Bush Lied?

[markalot]

If Only It Were That Simple.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/08/AR2008060801687.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

By Fred Hiatt
Monday, June 9, 2008; A17

Search the Internet for "Bush Lied" products, and you will find sites that offer more than a thousand designs. The basic "Bush Lied, People Died" bumper sticker is only the beginning.

Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, set out to provide the official foundation for what has become not only a thriving business but, more important, an article of faith among millions of Americans. And in releasing a committee report Thursday, he claimed to have accomplished his mission, though he did not use the L-word.

"In making the case for war, the administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when it was unsubstantiated, contradicted or even nonexistent," he said.

There's no question that the administration, and particularly Vice President Cheney, spoke with too much certainty at times and failed to anticipate or prepare the American people for the enormous undertaking in Iraq.

But dive into Rockefeller's report, in search of where exactly President Bush lied about what his intelligence agencies were telling him about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and you may be surprised by what you find.

On Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates."

On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president's statements "were substantiated by intelligence information."

On chemical weapons, then? "Substantiated by intelligence information."

On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information." Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? "Generally substantiated by available intelligence." Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information."

As you read through the report, you begin to think maybe you've mistakenly picked up the minority dissent. But, no, this is the Rockefeller indictment. So, you think, the smoking gun must appear in the section on Bush's claims about Saddam Hussein's alleged ties to terrorism.

But statements regarding Iraq's support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information." Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda "were substantiated by the intelligence assessments," and statements regarding Iraq's contacts with al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information." The report is left to complain about "implications" and statements that "left the impression" that those contacts led to substantive Iraqi cooperation.

In the report's final section, the committee takes issue with Bush's statements about Saddam Hussein's intentions and what the future might have held. But was that really a question of misrepresenting intelligence, or was it a question of judgment that politicians are expected to make?

After all, it was not Bush, but Rockefeller, who said in October 2002: "There has been some debate over how 'imminent' a threat Iraq poses. I do believe Iraq poses an imminent threat. I also believe after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. . . . To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can."

Rockefeller was reminded of that statement by the committee's vice chairman, Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.), who with three other Republican senators filed a minority dissent that includes many other such statements from Democratic senators who had access to the intelligence reports that Bush read. The dissenters assert that they were cut out of the report's preparation, allowing for a great deal of skewing and partisanship, but that even so, "the reports essentially validate what we have been saying all along: that policymakers' statements were substantiated by the intelligence."

Why does it matter, at this late date? The Rockefeller report will not cause a spike in "Bush Lied" mug sales, and the Bond dissent will not lead anyone to scrape the "Bush Lied" bumper sticker off his or her car.

But the phony "Bush lied" story line distracts from the biggest prewar failure: the fact that so much of the intelligence upon which Bush and Rockefeller and everyone else relied turned out to be tragically, catastrophically wrong.

And it trivializes a double dilemma that President Bill Clinton faced before Bush and that President Obama or McCain may well face after: when to act on a threat in the inevitable absence of perfect intelligence and how to mobilize popular support for such action, if deemed essential for national security, in a democracy that will always, and rightly, be reluctant.

For the next president, it may be Iran's nuclear program, or al-Qaeda sanctuaries in Pakistan, or, more likely, some potential horror that today no one even imagines. When that time comes, there will be plenty of warnings to heed from the Iraq experience, without the need to fictionalize more.

[tempo]

"generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates"

That contradicts most of what I've heard about the intelligence regarding Iraq's nuclear capability and their delivery systems for chemical weapons. Wasn't the "intelligence community" sharply divided on those questions? Wasn't the info based mostly on dubious sources like defectors, some of whom were paid for their information? (No time to look for references at the moment, but that's my recollection.)

[akip]

bush believed what he wanted to believe. it was a willful self-deception.

[Duemellon]

The international community knew better. Told him he was wrong. Still didn't matter.

[markalot]

The international community knew better. Told him he was wrong. Still didn't matter.

That's not really in dispute, that's the point of the article. You'll always have people telling you you are wrong, you have to be a good decider, not just a decider.

[jps]

what's with the question mark in the thread title?

[DaHood]

Saying that Bush lied is like saying that Howdy Doody or Charlie McCarthy lied. Except Howdy Doody and Charlie McCarthy had less wood between the ears than Bush.

[Tweak Tweak]

Nice to see someone recognize the Democrats' efforts to airbrush themselves out of the pre-War picture.

I'm going to put Rockefeller's own quote in big red letters:

"There has been some debate over how 'imminent' a threat Iraq poses. I do believe Iraq poses an imminent threat. I also believe after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. . . . To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can."

Nice. Liar.

[Shlep]

The international community knew better. Told him he was wrong. Still didn't matter.

This widely-parroted notion would be the sort of thing that could soundly put to rest any messageboard thread regarding what Bush did or did not know about Saddams' alleged WMD programs and render further discussion pointless if it wasn't palpably untrue.

The consensus among the "international community" (at least with Western Europe and Israel besides) that Saddam had, or was quietly looking to reacquire, WMD. The main point of contention had to do with the quantity and nature of the weapons and his potential capacity to use them. Rather. the "international community" didn't think the threat had yet risen to the level where full-scale invasion of the country was an option to be pursued.

[grayedMatter]

http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/aa141/grayedMatter/Bush-Finger.gif

[markalot]

I love the way these thread turn into love Bush vs hate Bush. All I've been saying is hate Bush because he's an incompetent boob. I still feel like dems are making shit up that they think makes good press but really minimizes the problems that haven't been fixed. If/when Obama gets elected these will be his problems.

[akip]

it's a crap editorial which sidesteps the dissent in the intelligence community, of which there was plenty, and the pressure from the VP's office to shut up the naysayers.

as for the dems, the press AND the public, everyone was hysterical over 9-11 and watching their own backs. yeah, they're all to blame, including anyone here who didn't bother getting off their computer-leaden asses to protest. skepticism in congress and media, who are both supposed to vet this sort of thing, was practically nonexistent. the public stupidly went along. but the fact that there's plenty of blame to go around does NOT erase the core deception in the white house, without which we would not have invaded. the democrats may have erroneously and signed off with an eye to political expedience, but they did not conceive of and disorganize this giant mess.

and anyone who still thinks the VP's office, with the tacit approval of the president, didn't mount a propaganda campaign to push for an unnecessary "preemptive" war despite huge holes in their case as well as a blind belief they could democratize a fragmented and volatile "nation" (not even to mention that they fucked it up royally once they were in) and who refuses to acknowledge that the invasion otherwise would never have taken place is willfully disbelieving a mountain of evidence. which goes a long way to demonstrate why this shit happens and why these creeps will get away with it.

[markalot]

it's a crap editorial which sidesteps the dissent in the intelligence community

There is ALWAYS dissent in the intelligence community. Something goes right you don't report on the dissent, something goes wrong you do. The dissent started to get strong enough that Bush should have paid attention but he didn't. Huge mistake, but not a lie.

[silentpaul]

I for one never bought into the "Bush Lied" thing. My impression was always that he and his administration were very selective in the intelligence they used to argue their case for the war. I agree with the international perspective that though Saddam was up to something -- and he was virtually always up to something -- it was not at a level that merited the drastic measures Bush and Co. wanted to pursue.

Though no outright lies may have been told us by this administration, we were most certainly mislead, coaxed into an area along the line between fact and fiction. What really gets my goat in all this is that they were successful largely due to our emotional state as a nation after 9/11. I think our fear and insecurity were played upon in order to make the war in Iraq possible.

It is for that reason that I loathe this administration.

[akip]

tear yourselves away from the editorial pages and the blogs and other second hand opinion blathering and read "fiasco" by thomas ricks. and that's only one book. there's been plenty of hard investigative journalism on the subject, all pointing to the same conclusions.

look, i was taken in by the BS initially too. but shit was leaking out all along and at this point it's ridiculous to insist that bush was only doing what anyone would have done in his place (except maybe tony blair ;)) bush was deeply invested in a distorted narrative and chose to let cheney to take the lead in constructing their case, no matter how much of the data had to be manipulated. it's also true that most in the intelligence community chose to ignore the holes 'cause they knew what the VP wanted and they wanted to keep their jobs. but it's come out, little by little, that the holes were not only there, but that the case for WMD was ultimately not compelling. while saddam's stubborn bluffing certainly muddied the issue, but that in and of itself shouldn't have determined whether there were, indeed, WMD.

[akip]

what ricks points out in the first section of his book is how every part of the system failed to do its job---the press was not particularly skeptical and only half-heartedly interrogated the admin, same with congress, whose job it was to vet the case for war and did a half-assed job of it. the intelligence community allowed itself to be bullied, was only too willing to select and interpret to fit the case.

who knows what bush was really thinking--i'd guess that he was caught with his pants down, having ignored richard clark and having spent too much time on vacation, and he probably bought into the whole neocon schtick 'cause it'd enable him look like a great president and a hero invading. the plan essentially tied together different pieces of foreign policy agenda, particularly that huge reserve of oil saddam was sitting on, in what looked like a neat win-win package (IF you ignore history). and he was essentially a lazy guy who let cheney do all the work, while he could take the credit.

but it reminds me (again) of this book i'm reading about medical diagnosis. just because things fit superficially doesn't mean you have the right conclusion. what bush did NOT do, nor did anyone else around him apparently, was ask himself, "what is the worst case scenario here? what are the other possibilities that aren't so agreeable as the iraqi people strewing flowers in our path?" as president, he is supposed to look beyond his own emotional and political bias.

[juggles]

http://www.uncoveror.com/niger.jpg

[markalot]

but it reminds me (again) of this book i'm reading about medical diagnosis. just because things fit superficially doesn't mean you have the right conclusion. what bush did NOT do, nor did anyone else around him apparently, was ask himself, "what is the worst case scenario here? what are the other possibilities that aren't so agreeable as the iraqi people strewing flowers in our path?" as president, he is supposed to look beyond his own emotional and political bias.

Sure, no doubt, and that's what I think the editorial I posted was all about. Those are the failures, everyone shares blame, but no one lied. At the same time remember my claim that they, the Bush admin, were scared shitless, or at least Bush was. If Saddam did have WMD and he used them and we did nothing we would be in a bad position. He let fear play the biggest role, always a mistake.

[Duemellon]

...but no one lied.As Bill Clinton would've said:Define "Lie"?

[markalot]

Yea, I kind of agree with that, especially when the Dick Cheney is involved, but I don't think Bush is capable.

[Duemellon]

Yea, I kind of agree with that, especially when the Dick Cheney is involved, but I don't think Bush is capable.But yet, as the person in charge, he's culpable.

[DaHood]

But yet, as the person in charge, he's culpable.What makes you think Bush is in charge? OOOOOH I went there!! :-D

[Duemellon]

What makes you think Bush is in charge? OOOOOH I went there!! :-DDang yo.

But really, he was supposed to be in charge. If he wasn't, it's his fault. If he was, it's his fault. He's the leader.

[Tweak Tweak]

As Bill Clinton would've said:Define "Lie"?

The Senate report has defined it as "Failing to present all existing dissenting views" even though that is technically your opponents' responsibility in a debate.

Keep this in mind the next time you send a Santa card without including footnotes about the Flat Earth Society and their dissenting opinion on the existence of poles.

[Tweak Tweak]

More "lies" uncovered:

Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other al Qaeda-related terrorist members were substantiated by the intelligence assessments.

Intelligence assessments noted Zarqawi's presence in Iraq and his ability to travel and operate within the country. The intelligence community generally believed that Iraqi intelligence must have known about, and therefore at least tolerated, Zarqawi's presence in the country.

Add to the definition of "lying" the act of presenting details of Iraq's terror ties that the inattentive, self-medicated and "touched" might later conflate with "SADDAM PLANNED 9/11!!!!!" Never mind that they also talk to canned goods and hide the shiny objects they gather in matchboxes decorated with painted macaronis.

[Tweak Tweak]

All this post hoc parsing and fucktwittery from the left is ridiculous in light of their true revealed standards for political rhetoric.

Bush need only have sauntered to the podium, shot his cuffs and said:

Regime Change You Can Believe In!

[PeterABnny]

The high irony for me is that in spite of everything Bush has done in the past eight years, Clinton gets impeached for fooling around with an intern. Seems like such a simpler, more innocent time back then, doesn't it?

[DaHood]

The high irony for me is that in spite of everything Bush has done in the past eight years, Clinton gets impeached for fooling around with an intern. Seems like such a simpler, more innocent time back then, doesn't it?Clinton didn't get impeached for fooling around with an intern, he got impeached for lying under oath.

But I get your point.

[Duemellon]

Known Knows & Known Unknowns & Unknown UnknownsAt some point someone had information. Some of the information was correct, which was the long-standing information (what it was before the admin) confirmed by other sources (international) & there was information which was incorrect & considered "new" that was unsupported.

Somewhere, someone decided the "new" unsupported information trumped the old supported information.

Why did they go with new information that was unsupported instead of the info that was supported? I mean, the new information was so flimsy it only took a cursory glance at contrary intel (supported internationally) to debunk it. Still, that bad new information had legs & ran off to become it's own thing.

Questions of Morality
So now we're looking at this situation & trying to draw out motivations. We'd think the motivations were related to the results, right? The result of the bad information, before it was called out as bad, was that we went to war with the justification of staving off an immediate threat.

Who would've wanted that to happen? Who's responsibility was it to make it happen or not?

What I do know is the only person who brought it up, pushed for it, made it an issue, & was final spot of responsibility for it was the president.

It's That Simple
It really is. He's the guy responsible for acting on information that turned out to be unfounded, whether or not he knew it was unfounded. Even if he was duped, he hired, managed, & was the leader, of the person(s) who duped him. Why deflect blame into the rank & file or close cabinet members?

[Tweak Tweak]

He's the guy responsible for acting on information that turned out to be unfounded, whether or not he knew it was unfounded. Even if he was duped, he hired, managed, & was the leader, of the person(s) who duped him. Why deflect blame into the rank & file or close cabinet members?

The title of the thread is "Bush Lied?" The answer to which is pretty clearly "Not so much, unless 'lied' has a brand new definition that is whatever the Senate says it is and this definition applies only to Bush, because the author of the report and other legislators said the same things at the time."

It was the responsibility of the Congress to stop the war if it was such a bad idea -- there was a vote, if you'll recall. They either chickened out on following their hearts, or they are political opportunists whose moistened fingers raised to the winds of the American mood told them not to. I'm pretty sure I know the answer, and this stupid game of CYA won't change it.

[juggles]

Seriously, has there every been an explanation from the administration as to how the yellow-cake statement ended up back in the speech after it was stricken?

[Duemellon]

The title of the thread is "Bush Lied?" The answer to which is pretty clearly "Not so much, unless 'lied' has a brand new definition that is whatever the Senate says it is and this definition applies only to Bush, because the author of the report and other legislators said the same things at the time."

It was the responsibility of the Congress to stop the war if it was such a bad idea -- there was a vote, if you'll recall. They either chickened out on following their hearts, or they are political opportunists whose moistened fingers raised to the winds of the American mood told them not to. I'm pretty sure I know the answer, and this stupid game of CYA won't change it.If Bush's administration didn't present this dubious information as legitimate while at the same time saying it was time sensitive then there would be no need for Congress to have considered it at all.

If Bush's administration didn't claim they were the only ones with the correct information which was directly in contrast to every other source, then Congress wouldn't have had to decide whether or not it was.

If Bush's administration didn't ask for the option to use military force then Congress wouldn't've had to vote on it.So, yah, you can say it was Congress' responsibility in the Checks & Balances schema to step up & challenge the crap the Bush administration was selling, but they did come up with the idea in the 1st place.

In other words, the source of the wrong information comes from within the Bush administration. This wrong source was framed as legitimate. This was framed against the backdrop of "immediate threats". It was framed as a request for the option for use of force, not the agreement to effectively go to war.

Who's to blame? The whole lot of 'em. Who's the most to blame? Those who originated the lie that spread & those who spread the lie decending chronologically.

[markalot]

This is not a blame thread, just to be clear. I think Bush is at fault, I blame Bush. It's a question of what I blame him for, and I don't blame him for lying, I blame him for being an idiot.

[Tweak Tweak]

In other words, the source of the wrong information comes from within the Bush administration.

Just so you're aware: The intelligence agencies who blew this are "within the (Bush) administration" by inheritance, not by invitation.

Those providing the bad intel were not loyal appointees, but careerists ("old hands") who've since proven again and again that they will undercut the administration at any opportunity and by any means, including illegal leaks to the New York Times and others.

[Duemellon]

Just so you're aware: The intelligence agencies who blew this are "within the (Bush) administration" by inheritance, not by invitation.At a meeting on December 12, 2002, he assured Bush that the evidence against Saddam Hussein amounted to a "slam dunk case.". Tenet indicated that the comment was made pursuant to a discussion about how to convince the American people to support invading Iraq, and that, in his opinion, the best way to convince the people would be by explaining the dangers posed by Iraq's WMD i.e., the public relations sale of the war via the WMD, according to Tenet, would be a "slam dunk".Those providing the bad intel were not loyal appointees, but careerists ("old hands") who've since proven again and again that they will undercut the administration at any opportunity and by any means, including illegal leaks to the New York Times and others.Just like the military, the CIA responds/reports to the President. They do what the prez sayz. If he said that he wants evidence that life exists on Mars, they'll find some. If he said he wants proof that Hoover was gay, they'd find it. If he wanted a photograph of the back-zit on George Washington in March of 1778, they'd give him one.

[Tweak Tweak]

Just like the military, the CIA responds/reports to the President. They do what the prez sayz. If he said that he wants evidence that life exists on Mars, they'll find some. If he said he wants proof that Hoover was gay, they'd find it. If he wanted a photograph of the back-zit on George Washington in March of 1778, they'd give him one.

No. That's simply wrong. The Director of the CIA responds/reports to the President. No one else at Langley does any such thing. Intelligence work, and to a lesser extent diplomacy, require such "extra-Presidential" arrangements. Both endeavors require continuity of approaches and methods from administration to administration.

[Duemellon]

No. That's simply wrong. The Director of the CIA responds/reports to the President. No one else at Langley does any such thing.Wha?

The leader of the organization does but the organization doesn't? Doesn't that logic sound a bit convoluted to you?

Perhaps to anyone else?

[BigSugar]

Wha?

The leader of the organization does but the organization doesn't? Doesn't that logic sound a bit convoluted to you?

Perhaps to anyone else?

yeah. it sounds like something you'd say to justify your ass-backwards statement on some issue. :) that's probably why you recognized it so easily. LOL!

[Shlep]

Just like the military, the CIA responds/reports to the President. They do what the prez sayz. If he said that he wants evidence that life exists on Mars, they'll find some. If he said he wants proof that Hoover was gay, they'd find it. If he wanted a photograph of the back-zit on George Washington in March of 1778, they'd give him one.

And what of the Senate Intelligence Committee? What are they? Chopped liver?

Leaving that aside, this notion of yours regarding what the CIA does is utterly bass-ackwards. The CIA isn't in the business of running around at the pleasure of the President and scraping up evidence upon which to credibly hang his preconceived ideas. In reality, the CIA consists of a relative minority of field operatives who collect info and raw data about what various countries and/or non-governmental actors (i.e. Al Qaeda) are up to; sometimes, they are augmented by "human intelligence assets," otherwise known as "guys the CIA convinced to start dropping dimes on so-and-so because the CIA wouldn't have a prayer of infiltratng them."

This info is then shipped back to the guys who comprise the overwhelming majority of the CIA's employees: analysts, eggheads, and policy wonks who collate and nerd-wrestle the info until they think they have a realistically plausible explanation as to whatever story the data seems to be telling.

The CIA then presents their hypotheses, conjecture, prognostication, and silly wild-assed guesses (if that's all they can come up with) to the President while breaking it down for him so he can (God willing) make sound and informed decisions.

[PeterABnny]

Ah yes, the good old days...back when hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died from economic sanctions.

As opposed to the tens of thousands of Iraqis killed since this useless, unnecessary war was started by your hero...

And we had Echelon, the Clinton spy program.

And entirely valid point! Entirely valid, that is, until you remember that Echelon was neither Clinton's own spy program, nor did it include illegal wire taps and other such suspensions of civil liberties as defined by Bush's neverending "war on terror."

Oh, and bombing the Sudan, Afghanistan, Belgrade, and Kosovo. Carried on triumphantly the drug war. "Don't ask, don't tell"? Waco? Iraq liberation act?

All of which were infinitely worse and did far more damage to the country and the world than this present War of Iraqi Liberation...

It was a good thing the Fed blew up the tech bubble so y'all could pretend the economy was strong and could focus on important issues like "fooling around with an intern."

Shivvy posted a chart in another thread that listed a number of ways life was different - and better - ten years ago as opposed to today. Too bad I can't find it. It was simple enough that even a small-minded neocon such as yourself could have understood it. Maybe someone else can find it...

[akip]

ha! libertarians complaining about the consequences of deregulation.:p

[Hellburger]

"Washington Post: 'Bush Lied'? If Only It Were That Simple (6/9/08) by Fred Hiatt

Contrary to what you've read, the recent Senate Intelligence Committee report didn't conclude that the White House was doing funny business with pre-Iraq invasion intelligence—at least that's what war proponent Fred Hiatt would have his Post readers believe. Keep in mind that much of the criticism is about cherry-picking intelligence (excluding dissenting views) while reading Hiatt's boast: "On Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements 'were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates.'" But he failed to quote the rest of the sentence from the report's Conclusion 1: "but did not convey the substantial disagreements that existed in the intelligence community."

Hiatt also wrote: "On chemical weapons, then? 'Substantiated by intelligence information.'" Not exactly. One conclusion regarding possession of chemical weapons said that. The next conclusion said that Bush and Cheneys statements regarding Iraq's chemical weapons productions capability and activities did not reflect the intelligence community's uncertainties as to whether such production was ongoing.

The Senate report makes it pretty clear from the beginning what they mean by distorting available intelligence: A public statement that selectively uses only that intelligence that supports a particular policy position while ignoring or disregarding intelligence that either weakens or contradicts the position may be accurate on its face but present a slanted picture nonetheless.

The same can be said for Hiatt's column."

link (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=22&media_view_id=10251)

[berzerker]

So... according to all this information (intelligence nonwithstanding), as long as one person either confirms or denies any particular point or finding or report - it can serve to substantiate or nullify any claim, to suit whichever purpose someone desires?

Awesome. As long as I deny that I was unfaithful to my hypothetical spouse, I can point to "information" that clears me of wrongdoing. Sweet. Of course, I'm sure my hypothetical testicles would be nullified on the spot.

[Hogarth]

"The Senate report makes it pretty clear from the beginning what they mean by distorting available intelligence: A public statement that selectively uses only that intelligence that supports a particular policy position while ignoring or disregarding intelligence that either weakens or contradicts the position may be accurate on its face but present a slanted picture nonetheless."


link (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=22&media_view_id=10251)

Manipulating the data-lying
Tomato-tomahto

If the Bushites weren't exactly lying, they sure weren't telling the truth, either.

[epeolatry]

http://punditkitchen.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/political-pictures-george-bush-lied-towards-you.jpg
i love Pundit Kitchen.

[REMgirl]

http://punditkitchen.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/political-pictures-george-bush-lied-towards-you.jpg
i love Pundit Kitchen.

Good one.

"I lied in your general direction!"