop your own weapons systems anymore…all you need is money. And, there are plenty of “low tech” methods of WMD delivery these days too. Have you heard about the suicide bombers? Your “inside the box” thinking would be dangerous as Commander in Chief. If we leaned anything from 9/11 it was that our enemies do a pretty good job of thinking “outside the box”.
You make some good points based on your “intelligence” gathering. Unfortunately, we know that sometimes “intelligence” isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. The consequences of being wrong were too great to give Saddam the benefit of the doubt.
You sound like you believe Saddam was a good guy that was just misunderstood.
No, I sound like someone who has my facts straight talking to someone who knows nothing but right-wing talking points churned out by the gutter press.
Of course he got rid of all the weapons.
That's right, and that removed the threat that, over a decade later, would be used as a basis for war.
That’s why when he was asked to produce the documentation proving the status of the disposal of his weapons stock piles, as he had agreed to do, he couldn’t come with it.
FACT: Iraq declared and UNSCOM confirmed that largescale unilateral destruction of these materials had taken place; they just couldn't verify whether this got it all. The best information they had suggested they'd pretty much gotten it all, and that it would have been illogical for Iraq to have retained what they couldn't account for. This is reflected in the comments of those involved with UNSCOM, the IAEA, etc. Rolf Ekeus was the executive chairman of UNSCOM for six of the seven years it operated in Iraq. In an appearance at Harvard on May 23, 2000, he said, about Iraq's WMD programs, "we [UNSCOM] felt that in all areas we have eliminated Iraq's capabilities fundamentally." Scott Ritter was UNSCOM's chief weapons inspector in Iraq for nearly the whole of its operations, there. He agreed with this assessment:
"...what I and others [in UNSCOM] did... we had stated that the weapons inspectors achieved a 90 to 95 percent level of accounting for Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs. What this means, is that the major factories that produced weapons of mass destruction were identified and destroyed. And the production equipment associated with the manufacture of weapons of mass destruction were identified and destroyed. That the vast majority of the weapons produced by these factories were identified and destroyed. There is a certain amount, 5 to 10 percent, that is unaccounted for. But we have no evidence that Iraq has retained this material. We just can’t account for it. And that because of this we feel, that Iraq was fundamentally disarmed. This means that Iraq is no longer capable of producing biological or chemical weapons, or nuclear weapons or long range ballistic missiles." (Ritter, interview with Chronogram, April 2002)
Summing up the work of UNSCOM in an interview in the Spring 2004 issue of "New Perspectives," Ekeus said:
"By 1998, UNSCOM had discovered and destroyed 95 percent of Saddam's programs for mass destruction weapons. The remaining 5 percent involved the chemical precursors and growth medium that couldn't be accounted for. But as we said at the time, it made very little sense to make weapons stockpiles out of this and store them because they would deteriorate rapidly unless used."
The IAEA's pre-war conclusion about Iraq?
"Based on all credible information available to date,... the IAEA has found no indication of Iraq having achieved its programme goal of producing nuclear weapons or of Iraq having retained a physical capability for the production of weapon-useable nuclear material or having clandestinely obtained such material."
IAEA director Muhammed ElBaradei told the UN in January 2003 that "We have found no evidence that Iraq has revived its nuclear weapons programme since the elimination of the programme in the 1990s," and that inspectors "should be able within the next few months to provide credible assurance that Iraq has no nuclear weapons program".
That’s why he refused to grant unfettered access to the inspectors for all those years as he had agreed to. Why would he do that if he had nothing to hide? If he was so concerned about the sanctions why didn’t he just comply with what he had already agreed to do?
The UNSCOM process broke down because of the entirely inappropriate insistence of the U.S. government on using it as an espionage operation. Perhaps you should read something about it, instead of coming here to comment upon it before you know anything.
Do you think it’s possible that he bought the inspectors “reports” just like he bought France and Germany for their Security Counsel vote?
I'll say categorically that he bought the inspectors reports "just like he bought France and Germany," which is to say, not at all.
I admit, I don’t know.
And that is why you fail
Oh, and I’m glad you’re not the President.
I'm not running for office, so we can skip that.
Like a lot of things, 21st century weapons are getting smaller and more sophisticated. Gone are the days when countries need massive delivery systems for their weapons and there is certainly an underground market available to those who want to acquire them. You don’t have to develop your own weapons systems anymore…all you need is money. And, there are plenty of “low tech” methods of WMD delivery these days too. Have you heard about the suicide bombers?
Being willing to commit suicide doesn't help you at all if you can't disperse enough of a WMD over enough of an area to injure people. Chemical weapons are extremely difficult to effectively use in even battlefield conditions, where there are few restrictions on delivery.
Your “inside the box” thinking would be dangerous as Commander in Chief. If we leaned anything from 9/11 it was that our enemies do a pretty good job of thinking “outside the box”.
Something you apparently didn't learn from 9/11 is that it would be idiotic for terror groups to try to employ bulky, astronomically expensive, all-but-impossible to create, and all-but-impossible-to-use WMDs when they can be so devastatingly effective by employing a few guys with some box-cutters
It's the "ALL- BUT " that scares me. It may seem unlikely, but so did 9/11 to me.
Happy holidays to all!
Hey Rufus,
How do you know Congress didn't see the same reports as Bush? What proof do you have? Because a Democrat said so, is that your proof? And you also say that Bush hasn't said he was wrong in 5 yrs about anything. What has been Bush been wrong about? give me facts, not nonsense from your kool-aid friends.
And as far as this post, once again MMFA is splitting hairs on words.
I guess MMFA has to post these trivial items because they can't find anything serious. MMFA is really grabbing for staws ... again.
Yesterday the Congressional Research Service issued a report stating:
The president, and a small number of presidentially designated Cabinet-level officials, including the vice president ... have access to a far greater overall volume of intelligence and to more sensitive intelligence information [than Congress], including information regarding intelligence sources and methods.
There's your proof, bub. Read all about it here: [link to www.realcities.com]
BUSH: When we made the decision to go into Iraq, many intelligence agencies around the world judged that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction.
Could this because the other countries relied on our flawed information? I don't recall any other countries saying that the WMD are in the area of Baghdad and Tikrit.
At the same time Bush tries to sound like he is taking responsiblity, he is passing off the responsibility to the intelligence community, other countries, and Democrats who held the same view. He never mentions the millions of people and agencies (e.g., UN weapon inspectors, IAEA) who were arguing that Iraq wasn't a WMD threat and the media doesn't bring it up.
Richard Clarke, who was asked after 9-11 who did this, told Bush it was Al Qaeda and bin Ladin, period, not Iraq, because all intelligence reports pointed to Al Qaeda. Scott Ritter, ex-weapons inspector, said Saddam was completely disarmed in 1998, after Clinton bombed the last of Saddam's WMD facilities. Rice and Powell both said in 2001 that Saddam was neutralized, had little capability to wage war, conventional or otherwise. The weapons inspectors in 2003 searched 100 or 600 suspected sites and found nothing, not even traces of WMDs, and these were the "hot" sites according to Rumsfeld. And what is Bush's reasoning? I got bad advice, but I'd do it again. Wrong, #43. You got GOOD advice, ignored it and cooked the books till Saddam was the big bad black hat you needed him to APPEAR to be. Sorry, W. Only fools are buying what your selling.
I have yet to hear mainstream media make a presentation and challenge Bush with these well documented facts.
Even Media Matters is being duped into calling what Bush either is or isn't taking responsibility for "intelligence failures." This was false intelligence, invented by the Cheney/neocon cabal. The only real question is whether Bush was in the loop, or just stupid and actually believed the bogus intelligence fed to him by Cheney.
So he claimed some type of responsability for something. So what? It doesn't mean anything. No one will be fired because of it. His policy's wont change because of it. It was his adinistations manipulation of the intelligence data, highlighting the negative data and suppressing the positive data that led to all this. His little speech was only to try and win back the people who don't really pay attention to the facts of what he is saying.
His claims of responsability are only words, and lame ones at that.
I'll say it again; So he claimed some type of responsability, so what?!?
This is yet another demonstration of just how cynical and poll-driven the Bush desperadoes clearly are as they see their numbers plummet. It also demonstrates how the media plays right into their hands. What does it mean to "take responsibility" for the bad intelligence? How, exactly, is Bush going to do this? By pushing for "total victory" in Iraq? These chumps are going to bail regardless of what it looks like on the ground over there if this latest contrition offensive fails to turn the public around. The point of the speech was to have Bush publicly utter the words "I," "take," and "responsibility" in close proximity to the words "wrong intelligence" without actually meaning anything. See who bites. Apparently the media bites. The polls are leading these guys around by the short hairs. It's what they will be looking at to see if this latest crap will stick. They've done the same with McCain's torture amendment. I believe Bush will take responsibility for the wrong intelligence about as much as I believe he doesn't pay attention to polls. It's simply a lie that the media has dutifully helped him tell.
pantheon,
Bush isn't poll driven ... what are you talking about? If Bush made decisions based on polls then Rumsfeld would of been replaced about two years ago ... and Cheney would of retired before the '04 election and Bush would of picked another VP for the 04' ticket. One of the things that conservatives like about Bush is that he isn't poll driven like Clinton was.
Skiutah is living in a right-wing fantasy world. Doubtless the Bushites realize that "conservatives" disparaged Clinton for being too poll-driven and saw that as a way to gain the moral high ground. How did they find that out? My guess is: POLLS. They keep asserting they are not poll driven because the polls tell them they can gain an advantage by saying it. Skiutah and millions like him continue to buy the obvious nonsense. Bush opposed the 9/11 commission until POLLS indicated the public was in favor of it. Polls indicated a negative dispostion toward Harriet Myers, so adios! Polls indicate a sharp drop in public support for the war, that people perceive the president is not forthcoming, that he needs to get out and talk about the war more, etc. So Bush goes on a "responsibility" offensive. McCain's anti-torture amendment has legs in the polls, so the Bushies back down on their "principles" and acquiesce to it. Not poll-driven?
Perhaps Clinton was more obviously poll-driven than the Bushites, but that doesn't support your assertion that the Bushites are not poll driven. But again, let's respond to a criticism of Bush by invoking Clinton. The point of my post was that these people are deeply cynical and duplicitous. When it bleeds into the polls, they send their stumblebum president out there in an effort to stanch it by applying short-term pressure to the wound. We will be pulling out of Iraq next year because of our political calendar and public opinion here, not because of conditions on the ground over there. That's poll-driven. Sure, they may ignore SOME polls, but probably because some other poll, maybe the skiutah poll, tells them they ought to.
When you take responsibility for actions, you also are saying you are to blame for the consequences, good or bad.
Even though, as president, Bush has ultimate responsibility for the workings of Executive Branch organizations, including the intelligence agencies, he has most responsibility for the ACTIONS HE TAKES as a result of his analysis of that information. If the information is FALSE, it's HIS FAULT. If the actions are taken on the basis of BELIEVING false information, at the very least heads would have to roll. Has ANYBODY been fired or disciplined for feeding the president false information? No, not that I've heard.
So, NOBODY has been held responsible ... it's just under the heading "crap happens" with this Administration.
Bush is solely RESPONSIBLE for our military personnel's LIVES. Now, over 2000 are DEAD as a result of Bush's reliance on false information. Does he take Responsibility? If ONE person dies as a result of your negligence, there is a trial, and you will be punished ... if you accept responsibility. Does BUSH? No way in hell.
Yes, of course he's responsible for the intelligence and the subsequent decisions, no quarrel there. He is also responsible for the American casualties that are the results of his decisions. He is ALSO responsible for the results of his decisions. No further attacks on US soil, scores of terrorist that are thankfully dead or captured, 50,000,000 people now living in self determination, a HUGE section of the middle east no longer a safe haven for terrorists, the emergence, albeit slow, of self determination in Libya, Egypt, Lebanon, Palestine, Saudi Arabia to name a few, the resurgence of American resolve, the enhanced credibility of the UN and on and on. So yes, I agree with you, Bush is responsible for ALL these things!
Yes, of course he's responsible for the intelligence and the subsequent decisions, no quarrel there. He is also responsible for the American casualties that are the results of his decisions.
Bush would certainly quarrel with that.
He is ALSO responsible for the results of his decisions. No further attacks on US soil,
This is the same logic that dictates that Clinton was a strong, effective commander-in-chief because there were no attacks on Americans by Martians during the whole of his 8 years in office.
scores of terrorist that are thankfully dead or captured,
And Bush had recruited scores more to take their place. Bush's attack on Iraq has swelled the ranks of al Qaida and like-minded groups, after they'd been declining for years. Likewise, world terrorism had been declining for years before Bush declared "war" on it--it was on the verge of becoming a non-issue. Thanks to Bush, though, terrorism increased exponentially as a consequence of his "war", and, last year, nearly matched the horrific level of the previous peak year (1986).
50,000,000 people now living in self determination,
...in a country teetering on the brink of civil war, where the best possible outcome is the creation of a duplicate of Iran. Just what the world needed.
a HUGE section of the middle east no longer a safe haven for terrorists,
Saddam Hussein was an enemy of al Qaida-style Islamist reactionaries--in his place, Bush has made of Iraq a training ground for regional terrorists, where, as I said, the best possible outcome is a duplicate of the terror-supporting state of Iran.
the emergence, albeit slow, of self determination in Libya, Egypt, Lebanon, Palestine, Saudi Arabia to name a few,
Actually, that's to name far too many. The matter of Palestine was in the works long before Bush even came to power (he's actually hindered the efforts there). Libya had tried to give up its WMDs for years, and the Khadafi regime certainly isn't giving up power there. Bush's insistence on publicly taking credit for the anti-Syrian upsurge in Lebanon resulted in a strong pro-Syrian upsurge that threatened to topple the whole thing in its infancy. Saudi Arabia remains the same squalid Islamist theocratic dicatatorship it's always been. To name another, Iran, after years of reforms and moving away from Khoemeini-style governance, has now been thrown, by Bush's actions, securely back into the hands of the mullahs.
the resurgence of American resolve,
Irrelevant.
the enhanced credibility of the UN and on and on.
The Bush regime undermined the UN at every turn, and did nothing to enhance its credibility. To the contrary, Bush said a UN which failed to act as a rubber stamp for his imperial designs was an "irrelevant debating society", and treated it as such
Bush: "First of all, rejecting this notion that, you know, we lied about intelligence, reminding people that some of those people making those accusations looked at the same intelligence"
Comment: See the link for a 12/14/05 letter from the Congressional Research Service to Sen. Dianne Feinstein explaining that Congress does not have the same access to intelligence as the President.
Link to Congressional Research Service Ltr to Sen. Feinstein
Excerpt: "As a result, the President, and a small number of presidentially-designated Cabinet-level officials, including the Vice President - in contrast to Members of Congress - have access to a far greater overall volume of intelligence and to more sensitive intelligence information, including information regarding intelligence sources and methods."