Ooops. How did this report ever slip through???
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/08/AR2008060801687_pf.html
Note: I’ve included this entry in the “religion” category because so many people now take it as an article of religious faith that “Bush lied us into war.” And yet, Bush’s claims before opening the Iraq theater of operations were no different than those of the Clinton administration or many of the Congressional Democrats who have since taken to railing against Bush’s “lies.”
There are many valid complaints regarding Bush. Economically, he has been a disaster; he has supported vast new spending and not supported tax cuts and tax reform with anywhere near the zeal he should’ve. He has not been a forceful proponant of clean energy, like nuclear. And on the PR front, he’s been totally hopeless. But complaints should be based on facts, not fantasy. There was much to complain about with the Clinton administration, but his treaty with Martian Commienazis to sell America’s orphans into zombie slave labor in the dilithium mines of Rura Pentha is not a valid source of complaint.
Read the report yourself:
8 Responses to “Substantiated by Intelligence Information”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Good site I \”Stumbledupon\” it today and gave it a stumble for you.. looking forward to seeing what else you have..later
[…] is based on the same “Substantiated by Intelligence Information” report that I mentioned a few days ago. What makes this opinion piece newsworthy is that someone left-of-center on the public stage is […]
“Lied” is a strong word and often misused. It is far more likely that Bush and Co. lied by omission, rather than commission. All intelligence reports come with caveats, which state more what the analyst does not know, rather than know. Those caveats were left off by Bush and Co. Their statements were made with 100% certainty, which I somehow doubt that the intelligence reports had in their original forms. Without those caveats and with the certainty that Bush and Co. claimed, the public were misled. Was it deliberate? I suspect so. Bush and the neoCons wanted to invade Iraq. They merely sought a cassis belli and manufactured one from the available material. The media, particularly the US media failed to provide sufficient skeptecism to the Administration’s claims. The US public, swallowed it hook, line and sinker in their fear after 11 September.
Further, what does this report say about the claims made by Bush and Co. about the “Aluminium Tubes” which were claimed to be for gas centrifuges but were in reality found by independent investigation to be actually tubes for aircraft rocket pods? What about the claims made by the Administation about the attempted purchase of Uranium yellowcake from Niger, which was proved to be false (and led to the whole Valarie Plume/Scooter Libby episode)? Then we have the attempt to directly like Saddam’s regime to 11 September by the Vice-President.
So, while Bush might not have actively lied (Cheney though, is another matter), it is certain IMHO that his administration actively conspired to create a climate of fear, manufactured a cassis belli and played up their reasons for invasion. The media and the public failed to apply enough skeptecism to the whole matter and ultimately the responsibility should lie with them for allowing themselves to be hoodwinked by such obvious falsewhoods.
“All intelligence reports come with caveats…”
Indeed so. And in the months after 911, intelligence information from *before* 911 were used to scream that the administration didn;t do enough. So now you’ve got Saddam Hussein, a supporter of terrorism and an enemy of the US, working on WMD programs. There are caveats that maybe *just* maybe, he’s not. In the climate of the time, you don’t take chances. Since Saddam had long since provided adequate cause for belli, dropping the hammer on him was the logical response.
“Bush and the neoCons wanted to invade Iraq. ”
So did the Clinton administration and the vast bulk of the Senate Democrats.
“What about the claims made by the Administation about the attempted purchase of Uranium yellowcake from Niger, which was proved to be false”
Proved to be false by *whom?* Certainly not by Wilson who, by his own admission, did virtually nothing while he was there. And British MI6 still stands by the claim.
“So, while Bush might not have actively lied (Cheney though, is another matter), it is certain IMHO that his administration actively conspired to create a climate of fear, manufactured a cassis belli…”
Wow. So first the meme is “Bush lied.” That that it’s proven that he did no such thing, the meme is “Bush lied.”
“Indeed so. And in the months after 911, intelligence information from *before* 911 were used to scream that the administration didn;t do enough. So now you’ve got Saddam Hussein, a supporter of terrorism and an enemy of the US, working on WMD programs. There are caveats that maybe *just* maybe, he’s not. In the climate of the time, you don’t take chances. Since Saddam had long since provided adequate cause for belli, dropping the hammer on him was the logical response.”
There may have been more than just a scream. From outside the US it appeared more like a panic. Those that panic, are easily led. Which is what appears to have happened here. Those that did the leading obviously benefited from sustaining and fostering that panic. I believe the old latin phrase is “cue bono” – who benefits. Look for that and you’ll find the real cause of most events.
“So did the Clinton administration and the vast bulk of the Senate Democrats.”
They may have but they weren’t quite so arrogant to believe that they could create a cassis belli out of disparate events and issues like the neoCons. Are you glad that Bush and Co. actually were able to cause the deaths of what, nearly a million innocent Iraqis? Was what has been achieved, been worth that butcher’s bill?
“Proved to be false by *whom?* Certainly not by Wilson who, by his own admission, did virtually nothing while he was there. And British MI6 still stands by the claim.”
Actually, its been long known that the documents upon which this claim was based were forgeries. See Seymour Hersh’s story here: http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=5612
Perhaps if you were viewing this matter a little less blinkered you might have read/heard that when it was first occurring?
“So, while Bush might not have actively lied (Cheney though, is another matter), it is certain IMHO that his administration actively conspired to create a climate of fear, manufactured a cassis belli…”
Wow. So first the meme is “Bush lied.” That that it’s proven that he did no such thing, the meme is “Bush lied.”
That might be what some believe, however I haven’t for a long time. As I said, “lying” is a strong word. It was perhaps more by (deliberate) omission rather than commission that Bush lied. I’ve presented some of the evidence that is available which shows that Bush and Co. manufactured their cassis belli. You claim that the Left was lying in turn. I’d suggest that some members of the Left, if anything were guilty of exaggeration in their passion to oppose what has proved in the end a foolish military adventure by this government of your’s.
“I believe the old latin phrase is “cue bono” – who benefits. Look for that and you’ll find the real cause of most events.”
OK, so now you blame Barack Obama? He’s about the only ones benefitting politically from Iraq.
“They may have but they weren’t quite so arrogant to believe that they could create a cassis belli out of disparate events…”
As has been shown pretty definitively by people opposed to both the Bush administration *and* the war… the Bush administration did no such thing
“Actually, its been long known that the documents upon which this claim was based were forgeries. ”
Uh-huh….
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html?referrer=emailarticle
Quote: Wilson’s assertions — both about what he found in Niger and what the Bush administration did with the information — were undermined yesterday in a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report.
The panel found that Wilson’s report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts. And contrary to Wilson’s assertions and even the government’s previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush’s January 2003 State of the Union address.
“Are you glad that Bush and Co. actually were able to cause the deaths of what, nearly a million innocent Iraqis?”
And the intentional inaccuracies just keep on coming. It’s not enough that the Left feels they need to invent tales about how the war was based on lies, they also have to pull numbers out of their ass about how unrealistically vast numers of mystery Iraqis have died.
But by all means, don’t let facts get in the way of getting your hate on.
Interesting that you’ll only believe the US Parliament’s results, rather than an independent inquiry’s results. As Christine Keeler once famously said, “They would say that, wouldn’t they?” I’m not surprised that the US Senate says that Wilson sat on his hands whereas independent sources actually tracked down where the documents which claimed Iraq and Niger were in the midst of a deal to sell Iraq Yellow Cake and proved them to be forgeries. It appears that you can lead a horse to water but you definitly cannot make it drink. 😉
“Interesting that you’ll only believe the US Parliament’s results…”
Well, that’s telling. The US doesn’t have a “Parliament.”
“As Christine Keeler once famously said, “They would say that, wouldn’t they?””
No, they wouldn’t. The people behind this report are politically *opposed* to the Bush administration and have been publicly calling them liars. But now that they have to actually justify their claims… they find that the administration *wasn’t* lying.
But, hey. “They would say that, wouldn’t they?” turns out to be a useful alternative to actual thought for many situations. US government denies involvement in 9-11? NASA claims they actually landed on the moon? FBI says they didn’t assassinate JFK? CIA denies they have alien spacecraft?
“They would say that, wouldn’t they?”