shrub rewriting history (nsr)

[natty dread]

NYT
November 15, 2005
Editorial


Decoding Mr. Bush's Denials

To avoid having to account for his administration's misleading statements before the war with Iraq, President Bush has tried denial, saying he did not skew the intelligence. He's tried to share the blame, claiming that Congress had the same intelligence he had, as well as President Bill Clinton. He's tried to pass the buck and blame the C.I.A. Lately, he's gone on the attack, accusing Democrats in Congress of aiding the terrorists.

Yesterday in Alaska, Mr. Bush trotted out the same tedious deflection on Iraq that he usually attempts when his back is against the wall: he claims that questioning his actions three years ago is a betrayal of the troops in battle today.

It all amounts to one energetic effort at avoidance. But like the W.M.D. reports that started the whole thing, the only problem is that none of it has been true.

•

Mr. Bush says everyone had the same intelligence he had - Mr. Clinton and his advisers, foreign governments, and members of Congress - and that all of them reached the same conclusions. The only part that is true is that Mr. Bush was working off the same intelligence Mr. Clinton had. But that is scary, not reassuring. The reports about Saddam Hussein's weapons were old, some more than 10 years old. Nothing was fresher than about five years, except reports that later proved to be fanciful.

Foreign intelligence services did not have full access to American intelligence. But some had dissenting opinions that were ignored or not shown to top American officials. Congress had nothing close to the president's access to intelligence. The National Intelligence Estimate presented to Congress a few days before the vote on war was sanitized to remove dissent and make conjecture seem like fact.

It's hard to imagine what Mr. Bush means when he says everyone reached the same conclusion. There was indeed a widespread belief that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons. But Mr. Clinton looked at the data and concluded that inspections and pressure were working - a view we now know was accurate. France, Russia and Germany said war was not justified. Even Britain admitted later that there had been no new evidence about Iraq, just new politics.

The administration had little company in saying that Iraq was actively trying to build a nuclear weapon. The evidence for this claim was a dubious report about an attempt in 1999 to buy uranium from Niger, later shown to be false, and the infamous aluminum tubes story. That was dismissed at the time by analysts with real expertise.

The Bush administration was also alone in making the absurd claim that Iraq was in league with Al Qaeda and somehow connected to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. That was based on two false tales. One was the supposed trip to Prague by Mohamed Atta, a report that was disputed before the war and came from an unreliable drunk. The other was that Iraq trained Qaeda members in the use of chemical and biological weapons. Before the war, the Defense Intelligence Agency concluded that this was a deliberate fabrication by an informer.

Mr. Bush has said in recent days that the first phase of the Senate Intelligence Committee's investigation on Iraq found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence. That is true only in the very narrow way the Republicans on the committee insisted on defining pressure: as direct pressure from senior officials to change intelligence. Instead, the Bush administration made what it wanted to hear crystal clear and kept sending reports back to be redone until it got those answers.

Richard Kerr, a former deputy director of central intelligence, said in 2003 that there was "significant pressure on the intelligence community to find evidence that supported a connection" between Iraq and Al Qaeda. The C.I.A. ombudsman told the Senate Intelligence Committee that the administration's "hammering" on Iraq intelligence was harder than he had seen in his 32 years at the agency.

Mr. Bush and other administration officials say they faithfully reported what they had read. But Vice President Dick Cheney presented the Prague meeting as a fact when even the most supportive analysts considered it highly dubious. The administration has still not acknowledged that tales of Iraq coaching Al Qaeda on chemical warfare were considered false, even at the time they were circulated.

Mr. Cheney was not alone. Remember Condoleezza Rice's infamous "mushroom cloud" comment? And Secretary of State Colin Powell in January 2003, when the rich and powerful met in Davos, Switzerland, and he said, "Why is Iraq still trying to procure uranium and the special equipment needed to transform it into material for nuclear weapons?" Mr. Powell ought to have known the report on "special equipment"' - the aluminum tubes - was false. And the uranium story was four years old.

•

The president and his top advisers may very well have sincerely believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. But they did not allow the American people, or even Congress, to have the information necessary to make reasoned judgments of their own. It's obvious that the Bush administration misled Americans about Mr. Hussein's weapons and his terrorist connections. We need to know how that happened and why.

Mr. Bush said last Friday that he welcomed debate, even in a time of war, but that "it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began." We agree, but it is Mr. Bush and his team who are rewriting history.

[A-wreck]

I heard Bush broke the dam.
And he invented AIDS too.

[SkiingBear]

Ummmmm, I think the simple phrase, "duh!" sums that up quite nicely.

[mr_gyptian]

http://www.gop.com/?s=video

I don't know if the sound track was intentional, but the use of Traffic's Low Spark of High Heeled Boys is fucking hilarious.

The way senator's Rockefeller, Clinton, and the like are acting. They are actually making congressman that opposed the war from the beginning look principaled.

[Monique]

I wonder if the Secret Service has removed all reflective surfaces from the White House for fear W would instantly drop dead if he ever looked himself in the eyes.

[shmerham]

I heard Bush broke the dam.

I broke the dam.

[EPSkis]

.

You had me at "NYT".

[cj001f]

You had me at "NYT".

If it ain't on Fox it ain't true

[EPSkis]

The only Fox worth watching.

[Dr. Gaper]

I broke the dam.

Was it a god dam?

[cj001f]

The only Fox worth watching.

Ain't bad either.

[shamrockpow]

The way senator's Rockefeller, Clinton, and the like are acting. They are actually making congressman that opposed the war from the beginning look principaled.

Ummm, earth to MrG: that's what they ARE -- principled. And the same goes for Dr. Dean (even if he is too abrasive for politics).

I'm just about fed up of Ms. Clinton, et. al trotting out the "Bush lied to us"/"We were snookered" line. Most level-headed commentators (see Scowcroft, Brent) agreed that the Bush administration was "hyping" the connections between Saddam and Al Qaeda, the extent of WMD, the breakdown/progression of said WMD-related programs between N, B, and C (remember Dick Cheney's "mushroom cloud" comment on Russert?), and the urgency of removing Saddam.

This was the reason for opposition from MANY liberals (including a preponderence of maggots), not some knee-jerk liberal "no war for oil" image that many of us are unfairly painted with.

Bottom line: they (Kerry, Clinton, etc) knew what they were getting in to, but were too pussy to actually stand up and oppose a "War President" on principle. It's a bit late in the game to be blaming Bush for "fooling them."

Bush lied, you knew it and went along anyways, people died.

[Grange]

NYT
November 15, 2005
Editorial

The National Intelligence Estimate presented to Congress a few days before the vote on war was sanitized to remove dissent and make conjecture seem like fact.

How was the information "sanitized to remove dissent"? Did Congress get the memo Tenet wrote the Bush Administration claiming the Iraq-Niger Uranium deal was suspect? If this and other information that called many of the "facts" the Bush Administration cited to the public suspect or outright false was given to Congress then they made as big of mistake as the President.

[Lurch]

http://www.gop.com/?s=video

I don't know if the sound track was intentional, but the use of Traffic's Low Spark of High Heeled Boys is fucking hilarious.

The way senator's Rockefeller, Clinton, and the like are acting. They are actually making congressman that opposed the war from the beginning look principaled.

Your position is so weak you can't even defend your side you just have to try to point the camera at someone else and hope we forget about Bush.

[Buster Highmen]

Bush lied, you knew it and went along anyways, people died.

Now, now ShameRock. That's just plain unfair. Shame shame shame! It's pungently clear and has been demonstrated over and over again that mr_g is so ardently bound to his view of the world and politics that no ocean of fact, no mountain of persuasion, no skyfull of ideas could shake his dementia.

So please, take it easy on the special people.

[KevinDineen]

Bottom line: they (Kerry, Clinton, etc) knew what they were getting in to, but were too pussy to actually stand up and oppose a "War President" on principle.

Amen....

[ski_adk]

Impeach Em All!
Lets Start Over!

//bumper sticker proudly placed on my car

[shamrockpow]

Now, now ShameRock. That's just plain unfair. Shame shame shame! It's pungently clear and has been demonstrated over and over again that mr_g is so ardently bound to his view of the world and politics that no ocean of fact, no mountain of persuasion, no skyfull of ideas could shake his dementia.

So please, take it easy on the special people.

Hey, wait a minute -- I support the Special Olympics!

The YOU in this case referred to the Daschle, Clinton, Kerry, Powell crowd that knew what they were getting in to. Most of the right wing idealogues (Cheney, Wolfie, etc) were too deranged at that point to examine the evidence rationally.

Robert Byrd (who I usually disagree with) tried to filibuster against this resolution in October of 2002 , but was cut off on a 75-25 vote (with only Lincoln Chafee crossing the aisle):

Byrd had argued the resolution amounted to a "blank check" for the White House.

"This is the Tonkin Gulf resolution all over again," Byrd said. "Let us stop, look and listen. Let us not give this president or any president unchecked power. Remember the Constitution."

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/

[Buster Highmen]

The Democratic leadership for the most part caved in this regard. Clinton mangled the situation by lobbing a cruise into Afghanistan in the first place, possibly the fundamental cause for the 9/11 attack.

In the world of politics, that leaves them open to the current administrations propoganda strategy.

In any case, the point is that only the feeble or stunted fall into the partisan catechisms. The points this article makes are above that.

[shamrockpow]

The Democratic leadership for the most part caved in this regard. Clinton mangled the situation by lobbing a cruise into Afghanistan in the first place, possibly the fundamental cause for the 9/11 attack.

And I completely disagree with that line of thinking. Putting permanent bases in Saudi Arabia, I can question. Firing missiles at known terrorists operating in totalitarian states seems a reasonable choice - far more reasonable than extravagant wars of choice.

[Buster Highmen]

And I completely disagree with that line of thinking.

OK. Which one? The first lays some blame on Demo leaders for not questioning the war more assiduously. The second merely points out that Clinton did in fact kill a bunch of innocent civilians outside the declaration of any war.

Putting permanent bases in Saudi Arabia, I can question. Firing missiles at known terrorists operating in totalitarian states seems a reasonable choice - far more reasonable than extravagant wars of choice.

Hmmm. OK. Again, I'm just trying to point out a more balanced view instead of the usual volleys of one sided salvos. It seems that mimicing that behavior is even more lost on the fester.

[DaveTV]

If there is ANYONE who needs to be taken down...it's this clown

[cj001f]

If there is ANYONE who needs to be taken down...it's this clown

Something wrong with spending $800,000 a year on cognac while your people starve?

(when you come calling, remember it's Hennessy Paradis only, he's their biggest customer)

[Tippster]

Goddammit, Buster --- for the last time:

it's "STRATEGERY."

[shamrockpow]

OK. Which one? The first lays some blame on Demo leaders for not questioning the war more assiduously. The second merely points out that Clinton did in fact kill a bunch of innocent civilians outside the declaration of any war.

Hmmm. OK. Again, I'm just trying to point out a more balanced view instead of the usual volleys of one sided salvos. It seems that mimicing that behavior is even more lost on the fester.

The second one.

Yes, killing innocent civilians is always wrong, but I don't think the President requires (or should require) congressional approval for small and/or top secret missions. Being elected President of the USA does grant said person extraordinary powers. Powers that affect m/billions of people that can only be construed as "unfair" (life is not).

One more reason to ensure that we (the people) select the most competent person possible and hold that person accountable for their actions. Why the Republicans thought they can put any idiot in there and give him free reign is still beyond the pale of reason.