It seems that two of the primary articles of faith of the Bush-hating left are that “Bush Lied!” and that Joe Wilson is a noble, courageous truth-teller. And while there have been signs lately that some on the left are backing away from this one-time Kerry campaign official, that dishonest Democrat still receives hefty fees to speak at college campuses.
Outside of the right-wing fringes, I wonder if any conservative similarly discredited has ever won the accolades of mainstream Republicans while being paid excessive amounts to speak around the country. Because Wilson has been at the forefront of those alleging that “Bush Lied” in leading the nation to war in Iraq, many on the left celebrate the man, despite the fact that a bipartisan Senate Intelligence Panel discredited him.
Similarly, that panel and two others (Robb-Silberman here and the Butler Report in Great Britain) found no evidence to substantiate the claim that “Bush Lied!” Those conclusions, however, don’t matter to Bush-haters, they’re going to go on believing that the president is the dishonest demon defined by their ideology. Because, as I’ve said before, hating Bush means never having to prove your point.
These people aren’t interested in the truth, but in badmouthing the President of the United States, his top advisors and their supporters. Yet, even though they rarely rely on facts* in making their allegations, they claim they’re the voices of truth.
The most delicious irony of this past week is that a left-wing web-site which calls itself truthout found itself in an odd position when a month after “reporting” that Karl Rove was about to be indicted, Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald informed the president’s top political aide that he won’t be charged in the CIA leak case.
It seems that in the Orwellian world of the Bush-haters, truth is a euphemism for animosity against the Bush Administration.
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com
*O.K., sometimes they do use facts, but they pull them out of context, à la Michael Moore in Fahrenheit 9/11 such that they misrepresent the actual situation they’re describing.
just because fitzgerald culdn’t prove rove knowingly passed classified information to a reporter doesn’t mean Wilson lied or has been discredited.
Um, Lester, if you read the post, you’d know that I identified the Senate Intelligence Committee, not Fitzgerald, as responsible for discrediting Joe Wilson. Indeed, even the Kerry campaign took its findings seriously, letting that dishonest man go just after the report was released.
letting him go? was wilson employed by kerry?
what exactly was discredited? Do you think the famous niger forgeries were real? The White house apolgoized for having the line about it in the state of the union. They haven’t taken the apology back.
Lester, you show how little you know. Wilson worked on the Kerry campaign in 2004 until the Senate Intelligence Committee report discredited Wilson. And its report answers you second question. It discredited him primarily for two things: (1) claiming his wife didn’t help him get his job; (2) misrepresenting what he learned in Niger. Some CIA analysts thought his mission helped confirm rathern than contradict claims that Saddam’s Iraq was trying to get yellowcake from Niger.
gaypatriot- that is not true. first of all, even if his wife “sent” him, which is a blatant atack on his manhood, he would have to have been at least somewhat qualified. and in fact he had diplomatic experience in both iraq and Niger, as novaks original coilumn said.
second, the white house agreed the statement shouldn’t have been in there. they apologized for it being in there and had taken it out of other oh his speeches on previous occasions.
if wilson said anything in this commitee, he certainly didn’t repeat it in his essay in the times.
more to the point, it was utterly dishonest of the president to use the threat of a nuclear holocaust to trick americans into a war they for some reason thought they could win.
Hi Dan!
Haven’t seen you since you stumped John McGraw to identify a Republican principle in Long Beach.
Back to your original post the only mainstream Republican I can remembered nearly as discredited as that fop Joe Wilson, and still making money by going around the country speaking, would have Richard M. Nixon, who by the way earned an honest buck by writing some excellent foreign policy treatises. I mean even Clinton called him to ask his advice when he was nailing interns to the Oval Office floor.
Nevertheless, your point is well taken: Joe Wilson is an embarrassment to our shared political elites. He is the anti-Joe Lieberman, respected only by the self-indulgent pseudo-revolutionaries at Moveon.org and Daily Kos. Peace out dog and see you on the 29th?
Lester, please read my comment, I didn’t say his wife sent him, but that she helped him get his job, i.e., the posting to Niger. That’s a fact, she helped him. And he denied that initially.
I believe, the president, then under the influence of an incompetent press secretary was wrong to apologize for the statement. The president said that “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” British intelligence continues to back up that claim. The nonpartisan Annenberg Public Policy Center finds that the “famous ’16 words’ in President Bush’s Jan. 28, 2003 State of the Union address turn out to have a basis in fact after all, according to two recently released investigations in the US and Britain.“
Dan, wondering if you can answer a few questions…
1. How is it that you find Wilson “discredited” when the Fitzgerald investigation is still ongoing and no particular conclusions have been issued?
2. Can you explain how Wilson’s findings from his trip to Africa were untrue?
3. What do you think about notes taken by aides to Donald Rumsfeld on 9/11 where he directs them to come up with strike plans against Iraq even though intelligence of the day connects the hijackers with Al-Qaeda? The notes direct “best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H. [Saddam Hussein] at same time. Not only UBL [Osama bin Laden].”
4. Two parter – We know that the Senate Intelligence Committee has finished it’s report on the CIA’s role in 9/11 intelligence. However, it seems that a number of issues presented by the administration were done so despite the intelligence of other specialized government agencies or perhaps even in spite of developing intelligence. Do you feel this represent a deliberate ignorance on the part of the administration? Secondly, do you think how the administration picked and chose which intelligence to rely on will ever conclusively be investigated as was promised by the Senate Intelligence Committee – their “Phase II” that has seemingly been shelved thus far?
#8: Joe Wilson has not been discredited in any way. Valerie Plame never “sent” her husband to Niger. The Iraqis never tried to buy yellowcake from Niger – why would they risk such an undertaking since they already had tons of it in Iraq? The Bushies as much as admitted that when they retracted the infamous words from the SOTU. And yes, the words were craftily stated: why even mention the Brits UNLESS you KNEW your own intelligence did not agree with what you were saying?
By trying to shift the focus to Joe Wilson, the koolaid drinkers want to avoid the fact that a CIA NOC was outed merely for political purposes: the Bushies did not want their deceptive campaign to get us into a war in Iraq exposed just prior to a Presidential election campaign. They were still convinced that the war would be short and they didn’t want anything risking their basking in the glow of “Mission Accomplished.” Of course, the war has dragged on resulting in many more questions being asked and investigated but in early summer of 2003, the Bushies panicked when Wilson published his piece.
Just a Question, (1) the Fitzgerald investigation never looked into Joe Wilson’s credibility. (Only if lying to the news media carried the same penalty as lying to a grand jury would he be under investigation — and likely facing indictment.) If you’d bothered to read my posts (and my comments), you’d know that the Senate Intelligence Committee discredited the man.
(2) As I said above, CIA analysts thought Joe Wilson’s mission to Niger provided evidence that Iraq was trying to get uranium from that African nation. (That’s in the Senate Intelligence Committee report.)
(3) As I recall those notes were taken in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 before it had been determined that Saddam was not involved in the attacks. In the ensuing days, weeks, months and years (despite claims on left-wing blogs & even in the MSM) no one in the Administration ever claimed Saddam was involved in 9/11, though there is increasing evidence (acknowledged even in the 9/11 report) of connections between Saddam & Al Qaeda.
(4) The Administration did not pick and choose intelligence. This has been shown in the 3 reports cited above. Yes, different intelligence agencies did reach different conclusions. This did not represent deliberate ignorance. Congress saw the same intelligence the president saw. Indeed, the Robb-Silberman Commission found that the intelligence seen by the Administration (and not Congress) was “more alarmist” than that which Congress saw. Otherwise, the intelligence shown to Congress was not “markedly different” from that the president saw.
Sorry, Ian, Joe Wilson has been discredited. Go check the Senate Intelligence Committee report. The rest of the the stuff in your comment does merit response as it comes from your traditional sources, those which define truth as anything which reflects adversely on this Administration.
First of all, Joe Wilson was the last American Acting Ambassador in Iraq before the Gulf War and the last diplomat to negotiate with Saddam at that time (negotiating the release of many people that were kidnapped by Saddam to serve as human shields around his oil fields). He was also Ambassador to several African nations in the Niger area and served as Senior Advisor to President Clinton on African Affairs in the late 1990’s. Joe was more than qualified to go to Niger and find out the truth.
The fact that he was “recommended” by his wife, who had served the CIA for 20 years as a secret agent in the specific area of WMD, takes nothing away from Joe or Valerie – it only shows that between the two they knew what was best for the country – and the senior CIA officials who sent Joe to Africa knew this as well.
Joe and Valerie did not ask for her to be “outed” which not only caused her to end her career but put many, many people from many countries in danger for their lives as a result of the vindictive, irresponsible actions by the Cheney White House.
And it was as an inquiry by Cheney to know about the Yellowcaske that “catalyzed” this entire situation – regardless of whether Cheney himself asked Joe to go does not matter – he asked to know the situation and when they found out the truth – the Cheney White House ignored it.
It amazes me how small minded most of the Bush supporters are when, in fact, it was President Bush (the father) himself who came out almost immediately after Valerie was “outed” and said this was treason. And he should know, he ran the CIA and was the President who instructed Joe in Joe’s actions and negotiations with Saddam prior to the Gulf War. Shame on all of you who buy into the lies of the Cheney White House.
These people are the OJ Simpsons of our day – They have no conscious. Karl Rove (immediately after making a deal with Fitzgerald not to be indicted in return for his testimony against the Cheney White House) goes out and starts his raving and ranting as though nothing has happened. See “truthout.com” for the “sealed vs. sealed” indictment Fitzgerald has entered into the court if you really want to understand the “big sellout”.
Um, stranger (In #11), you’re commenting to a post which does not reference the Plame investigation but does reference the Senate Intelligence Committee Report which discredited Mr. Wilson (which you ignore).
The Plame Investigation, despite being led by a scrupulous prosecutor, did not issue a single indictment for the underlying offense, indicating that no one in the Administration deliberately “outed” a covert agent, Indeed, the prosecutor has yet to indicate whether Ms. Plame was a covert agent as protected by the the statute in question.
You accuse us of being the OJ Simpsons of the day when you don’t address the point of the post to which you comment and you rely on a web-site which made a claim (Rove being indicted) which has no basis in fact. As does your claim about Rove’s secret deal.
Why is it that some on the left continue to believe something even when a lengthy investigation has proved otherwise?
Gosh, I love some of our critics. They make blogging so much fun. And their claims are so easy to debunk.
#10
1. I seem to recall, on the topic of Wilson, that it was the Republicans of the Senate Intelligence Committee that drafted the language regarding his findings, the discrediting you speak of, and that the committee Democrats refused to sign off on it. Isn’t that the case?
2. I don’t believe anyone questions a strong probability Iraq was seeking Yellowcake. The CIA points out that Wilson’s own report clarifies that position. What is at issue is that, since this delegation to Niger happened in 1999 and the outcome of that interaction was known, and, once the Italian documents were discredited as Wilson already recognized them as forgeries in late 2002, and that Libby was instructed by Cheney to disclose to Miller that the uranium story was a “key judgment” when in fact the NIE report actually said “U.S. intelligence did not know the status of Iraq’s procurement efforts, ‘cannot confirm’ any success and had ‘inconclusive’ evidence about Iraq’s domestic uranium operations… The State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research, likewise, called the claim ‘highly dubious” – when all of this is known, do you still feel that it was appropriate for the President to make a provocative, factual point of this in the SOTU address despite the unsure underpinnings of the claim?
3. Why though, on the very day of the attacks, when all the intelligence coming in specifically referenced the act as an Al-Qaeda agression, would Rumsfeld’s mind immediately turn to Iraq and Saddam Hussein? In 2001, what would have put those two things together in his mind? Did the government already have some idea that there was a connection? Since the country didn’t even have and official Al-Qaeda presence while it flourishes and is financially supported in several other parts of the world, why would Rumsfeld’s mind immediately have ticked there?
4. If different agencies reached different conclusion, wasn’t it the responsibility of the administration to acknowledge that fact in some responsible way rather than to present the most grevious scenario of the differences? Also why was information disclosed to reporters that specifically reinforced these doomsday scenarios? In the example above, the discolsed information was the most devastating presented at the same time being misleading as well. How does this not represent picking and choosing? Granted that different agencies would come with different backup and support but these are all professional information gathering branches of the government. How is it that the administration seemed to trust the one that presented the worst information?
#13
1. The part of the report that the committee had accepted unanimously discredited Wilson’s public statements. In separate opinions, Republican Senators used harsher language to describe Mr. Wilson.
2. As the link I provide in comment #7 shows, British Intelligence stands by the claim, so the 16 words remain true.
3. I would have to review the memos carefully, but given that Iraq had tried to assassinate a former president of the United States and was shooting at U.S planes that were flying over Iraq to monitor its compliance with international law, it would be absurd for the Administration (in the immediate aftermath of the attack) to exclude Iraq. Hence, my thoughts on Rumsfeld’s assumption. Otherwise, you’ll have to wait until his book comes out (after he leaves office in 2009).
4. The Administration did not present the most grievous situation. As I said in #12, it did not relate some of the more alarming reports (that it had seen) to Congress. So, you’re wrong to assume that the Administration presented the most devastating, misleading information. At the time, all the intelligence agencies of the major Western powers (and even a few others) believed Saddam had WMDs. Go and check the Robb-Silberman report, the problem was failures of the intelligence agencies, not the Administration’s use of the Intelligence.
gpwest- joe wilson never said the british report didn’t say Iraq wasn’t trying to procure uranium from anywhere. All Joe Wilsons essay said was “I went to Niger and in my opinion there wasn’t anything to the story”. nothing more or less. the white house, at the point, should have released any informatin they had on the subject or taken it on the chin if they didn’t want to.
We both know Bush was referring to the highly disputed forgeries. If tenet apologized for them then they shouldn’t have been in there. why didn’t the story end right there? because the nuclear issue was what convinced people saddam was a threat that’s why. “smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud”.
Well, well, well…
I spend the better part of two months in post-production, and what do I find upon my return here?
The same tired, old, petulant bullshit from the left.
These loons still think repeating lies and distortions will eventually make them true. Unfortunately, we’ve all grown up quite nicely, and are more than capable of discerning crap when we smell it.
Eric in Hollywood
hollywood- How’d you like “munich” ? hehe
14
1 & 2. Yes, that’s right. The Republican faction of the bipartisan committee wanted to further take Wilson to task. Do you think that’s because they felt the report as written really didn’t discredit Wilson? What about the report actually discredits Wilson and why do you think the Republicans of the committee felt it wasn’t enough? Do we actually know what British intelligence was used? Did any US agency think that the Iraqi government not only attempted to buy but was also actually in possession of Yellowcake? The Butler review found British intelligence leading into the war as unreliable as the CIA’s and yet they were very clear that their Yellowcake information was correct. Iraq had inquired into purchasing Yellowcake. Why do you think it was so difficult to substantiate whether Iraq was or wasn’t actually in possession of uranium ore in the 4 years that had since passed the 1999 meeting?
3. Perhaps it was absurd for him to exclude Iraq, but there still doesn’t seem to be a clear reason why that was forefront on his mind. Why do you think he specifically directed his aides to search for just that relationship? He didn’t direct his inquiry at any other Middle Eastern country or national leader and there were no established formal links between the Hussein Government and Al-Qaeda but he directed his aides’ inquiries right there. Why? As Secretary of Defense and with incoming intelligence all pointing fingers to Al-Qaeda, his inclination isn’t to pinpoint Al-Qaeda and any government or leader who helped but rather it was to see if he could include Saddam Hussein in the response. This doesn’t indicate that they have an agenda of targeting Saddam Hussein at any opportunity?
4. It’s clear that on different points there are a number of conflicting reports from different agencies within our own government. On key issues, it seems that the intelligence from agencies most likely to know the situation was discredited in favor of intelligence that gave cause for the invasion. Why do you think that was? The Robb-Silberman (in disagreement with key senior officials from the CIA and DIA) report basically concluded that “the Intelligence Community did not make or change any analytic judgments in response to political pressure” but no committe has looked into what intelligence was used and why by the Administration. That is the supposed Phase II of the Senate Intelligence Committee that has yet to happen and it was the President’s own executive order that constricted the role of Robb-Silbermann to only investigate how intelligence was produced and that it was not influenced by the administration. We have no insight into what decisions were made over what information was presented and it seems on a number of different points the agency most likely to know the reality of a situation was not the intelligence that was used. Do you think it’s presumptive of any group to outright say the Administration did or didn’t pick and choose it’s intelligence until an actual investigation happens? Since this Administration has been so cagey and unforthcoming about it’s activities and intention, do you think it likely that such an investigation or inquiry will ever happen or be able to happen? If the Administration has no reason not to be forthcoming with it’s decisions why do you think they’ve deflected all attempt thus far? Do you think, if it doesn’t show a specific agenda within their actions, that the administration’s response showed poor judgment despite the state of intelligence?
Just a question in #18, why don’t you go check the report yourself? I’ve dealt with it so many times on this blog; it’s no longer worth my time to revisit a point I — and countless others — have addressed multiple times in the past now nearly two years. The unanimous part of the report discredited Wilson; that’s what matters. And he was let go from the Kerry campaign after the report was released. ‘Nuff said?
Yes, we all know the intelligence was inaccurate, but none of the three major reports found that the president twisted intelligence. That’s the point here.
Your point is #3 is absurd. Of course Iraq would be at the forefront of his mind, given the points I raise which you don’t address — Iraqis were firing on our planes which were enforcing the no-fly zones.
As to #4, you keep baiting and baiting, yet not addressing the points I raise. You don’t want a conversation on this topic; you want to prove what you already believe — that the president (and his team) lied or deceived the American people. As to the question of how the Administration used the intelligence, that one is a judgment call of Administration officials. We know the Administration didn’t lie. We know they didn’t deceive us.
Given what we knew about Iraq, I think the Administration made the right judgment. Others may disagree. And that’s a fair argument to make.
The Administration has hardly been cagey. In a number of speeches and statement, both before and after the liberation of Iraq, the President — and Vice President — made clear where we stood.
As former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger put it, we would have been justified in going to war against Iraq even without evidence of WMDs. Iraq had violated numerous UN resolutions and had violated the cease-fire it agreed to immediately after the first Gulf War. Under international law, we were still at war with Iraq.
(And you fail to address the point that the intelligence agencies of all major Western nations (and a few other) believed Saddam still have WMDs.)
Let me stress something, the issue of how the intelligence was used is a judgment call — for which we elect our political leaders. A Republican committee would likely find the president made the right judgment, based on what we know, a Democratic one, otherwise. And that’s politics. (That’s one reason I think there has been a delay in the release of Phase II of the Senate report because the parties won’t be able to reach a consensus on that judgment call.)
But, none of your points go to the central point of this post — that Bush-haters rely on one man who was discredited and a mantra which has no basis in fact.
Lester, Ian, Just a Question. The Truth is Out and it’s time to Move On.
The unanimous part of the report discredited Wilson…Nuff said?
Not really.
Wilson’s assertions have been born out by what we know of the situation. He asserted that there was no sale of uranium ore, and there wasn’t. He asserted that for such a transaction to ever occur was “highly unlikely” and we know that such a transaction never occurred. He knew of two meetings by Iraqi delegations to Niger, and despite that there was an expectation that the second meeting would be a discussion of uranium sale, he was told it never occurred, and to my knowledge has never conclusively been proven to have occurred except that British Intelligence says it has information as such though it’s not disclosed what that is. He asserted that the Italian documents couldn’t be accurate, which of course we know them as forgeries, as others concluded even before he did. The committee report acknowledges that his wife was involved in the team that selected Wilson to go, which she was, which neither of them deny except to clarify that she was not the person to make the selection and in fact excused herself out of the meeting with senior officials making that decision.
What exactly is the part included in the Senate Intelligence Committee that actually “discredits” Wilson? It’s not clear and despite assertions that it’s been covered here before should be simple to conclusively and concisely offer some salient points.
but none of the three major reports found that the president twisted intelligence.
No, we actually don’t know that. As I’ve offered previously, the three major reports were specifically directed away from approaching that issue. The Senate Intelligence Committee is supposed to address it in a Phase II investigation which is still not complete and the Robb-Silberman report was directed away from the issue by Executive Order. It’s one of the reasons Senate Democrats forced the issue into closed-door session last November to press for when this type of investigation would actually be done. As recent as June 10 of this year, Harry Reid again asked when it would be complete. How is it that you believe the three reports have actually, substantively addressed the issue when it’s not actually happened in any of the reports?
Of course Iraq would be at the forefront of his mind
But in connection to Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda where there had been no connection before? And where in the notes to aides he doesn’t ask them to look into if a connection could be found but rather how Saddam Hussein could be included. It’s a very important symantic point. Do you believe, from those notes, that he thought there might be a connection or do you think he wanted to create some connection?
yet not addressing the points I raise
You offer broad, unsubstantiated responses to pointed questions which seems the hallmark of op-ed blogging and not critical, journalistic assessment. If you’re not OK with my rebuttal, then how do you justify your own? And in turn, wouldn’t you simply say otherwise that I was being argumentative?
Iraq had violated numerous UN resolutions
And had been for many years. But as well, the WMD inspection process was beginning to work again. Hans Blix makes this very clear in his reports to the UN. But the administration makes the crude step of invading Iraq despite an important dissenting minority voice of parts of the intelligence community and against the advice and without the consent of the UN. The imminent threat to the United States or to allied countries has ever really been communicated that would have precipitated such a response. Do you have confidence in a Command-in-Chief that takes such important, resounding preemptive actions in such a cavalier manner? He may have been acknowledging the prevailing intelligence community’s assessment but the decision to invade was his own. As evidenced numerous times in these many years with the occupation, the Administration didn’t take the advice of military commanders before going in and so far during the conflict leading to miscalculations and amazing loss of life. Do you think this whole affair could have been handled differently or was the United States somehow backed into a corner so that we had no other options in addressing the regime of Saddam Hussein?
And you fail to address the point that the intelligence agencies of all major Western nations (and a few other) believed Saddam still have WMDs
UN inspectors were again being let back into the country, with free access and coming up empty handed. It seemed pretty simple to disprove that any uranium sale had occurred as well. Were these types of things being taken into account? It seems that the intelligence community had decided to believe what it wanted to believe without actually investigating, including relying on third-party accounts. But despite this, it’s still not clear what the precipitating factor was to take action at that time. What exactly was the imminent threat to the United States, or to our allies, that forced us into a course of offensive action rather than a policy of containment?
Bush-haters rely on one man who was discredited and a mantra which has no basis in fact
The very rebuttals posted above vividly illustrate the factual conflict of purposes. There were a number of important voice leading into the war and so far during the course of the war advocating the dissenting opinion that the Administration has chosen to disregard in favor of a policy of aggression. It’s true that these voices do not represent the mainstream thought but when they’re proven so correct in hindsight, how can you not question the wisdom of action the Administration pursued? Even if fact bears out that the Administration did not craft the need to invade Iraq, should we alternately praise the poor judgment in planning and execution along the way? The President has a power far beyond someone like Joe Wilson which the Senate Intelligence Committee concludes had little or no effect on any decision made in regard to our Iraq policy. Can you fault people for holding up that little light to shine in the darkness of ignorance and miscalculation since?
Just a question, in all your jargon, you are, as you claim, being argumentative, but you do seem to having succeeded in drawing the thread away from the topic of the post. And loving a good discussion, I took the bait.
I wonder why you ask all these questions, none of which challenged the issues raised above. The Senate Intelligence Report did discredit Joe Wilson. No serious commission investigating the matter has found that Bush lied. My answers were adequate, with more substance than your own. It seems you’re new to this blog because these points have been substantiated before on this blog.
If you were interested in substance, you could have offered evidence to contradict the points (of my post) — and so far have failed to do so — relying instead the contention that the three reports didn’t do what at least two of them did.
Moreover, you seem to hold much stock in the UN which proved itself incapable of enforcing its own resolutions and which failed to respond to other humanitarian crises.
Wilson made himself a celebrity in the summer of 2003 by making claims in the New York Times and on TV talk shows and had to retract many points. The Senate Intelligence Committee report discredited much of what he said at that time.
You bring up the issue of the advice of military commanders that the president did not take. Instead, he took the advice of other military commanders. As long as there as been warfare, military commanders have offered differing opinions. It is the job of the Commander-in-Chief to choose among them. Just because you don’t like those decisions doesn’t mean they’re wrong. Most military commanders appear to have supported the president.
The Senate Intelligence Committee discredited those accusations Joe Wilson made in the summer of ’03, the very accuations which made Wilson a celebrity. Had he not made them, he would not have received two standing ovations at the YearlyKos.
In previous posts, I’ve provided quotes from the various reports indicating that the president did not twist intelligence nor pressure CIA analysts to give the results he wanted. (Perhaps, I may yet again have to find the quotes from the reports.)
As to faulting Joe Wilson for holding up a little light to shine (as you put it), if he were actually telling the truth, then that would be a very good thing. We should welcome criticism of the president, just as we welcome criticism on this blog. But, the issue with Joe Wilson is that he misrepresented the findings of his own trip — to discredit the Administration. The claim the president raised in those 16 words was that Iraq was trying to get uranium.
Wilson claimed the president lied — and in large part due to the White House’s ham-handed response to his claims — the media ran with those claims. But, so far, every investigation of the matter has showing that if anybody lied it was not the president, but Joe Wilson.
Honest criticism is a good thing — and you make some valid points about the wisdom of the president’s decision to go to war. I believe he made the right decision. You believe he made the wrong decision. Both opinions, I believe, have merit. Yet, the claim that the president lied in making the decision to go to war has no basis in fact.
If you want to rebut the points of my post, please do so. So far you haven’t.
I\’m right now not on my home computer so may be a bit sloppy in my comments.
First, Wilson\’s basic claim in the summer of \’03 was not only that the 16 words were false, but that (thanks to his report) the president knew them to be false. Now, there\’s no evidence the president ever saw Wilson\’s report (especially, as I understand, since Wilson did not prepare a written report of his trip to Niger). Indeed, some CIA analysts believe it strengthened the conclusion reached by British intelligence.
Both Robb-Silberman and the Senate Intelligence Panel found that the Bush Administration exercised no political pressure on the intelligence community to produce more alarmist reports about Iraq\’s WMDs. The Butler report found no evidence of \”deliberate distortion\” of the Intelligence.
And let me repeat a point I made before — the White House saw a more alarmist version of intelligence than did Congress and yet, despite that, many Congressmen and Senators (including John Kerry) believed Iraq had WMDs. For Kerry to substantiate his claim he had made recently that he was \”misled,\” he would have to show that the White House provided him information which the Administration knew (at the time) to be false.
As I understand it, the intelligence Kerry (& the rest of the Senate) saw had been provided by the CIA. And since these two bipartisan commissions have shown that the Administration put no pressure on that agency to come up with alarmist reports on Iraqs, WMDs, it seems clear (as numerous others have noted) he should be faulting the intelligence community for its failings — and not the Administration for deceiving him because neither he nor anyone else has provided any evidence to show that the Administration knowingly deceived him.
Remember, the Butler Commission found no deliberate distortion. Emphasis added.
I believe that the Bush-haters do not use “truth” as a euphimism for animosity but rather the Bushism “truthy”.
–
Seems your comment system is having trouble so I’m trying to post this again.
The Senate Intelligence Report did discredit Joe Wilson.
You’re one of a few conservative voices that seem to offer this up as some unquestionable fact but you’ve not yet provided any specifics. Bloomberg News says of the report and Wilson:
First, Wilson’s basic claim in the summer of ‘03 was not only that the 16 words were false, but that (thanks to his report) the president knew them to be false.
In a declassified memo, it’s known that the State Department told the CIA that the Italian documents were forgeries over two weeks before the SOTU Address. The other British intelligence often referenced was provided by a third country, not British intelligence. Alan Foley, the CIA liaison on the SOTU address advised against including the “16 words” as he felt the British intelligence was unreliable. A few weeks before the SOTU, Tenet was advising away from the yellowcake issue in a speech the President was to give in Cincinnati due to lack of credible evidence and he also has said that he felt the British intelligence, not the forged documents, was inconclusive and that he expressed reservations about it. The Butler report doesn’t square with American intelligence. It’s also well recognized that the Administration would lose significant momentum for aggressive action without this information. The information was dubious, was known to have credibility gaps so why did the CIA vet the SOTU Address? As such an important, vital piece to building the case for war, when the credibility of the information was in doubt, why do we not know more about that decision making process? Tenet took responsibility for it but we do not have an Administration response when it seemed the reliability of the intelligence in question had already been called into question just days before – the Administration knew that the information was not firmly reliable or at least had not been updated that it was reliable since the Cincinatti speech. Or are we saying that the President simply reads what’s given to him?
But you continue to claim that several reports have already cleared the Administration of mishandling or twisting intelligence and that is a patten untruth. The Senate Intelligence Committee still has not completed Phase II of their report that is to focus on that very issue. It was the reason Harry Reid forced the committee into closed door session last November and the reason he continues to ask for it today. Phase I only covered how intelligence was procured, shared and passed on, not how it was used by the Administration. The Robb-Silbermann report was specifically directed away from that issue by an Executive Order. The Administration specifically restricted their inquiry into intelligence gathering, not how it was used by the Administration. And I’m really not sure what kind of inquiry the Butler report was capable of regarding the use of intelligence by the Administration as it focuses on British intelligence. How have any of these reports looked into, as the phrase goes, what they knew and when they knew it and, in this case, how they used it?
the White House saw a more alarmist version of intelligence than did Congress and yet, despite that, many Congressmen and Senators (including John Kerry) believed Iraq had WMDs
What is that “alarmist” version? What exactly did the White House know beyond what Congress knew, or do we actually know that? The Key Judgments from the October 2002 NIE have proven to be a house of cards of intelligence. The unquestionable failure of intelligence gathering is beyond comprehension. What is not clear is how so many agencies, and so many countries, got it so wrong when there were credible, but minority voices, saying they were wrong all along. When the President decides to undertake aggressive action, aggressive action that could prove fatal to relations with a number of key allies and regions of the world, what leadership is that to point the finger at the Intelligence community passing the buck of responsibility. Did he lie? I don’t know. But the bigger question is did he act in good faith, which seems all the murkier.
Yet, the claim that the president lied in making the decision to go to war has no basis in fact.
That’s not really been resolved. And it simply can’t be resolved until the Administration either gives Congress the opportunity to examine their methods and motivations or Congress truly exercises its right of checks and balances. If there is anything to fear with the possibility of Democrats returning to majority in the houses, it’s just such an inquiry, as you can imagine it is on the top of their unspoken wish list and will have profound implications for decades to the Republican party. If anything, you’d think the administration would actually want to complete those investigations while still in power to minimize any damage.
You claim in your article that basically those that take issue with Bush’s decision to go to war lack credibility because it’s simply their hatred of him that drives their animosity. However, there doesn’t seem to be anyone in a true position currently to say for certain what his motivations were and a number of outstanding issues have not yet been resolved, and are unlikely to be resolved while there is a Republican controlled congress or Republican controlled administration. The use of intelligence by the Administration has not, to the contrary of your assertions, been clearly and fully disseminated and for you to pose that those that disagree with the Administration’s actions are acting out of bitterness is both unprofessional and unfounded.
Um, Just a Question, I never brought up the Italian documents. Because I don’t think they have any bearing to the issue at hand. You seem to use that a ruse to dodge the point I made about Wilson that you quote.
I’m not questioning that people advised the Administration against the president against making the claim he did when he uttered the 16 words. Perhaps he should have heeded their advice, but my point (which addressed in Comment #7) finds that those 16 words had a basis in fact, link provided.
Many conservatives consider that Joe Wilson has been discredited. Here’s just one:
Concluding that everything he said publicly about his trip was false. . . . Sounds like someone thinks he’s been discredited. I blogged on this last October — 8 months ago.
As I’ve said before, the question of how the Administration used the intelligence is a judgment call. But, both the Senate and Robb-Silberman report found that the Administration did not pressure intelligence agencies.
We do agree about that the failure of “intelligence gathering is beyond comprehension.” I think, however, it’s very clear the president acted in good faith — and all available evidence suggests that he looked into the claims before going public with them. It’s very clear what his motives were unless you don’t take seriously the numerous speeches he made before (and after) the war. His Sept. 12 ’02 speech to the UN where he addresses more issues than WMDs, provides the best (in my mind) articulation of his decision.
In your final paragraph, you make a claim which is not only wrong, but directly contradicted by what I said in prior posts and in comment #22 above. I do not believe those who take issue with the president’s decision to go to war lack credibility. I take issue with those who call him a liar.
I do not believe — and have never said (not in this post not in any post, not even in private conversations and other communications) –that all those who disagree with the Administrations actions are acting out of bitterness. Many have good reasons, based on sound arguments against going to war. (I thought that Alan Colmes did a great job in February ’03 of making that case when he said that he thought Saddam was already contained.)
You have raised some good questions — and have shown a better command of the issues that many of those who offer critical comments, but on more than one occasion, you misrepresented my views. If you’re going to take the time to take issue with me, at least get that right.
So, let me repeat, there are sound arguments to make against the war in Iraq. Accusing the president of twisting intelligence to wage a war for oil is not one of them.
#26 GayPatriotWest — June 19, 2006 @ 2:30 am – June 19, 2006
Many conservatives consider that Joe Wilson has been discredited. Here’s just one:
Thank you for the link to a Weakly Standard article, but, I do have to tell you, that I don’t believe anything that is at the Weakly Standard website, merely because it is there. It isn’t an issue of the fact that the Weakly Standard is run by Rupert Murdoch, but more of the fact that they run articles that likens gays to pedophilia. Do a search there on “Mary Eberstadt,” although I’m sure that, if you were to root around there, you would find other silly anti-gay articles.
And yes, that does color the whole tenor of the publication. As far as I’m concerned, they are totally unreliable.
#26 GayPatriotWest — June 19, 2006 @ 2:30 am – June 19, 2006
I’m not going to bother reading Weakly Standard spin on much of anything–for reasons that I have described elsewhere here (note Mary Eberhardt), but…
The Senate report includes a 48-page section on Wilson that demonstrates, in painstaking detail, that virtually everything Joseph Wilson said publicly about his trip, from its origins to his conclusions, was false.
Oh, so, the obvious conclusion from this is that he didn’t really go to Niger, which is one thing that he said publicly about his trip. I presume that that is possible, but highly unlikely.
“But Iraq has become a training ground for new terrorists, and a rallying cry across the Middle East for Islamic zealots. ”
There is no “has become” involved.
This is where the anti-Iraq war folks march confidently into the realm of religious faith… this is how they believe that the world works… every death creates a new terrorist, every offense is met with fanaticism. So they don’t need to look at before and after, they just *know*.
For 10 years Iraq was a rallying cry. A bitter and continuous rallying cry. Google how many children the US murdered with our sanctions while Saddam built palaces and his sons brutalized people for sport. What has changed? Well, let’see. When Hamas made its “justified criticism” of the death of the noble Zarqawi at least one Iraqi responded, “Wow… now I finally understand why they are considered terrorists.” I guess it just *feels* different when the people being killed are Americans or Israelis. Sort of hard to take personally. But Zarqawi killed Iraqis.
Somehow there is this unshakable faith that the US is building up resentment, creating more terrorists by every thing they do, but this reality applies to NO ONE else.
How does that work?
Synova, I can answer that. It’s a notion that’s applied only to the US because the applicators are generally Democrats trying to undermine public opinion for partisan (need we add cheap) political gain. Even the MSM is now offering that, in order for the Democrats to win substantially in the midterm Nov elections, things have to go really bad –the economy, the WOT, Iraq, culture of corruption… not one thing… many.
The problem isn’t with the notion; it’s with the applicator: the Left, the Democrats, the DailyKossacks, the Underground. It fits their construct of the world: America as imperial power, using its vast resources to rape the 3rd World’s natural resources, using its keen military strength and diplomatic alliances with the 2nd World to keep the revolutionary mobs of the 3rd World in check. To them, America has done more HARM in the world than good –same for religion (but that’s another subject). We were best when JFK (no, not the recent JFK… the real one 1960-63) stood on the steps of the University of Michigan’s Student Union and called for the youthful “intelligensia” to go forward and serve the world as Peace Corps ambassadors for America. “Fix the world from America”.
To the Left that dominates that generation, America is only on the right side of the equation when the JimminyCricketCarter types are installing revolutionary and equally anti-American govts in power –it’s why many think the phrase “BlameAmericaFirst” fits so well.
The French aren’t imperialists or colonial oppressors (in Saddam’s case, just “teachers”). The Germans aren’t either (in Saddam’s case just “bankers”. Nor the Soviets or the Chinese (in Saddam’s case just “technical advisers on security”). Just us. Just the U.S.
Who said the 1960’s was ancient history and we would never have to live in a time when nonsense was a personal value and in ascendancy on the Left?
That’s why it –the notion that where ever we go, trouble remains in our wake and we’re hated everywhere– applies only to US.
It’s the applicators that are the problem… but you knew that.
I didn’t say that, what I meant by “rally cry” was, “Here is a place we can come kill some Americans”
Its just that it seems to me that right after we removed Afghanistan as a principle training ground to come and learn how to be a terrorist, we went and created a new place for that to happen, Iraq. Not by our invasion, but by permitting it to descend into chaos and allow the insurgency to get a foothold. I don’t think America is an “Imperial” power, in fact I think most Americans could care less what happens overseas, and that maybe they should care more.
As far as creating terrorists. Well, all I have to say is that there really are not many things that Americans can do that will not make the middle east hate us. The anti-American prejudice is just part of most of those cultures. Some of the change of attitude on the part of the Iraqis toward Americans is not due to our actions but because Zarqawi started killing Muslims. About 6000 of them is the estimate I’ve seen. That more than anything else has started to changes peoples attitudes in the Middle East not the actions of the US.