Bush lied!

Or not.

Comments

[Joe Mama]

You obviously have little concern for the well-being of some of your regular readers, whose heads will simply explode upon reading that article.

[Brendan]

Heh. Actually, by putting this post directly above the Lieberman post, I think I am risking serious head-exploson damage to my entire audience, liberal and conservative alike. :)

[PenguinSix]

I read the article and the comments. The froth coming from some comments was so heavy I had to take a shower afterwards.

[Jim]

Well, it's real hard to say whether he lied because it's so hard to know what he knew at the time.

For instance, on the yellow cake claim, apparently the CIA did extrapolate some of Wilson's statements on efforts between Iraqi and Nigerian officials to increase trade to mean that Iraq was seeking yellow cake. Wilson says now he meant no such implication (and looking at the face of it, it does seem absurd).

But of course, to my knowledge, we don't know how much of all this Bush knew.

Of course, the unfortunate part of the whole thing is that Hiatt is parsing words here. He may not have 'lied' but he sure as hell wasn't forthcoming with all of the truth, and was by any standard overstating his case.

That said, I do think it is unfair for democrats to claim they were misled into the war. Some academics, policy analysts, a statistically significant portion of the population, and most importantly a current presidential candidate got what was going on. They were caught up in the moment, and unwilling to look critically at the evidence shown to them.

In a related note, I remember watching Tenant testify before, I believe it was Congress, and express some doubts over the quality of the intelligence being used as a justification for war. I would love to find a transcript of all that. If I do, perhaps I'll post it here.

[Jim]

Oh, 'they' in the second to last paragraph refers to members of Congress who voted for the war, in case that wasn't clear.

[kcatnd]

"That said, I do think it is unfair for democrats to claim they were misled into the war. Some academics, policy analysts, a statistically significant portion of the population, and most importantly a current presidential candidate got what was going on. They were caught up in the moment, and unwilling to look critically at the evidence shown to them."

This is one of the truest statements I've read about the lead-up to the war. I think plenty of people had the power to act on their skepticism of invasion, but chose not to - out of fear, cowardice or an unwillingness to stake their political careers on it.

[Joe Mama]

I think plenty of people had the power to act on their skepticism of invasion, but chose not to - out of fear, cowardice or an unwillingness to stake their political careers on it.

Not to mention that fact that most critics' skepticism conveniently arose after the fact.

[Joe Mama]

And I'll add another point that I've argued on this blog time and again: Democrats would be on much stronger ground and have much more credibility if they stuck to "Bush Miscalculated!" or "Bush Blew It!" or something along those lines, rather than overplaying their hand by going the extra mile and accusing Bush of lying to start a war. The former point is unassailable, while arguing the latter by means by definition means that 99% of Dems were "lying" as well, or were either too stupid or too gullible to know what was really going on.

[Jim]

Yeah, couldn't agree more Joe Mama.

And this isn't just true on the war, there are several issues where I wish people would just stick with what is inarguable. It happens on both sides, but it has been rampant in the past few years on the liberal side.

[David K.]

Congress is definitely an accessory to the crime, but Bush is the one who commited it, whether through misinformation, deceit, outright lies, incompetence, or a combination, he is still the primary actor in this whole fiasco. Congress has allready been held partly responsible during the 2006 elections. Bush will be held responsible in the eyes of history, and this debacle will be his legacy.

[copndor]

I'd have to agree with Joe Mama on this one. The president didn't lie, but it was clear at the time, and especially in hindsight, that the administration desired a certain conclusion and then made their argument, which is exactly the opposite of how rational deliberation ought to work. I believed at the time, and still do, that one of the biggest enablers of the Iraq war was the New York Times, who shirked their usual job of regulating administrations largely because, in my opinion, they were unable to properly distance themselves from the story since 9/11 happened in New York City.

[Sandy Underpants]

It's strange that you post an untrue OpEd on the report that mistates what the report states. I guess it depends on what you want to believe-- the actual Report or what Fred Hiatt, a Republican, tells you what the Report says.

Here's what the report ACTUALLY says.

The report shows an administration that "led the nation to war on false premises,"

Statements that Iraq had a partnership with al Qaeda were wrong and unsupported by intelligence

President George W. Bush and his top policymakers misstated Saddam Hussein's links to terrorism and ignored doubts among intelligence agencies about Iraq's arms programs as they made a case for war.

A statement to Congress by then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld that the Iraqi government hid weapons of mass destruction in facilities underground was not backed up by intelligence information.

But you know what, why don't you read an article that is actually about what the report said, rather than an opinion piece absent of facts that Brendan posted.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080605/pl_nm/iraq_usa_intelligence_dc

Just a little homework, Brendan, would prove that you should try posting an article about facts, rather than another false Opinion piece from a Republican apologist.

[Jim]

Sandy: I think you are confusing 'not backed conclusively' and 'not backed.'

[Sandy Underpants]

Yeah Jim. I'm not confusing the Senate Intelligence Report of being an indictment of the Bush Administrations honesty during the build-up to the war, because that is the actual content of the report, not the fantasy put-forth by Fred Hiatt.

Furthermore, none of the wrong intelligence made-up by Bush or mis-represented by the CIA justified or justifies the war with Iraq in 2003 or today, and that was solely the decision of the President.

[Joe Mama]

Here's what the report ACTUALLY says.

The report shows an administration that "led the nation to war on false premises,"

Um, no, that's what the Chair of the Committee, a Democrat, said ABOUT the report, not what the report ACTUALLY says. Hiatt quoted more from the actual report than Reuters, which seems more enthralled with Rockefeller's "written commentary" on the report rather than the report itself.

[Sandy Underpants]

Hmmm, well here's some quotes from the Reuters article from the report in question:

"It said that Bush's and Cheney's assertions that Saddam was prepared to arm terrorist groups with weapons of mass destruction for attacks on the United States contradicted available intelligence."

"Statements that Iraq had a partnership with al Qaeda were wrong and unsupported by intelligence, the report said."

"The report also said administration prewar statements on Iraq's weapons programs were backed up in most cases by available U.S. intelligence, but officials failed to reflect internal debate over those findings, which proved wrong."

None of those quotes are from Rockefeller, they are from the Senate Intelligence Report.

[Joe Mama]

Again, Sandy, you're quoting Reuters' characterization of the report. A statement like "The report says ___" is not a quote from the report. And besides, you conveniently left out all the ACTUAL quotes from the report of "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates," "were generally substantiated by intelligence information," etc . . . or is it your argument that "Hiatt the Apologist" just made all those quotes up out of whole cloth?

[Alasdair]

Sandy U - to go for your most obvious BDS - "President George W. Bush and his top policymakers misstated Saddam Hussein's links to terrorism " - so you are trying to tell us that Saddam Hussein wasn't paying blood money to encourage terrorists ... how then do you explain this ?

As a result of one man choosing to BE Presidential, that whole atrocious policy has been stopped ...

Some of the commenters on this post sound as though they would prefer that Hussein was still alive and in power and continuing to finance suicide bombers ... *I*, on the other hand, like most reasonable people, am very happy that he is no longer able to do so ... and I am more than willing to give credit for stopping him to the policy of the man who made the decision ... and, yes, those who had to carry out his policy also earned the credit for their part in it, too ...

[Joe Mama]

I should add that I don't know for sure whether Hiatt is quoting from the actual report itself, but the language he quotes sounds legit, whereas Sandy is cleary quoting Reuters' characterizations of the report.

[Alasdair]

Joe Mama - the sheeple most fervently anti-Bush don't want to know what the report actually said ... they are content simply to believe what their 'shepherds' tell 'em to believe ... rational folk, concerning matters like this, want to see the actual report, and the actual supporting information to corroborate what the report said ...

I continue to find it amazing how many actually believe that the US intelligence community folk, who were active in the intelligence community when they got it so wrong, are of course of unimpeachable accuracy now that those same failed intelligence folk are blaming Bush ...

[Alasdair]

Jim - a teensy little point about accuracy ...

"For instance, on the yellow cake claim, apparently the CIA did extrapolate some of Wilson's statements on efforts between Iraqi and Nigerian officials to increase trade to mean that Iraq was seeking yellow cake." - Nigeria had nothing to do with this ...

Wilson went to a country that is known as a source of yellow-cake and not much else, and found that Iraqi officials had been trying to increase trade between the two countries ... a hint - the country wasn't Nigeria ...

[Sandy Underpants]

Well since John D. Rockefeller headed the committe that produced the report in question and he stated The report shows an administration that "led the nation to war on false premises." Isn't it kind of hard to argue against that statement when you don't have anyone with more knowledge of the report than the chairman?

Not to suggest that Alice or JM would let the facts get in the way of a good argument.

[Joe Mama]

Isn't it kind of hard to argue against that statement when you don't have anyone with more knowledge of the report than the chairman?

You mean the chairman who said the following back in 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."

Sorry that fact got in the way of your "good argument."

[David K.]

Alasdair, when a moron like you calls other people sheep, its nothing short of absurd. You are the one who wants us to blindly follow whatever George W. Bush says, claiming that questioning the President in a time of war is wrong. Really? The sheep are the ones who think he should be held accountable for what he has done/might have done, and not the ones who don't want any questions asked? Apparently you need to read a dictionary, you clearly don't even have a basic understanding of the words you are using.

[Alasdair]

David - if there is one thing a Scot understands, it's sheep ... (grin) ... ask Elder Loy ... he will enjoy regaling you with supporting stories ...

Since there isn't much time left on this fine blog, how about you find a single solitary example of where I wrote as "one who wants us to blindly follow whatever George W. Bush says, claiming that questioning the President in a time of war is wrong." ?

It certainly seems to have become part of *your* BDS litany - which means it will be trivial for you to cite one such example ... complete, of course, with the URL into Brendan's archives - I know you want to be able to support what you say fully and accurately ...

Note that I am not responding to your unkind, in kind ... then again, being a David has to be so much harder to bear ... {douce grin}

[David K.]

Sorry Al, but the list time i asked you for proof of your accusations, you didn't fulfill it, so I'm not going to dig through the archives to prove you wrong. Thankfully I don't have to. You brought it up in this very thread with three letters "B D S". Once again, proof that anyone who disagrees with you at all about Bush is somehow mentally deranged. If that isn't proof that you think anyone who criticizes the president is wrong, I don't know what is. Everyone on this blog knows what a blind partisan hack you are, who constantly is just plain wrong on just about everything, but the "BDS" litany (which is YOURS not mine) is proof beyond shadow of doubt how off your rocker you are. Hell you can't even get the definition of the word appeasement right because doing so would invalidate your shaky world view. I'll be glad for one thing and one thing only when the blog is gone, that you will lose one more place to spout your ridiculous rantings and pathetic attempts at humor. Most of the people here, even the ones like Andrew and Joe Mama who i do not get along with at all I wouldn't mind continuing to spar with, but you? You have proven to be the lowest form of life a blog can have, a troll.

then shut the fuck up already

[Alasdair]

Davidissimus - you do not surprise ... yet again, when asked for a single example of something that you consider to be trivially obvious, you go directly for the personal attack and frothing-at-the-keyboard ...

Yup - you have your understanding of "appeasement" which you intellectually just don't understand ... and I have my understanding of "appeasement" based upon growing up in the country which had Chamberlain as Prime Minister - so, in various classes, we discussed what he had intended (to be sorta Carter-intentions-like before Carter) and what he actually did (which was to set things up for the invasion of Poland - just as Carter set things up for the invasion of the Tehran US Embassy) ...

Thank you, anyway, for yet another example of ADS ...

[Sandy Underpants]

Joe Mama, you discredit yourself. The quote from Rockefeller you posted here was made after the Bush Administration had presented him and the rest of Congress and the Senate with largely unsupported "intelligence" and passed it off as 100% truth. That's the point of the report and this whole discussion!

[Joe Mama]

Except that Congress and the WH have access to the same NIEs, but otherwise your revisionist nonsense is spot on.