EXCLUSIVE: Rove distorts Senate report to claim Bush didn't "lie us into war"
In his forthcoming book, which Media Matters obtained in advance of its release date, Karl Rove misrepresents a Senate report to argue that President Bush did not "lie us into war" and that Bush's attempts to link Iraq to Al Qaeda were supported by available intelligence. The report actually found that Bush made statements about Iraq and Al Qaeda that were not supported -- and were even "contradicted" -- by intelligence.
Rove claims Senate report said Bush statements were backed up by intelligence
From Pages 340-341 of Courage and Consequence:
So, then, did Bush lie us into war? Absolutely not.
[...]
From my perch inside the West Wing -- but outside the frantic activity in the Situation Room -- I could see the care everyone was taking to not overstate the case or exaggerate the danger. The president emphasized this when we reviewed his speeches, and this care was reflected everywhere else in the administration.
[...]
And what about Bush's claims about Saddam Hussein's ties to terrorism? Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda and about Iraq's support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information," according to the Senate Intelligence Committee 2004 report.
Senate report found that Bush made statements that were not substantiated -- or were "contradicted" -- by intelligence
Senate Intel. Committee: Only some Bush statements on Iraq were substantiated by intelligence -- others were not. Rove is presumably referring to a June 5, 2008, Senate Intelligence Committee report examining government officials' pre-war statements about Iraq. (Rove identifies it as a "2004" report in the excerpt above, but he cites the 2008 report in the relevant endnote.) Rove is correct that the committee found that some Bush claims -- specifically, "[s]tatements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda and about Iraq's support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda" -- were substantiated by the intelligence at the time. But the committee also concluded that other claims Bush made about Iraq's supposed relationship with Al Qaeda were either "not substantiated" or were "contradicted" by the available intelligence.
Senate Intel. Committee: Bush allegations suggesting "that Iraq and al-Qa'ida had a partnership" were "not substantiated by the intelligence." Directly contradicting Rove's suggestion that the Senate Intelligence Committee found that "Bush's claims about Saddam Hussein's ties to terrorism" were supported by the available intelligence, the committee actually reported that Bush's allegations "that Iraq and al-Qa'ida had a partnership" were "not substantiated by the intelligence." The committee also found that "policymakers' statements" misrepresented the nature of contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda:
(U) Conclusion 12: Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-Qa'ida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qa'ida with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence.
Intelligence assessments, including multiple CIA reports and the November 2002 NIE [National Intelligence Estimate], dismissed the claim that Iraq and al-Qa'ida were cooperating partners. According to an undisputed INR [State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research] footnote in the NIE, there was no intelligence information that supported the claim that Iraq would provide weapons of mass destruction to al-Qa'ida. The credibility of the principal intelligence source behind the claim that Iraq had provided al-Qa'ida with biological and chemical weapons training was regularly questioned by DIA [Defense Intelligence Agency], and later by the CIA. The Committee repeats its conclusion from a prior report that "assessments were inconsistent regarding the likelihood that Saddam Hussein provided chemical and biological weapons (CBW) training to al-Qa'ida."
(U) Conclusion 13: Statements in the major speeches analyzed, as well additional statements, regarding Iraq's contacts with al-Qa'ida were substantiated by intelligence information. However, policymakers' statements did not accurately convey the intelligence assessments of the nature of these contacts, and left the impression that the contacts led to substantive Iraqi cooperation or support of al-Qa'ida.
Senate Intel. Committee: Bush statements indicating Saddam was prepared to give WMD to terrorists were "contradicted by available intelligence." The Senate Intelligence Committee wrote:
(U) Conclusion 15: Statements by the President and the Vice President indicating that Saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorists groups for attacks against the United States were contradicted by available intelligence information.
The October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate assessed that Saddam Hussein did not have nuclear weapons, and was unwilling to conduct terrorist attacks [sic] the US using conventional, chemical or biological weapons at that time, in part because he feared doing so would give the US a stronger case for war with Iraq. This judgment was echoed by both earlier and later intelligence community assessments. All of these assessments noted that gauging Saddam's intentions was quite difficult, and most suggested that he would be more likely to initiate hostilities if he felt that a US invasion was imminent.
For starters, however many times Bush uttered "mushroom cloud" in reference to Iraq was a lie.
Bush's failure here is NOT that he believed the intelligence in the fall of 2003. It's that he didn't believe the weapons inspectors in December, January, and February of 2003 when they weren't finding anything and were being told by everyone and anyone that Iraq hadn't had WMD's in more than a decade.
Rove is trying to distract from THAT fact with these arguments about lying.
Here's an analogy even you should understand; if I gave you a million dollars ($1M) ten years ago and you used some of that money on people in your country then, while others want to find out what happened to that money you simply state that you still have it safely hidden away and will continue to try to get more. Suppose I send investigators over to you so that I can confirm the amount of money you still have from what I gave you, but you've hidden it and my investigators can't find any evidence of that money. You continue to claim you have all the money you were given and plan on using it more on the people in your country or on others who deserve it. I threaten you with legal/physical action if you don't provide the proof that I ask for, but you continue to support your claim that the money I gave you will be used as you feel fit. The investigators that I sent over cannot find the money that you say you have, even though you let them search in all the places that you allow them to (not the ones they ask to search). I get tired of your games and decide to remove you from control of the money, then find the only money left over is 10 years old and not as much as you claimed you still had. Of course the money I found was still money, but since it was "old" money then you say it doesn't count towards what I demanded and the whole world agrees with you that "old" money isn't as valuable as "new" money. So I become a liar because I followed through with my threat that I will find the money with or without your help. Even though the majority of the world agreed that you still had the money, there is a group of people who feel you should have been allowed to keep the money and continue using it on the people of your country whenever you wanted.
Now, I realize this is difficult for you to grasp, but Saddam admitted that he lied about the WMD program he had going, (perhaps some kind of 'manly sticking the chest out' gesturing going on?). And Saddam would not allow full access to locations the inspectors wanted. WMD's were found in Iraq and detailed paperwork was found supporting the claim that a WMD program was being promoted within Iraq. Whether you choose to believe FACT is different than whether you want to. The FACTS are WMD's were found. The FACTS for removing Saddam from power have been proven over and over, but you choose not to believe them. So, explain again what Rove is doing with FACT? Since you have no clue what a fact is, and you have never used one in your life and probably don't even care about them.
As usual, you don't understand Middle East politics. Saddam lied about his WMD program because he had enemies on his border.
And you lied about the inspectors. They weren't hampered in their search. Bush pulled them out so he could start his noble crusade for death, oil, and reelection.
And Saddam HAD been leading people (mostly to scare Iran) to believe that he had WMD's. And when we threatened war, he wimped out and admitted the truth, that he didn't have any. Of course we didn't believe him, but then, after the inspectors got into Iraq, and checked out all the most likely places to find them, they found none. Additionally, they interviewed military and civilian scientists, and discovered that they had dismantled their WMD program back in the early 90's.
And a few old, inert and useless WMD's were found, unstored by the Iraqi gov't. They had not WMD's.
You're wrong. As usual. You haven't ever been right in anything I've seen you post. Please ignore the troll.
dell-- Actually, in Dec, Jan and Feb, the UN Weapons Inspectors had unfettered access
these two links contain the same quote, in case you try to deny truth again.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=7986940 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/02/saddam-feared-iran-more-t_n_224653.html
"Saddam denied having unconventional weapons before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, but refused to let U.N. inspectors search his country from 1998 until 2002. The inspectors returned to the weapons hunt in November 2002 but still complained that Iraq wasn't cooperating."
What do you think was meant by "Iraq wasn't cooperating"? Does that mean they had "unfettered access"? Even Hans Blix and wikipedia must think "unfettered" means "wasn't cooperating" because they say the same thing. You DO know who Hans Blix is, don't you?
And, then, we have this from wikipedia (iraq and weapons of mass destruction):
"However, Hans Blix said in late January 2003 that Iraq had "not genuinely accepted UN resolutions demanding that it disarm." He claimed there were some materials which had not been accounted for. Since sites had been found which evidenced the destruction of chemical weaponry, UNSCOM was actively working with Iraq on methods to ascertain for certain whether the amounts destroyed matched up with the amounts that Iraq had produced. In the next quarterly report, after the war, the total amount of proscribed items destroyed by UNMOVIC in Iraq can be gathered. Those include:
50 deployed Al-Samoud 2 missiles
Various equipment, including vehicles, engines and warheads, related to the AS2 missiles
2 large propellant casting chambers
14 155 mm shells filled with mustard gas, the mustard gas totaling approximately 49 litres and still at high purity
Approximately 500 ml of thiodiglycol
Some 122 mm chemical warheads
Some chemical equipment
224.6 kg of expired growth media "
Hate to pop your bubble again, but, what does "high purity" mean? Is that the same as what you said, dell (old, inert and useless)?
Let's finish this up with this one from dell;
dell-- I don't say stuff without knowing it's true
Perhaps you should stop saying stuff, because you don't get much right and don't provide proof to your statements. Personally, I think you have no clue to what you're talking about, but many mmfa posters think you're the bees-knees on anti-rightwing information. I think that would be a case of the blind leading the blind and tells many what liberals are truely like.... sheeple.
Huh?...didn't lie? That little bed-wetting snot would wave a ketchup-soaked hankie, calling it blood. Then, with a knotted gym sock stuffed in his pants, he'd strut around, pretending to be the hero, with his shirt sleeves rolled-up. Yep, that was our self-proclaimed warrior-president pontificating under the banner reading "Great Decider". Rove was the schmuck waving that mess all-round us. Talk about a mess of deception...and look what it got us into...sonofabitch.
In case you forgot, Saddam was no threat to anybody thanks to the no fly zones and sanctions.
Can I get the $2 trillion and thousands of deaths back please, because it sure wasn't worth it.
Of course I have an agenda (I'm not the only one) but at least I'm not so confused as to deny it. Name one person posting (at mmfa) who doesn't have an agenda. What kind of idiot would go to a politically partison web site and say "you seem to have you own agenda". Duhhh!
And no, we did not save "millions of lives" in Iraq. We took lives in Iraq. Back in the 1980s, when Saddam was using Bell helicopters to gas the Kurds, he was buddy-buddies with Rumsfeld and the crew.
Your fountain of lies would embarrass a sane and honest person. But clearly you lack one or both qualities.
~
BTW, was Lawrence Bell a democrat or republican. Perhaps all those Bell helicopters were liberal helicopters (which would make all killing OK with other liberals. You can use Obama war in Afghanistan as a direct comparison to that statement)
bush quotes