Bush Comes Out Swinging

George Bush defended his strategy in Iraq, giving us lots to talk about.

Here is transcript and the Times lead:

Bush Forcefully Attacks Critics of His Strategy in Iraq

By MARIA NEWMAN

President Bush lashed out today at critics of his Iraq policy, accusing them of trying to rewrite history about the decision to go to war and saying their criticism is undercutting American forces in battle.

"While it's perfectly legitimate to criticize my decisions or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began," the president said in a Veterans Day speech in Pennsylvania.

This may be a house-to-house battle, because I am stalled at the third word - did Bush "lash out"?  Or did he, for example, "respond forcefully"?  I guess between the headline and the lead, there is something for everyone.

Next, what about this:  "...saying their criticism is undercutting American forces in battle."

Gee, folks are allowed to criticize, yes?  Free country, free speech, right?  Why is this man suggesting otherwise?  Why is he stifling dissent?

Well, down in the text we find the quote that ostensibly supports the Times presentation:

"The stakes in the global war on terror are too high, and the national interest is too important for politicians to throw out false charges," he said. "These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America's will."

"False charges" and "baseless attacks" from "politicians"?  If Bush is saying that it is irresponsible for politicians to lie, is that unreasonable?  I didn't ask if it was unrealistic, now, I asked if it was unreasonable.

In any case, I believe there is a substantial difference between "Your false charges are undermining the troops" and "Your criticism is undermining our troops".

OK, I understand that for purposes of debating this point, war critics will have to insist that *all* their criticisms are perceived as false.  However, that is simply not so.  For example, a war opponent who argued that this war would not go well without international support and a specific UN resolution is entitled to that opinion, and I don't see how it could be proven to be either true or false.  Consequently, I don't see how the specific passage offered by the Times could be viewed as an attempt by Bush to stifle that particular dissent, or to question that critic's patriotism.

But I am gloomily resigned to having it explained to me.

The Democrats do seem to be finding traction with the new approach.  The old talking point - "I would have spoken out against the war, but Karl Rove and Bill O'Reilly would have been mean to me, and Arnold might have called me a girlie-man" - lacked a certain John Wayne quality.

Whether the new talking point - "I couldn't see through Bush's lies" - takes hold depends on just how empty-headed various Dems want to appear as they abase themselve before their base.

John Edwards can't quite say the words:

In an interview after the UNC speech, Edwards finally utters the words he’d assiduously avoided during the last campaign: “I voted for the resolution,” he says. “It was a mistake.” So far, so good. But he goes on, “The hard question is, What do you do now?  Looking back, it's easy to say that it was wrong and based on false information. Anybody who doesn’t admit that isn’t honest, and that’s the truth.”

Not quite there!  Obviously, some of the info was false.  But he needs to admit that Bush lied!

MORE:  Bush lashed out at the Times his critics waaay down in the speech.  The relevant bit is below:

And our debate at home must also be fair-minded. One of the hallmarks of a free society and what makes our country strong is that our political leaders can discuss their differences openly, even in times of war.

When I made the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, Congress approved it with strong bipartisan support. I also recognize that some of our fellow citizens and elected officials didn't support the liberation of Iraq, and that is their right, and I respect it.

As president and commander in chief, I (accept ?) the responsibilities and the criticisms and the consequences that come with such a solemn decision. While it's perfectly legitimate to criticize my decisions or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began.

Some Democrats and antiwar critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war. These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs. They also know that intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein. They know the United Nations passed more than a dozen resolutions citing his development and possession of weapons of mass destruction.

Many of these critics supported my opponent during the last election, who explained his position to support the resolution in the Congress this way: "When I vote to give the president of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hand is a threat and a grave threat to our security." That's why more then a hundred Democrats in the House and the Senate, who had access to the same intelligence, voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power.

The stakes in the global war on terror are too high, and the national interest is too important for politicians to throw out false charges. These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America's will. As our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of life, they deserve to know that their elected leaders who voted to send to them to war continue to stand behind them. Our troops deserve to know that this support will remain firm when the going gets tough. And our troops deserve to know that when -- whatever our differences in Washington, our will is strong, our nation is united, and we will settle for nothing less then victory. 

Comments

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

Yeah, the lying used to stop at water's edge.

Anyway, was the speech titled: 'I'm just not wild about Harry...nor Kerry either.'?

[Marcel]

God bless our veterans.

Not to take anything away from honoring our veterans today, but our Commander-in-Chief should not be accusing critics of being revisionists. It has been his Administration that has continually revised the rationale for the war. WMD's were not the only reason we were given.

But even on the subject of WMD's, the rationale got watered down from "WMD's" all the way - through several stages" - to "WMD-related program activities".

[SteveMG]

Once again major sections of the press wants to focus on the heat and not the light.

A fair reading of his speech can only conclude, it seems to me, that he is singling out a specific segment of the war critics. Viz., those who state that he and his Administration manipulated intelligence and misled the American people about why the war was necessary.

Clearly one can criticize the decision to go to war and how the war has been conducted. Bush explicitly accepts that argument.

But those accusing him of lying to go to war are now warned. The gloves are off.

Specifically on this latter j'accuse, does any lefty here think that Bush himself ordered the falsification of intelligence or that he knew beforehand that some of his statements re WMD were false? The charge that Cheney and his neocon allies manipulated matters still leaves out the issue of the involvement of Bush in this alleged scandal.

SMG

[windansea]

Marcel

your hindsight is sooooo 20/20

[Gary Maxwell]

Re SMG

What he said. Bravo Picasso.

[Dwilkers]

Well then. It seem Rove really IS back at the office.

"But I am gloomily resigned to having it explained to me."

Heh. You've been in rare form the last few days TM.

[Jake]

I'm starting to think this is the best blog on the internet. Great Plamescam coverage. Now other good commentary. When are you going to join the Pajamas Media crowd so that that group gets the icing on the cake?

[Marcel]

President Bush today:
"These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs."

That bi-partisan Senate investigation - in the first of its 2 reports - did not even attempt to investigate whether political pressure was exerted. That was to be the subject of the long-stonewalled Part 2. In Part 1, no attempt was made to identify and interview witnesses with respect to political pressure. The committee asked no questions about that subject, and they didn't happen to hear any complaints. That hardly settles the matter.

President Bush knows that the subject of political pressure was not investigated. Yet he again made a misleading statement. That is how he honors our veterans.

[Appalled Moderate]

smg:

Does any righty believe that Bsh did not tend to overlook pieces of intelligence that did not fit in with his preconceived notion of what was true? And, was there any effort to make sure that Congress was alerted to pieces of intellignece the president chose to disregard?

These questions are not meant to be rhetorical. I'm curious about the answer.

[Marianne]

The President saw what Cheney wanted him to see.

[SteveMG]

Marcel:
God bless our veterans, indeed.

I'm visiting my father's gravesite at the Gulfport National Cemetery this Sunday. He was a Marine, 25 years, service in Korea and Vietnam.

Haven't been out there since the hurricane hit since I wasn't sure about getting around. Reportedly, the cemetery suffered very little damage - mostly downed trees - and is far enough in from the Gulf not to get much water/flood damage.

My father stayed his last three years at the Gulfport Naval Home, a retirement center for navy and marine veterans. But it was heavily damaged by Katrina and all the residents were moved to Washington.

During my visits, I met and talked with a lot of veterans. Interesting that without exception they would never talk about combat. Never. Just didn't do it, at least when I was around. It was like a secret they kept among themselves.

We here today, living in freedom and liberty, are standing on the shoulders of giants.

SMG

[SteveMG]

Apalled:
Does any righty believe that Bsh did not tend to overlook pieces of intelligence

As you well know, Presidents don't have the time to check out all the intelligence. There's nothing to "overlook." President rely on their staff and advisers to present to them the finished data. They don't have the time - or ability - to examine raw data.

When Kennedy was shown the photographs of the missile sites being constructed in Cuba, he stared at the images - not knowing really what he was seeing - looked at the analyst presenting the material and said, "Are you sure about this?"

Kennedy didn't have the ability to discern those satellite images. He wasn't able to tell a SS-2 from a farm tractor. He had to rely on his people.

Most important, Bush isn't accused of "overlooking" material. He's accused of deliberately lying about the intelligence.

That's a totally unfounded smear and those making it should be ashamed of themselvers. Either present the evidence of Bush himself ordering the corruption of the intelligence or stop the slander.

SMG

[Marcel]

SMG, Today I was fortunate to be able to accompany my father to a 60-year memorial service. He too has never talked about the War, until recently. Our fathers' service is something to be proud of.

[boris]

the subject of political pressure was not investigated

There was an investigation about faulty intelligence. Had there been evidence that political pressure was a cause, it certainly would have been witihin the scope of the investigation. That argument is so lame.

[Sue]

Post 9/11, Bush could not afford to be wrong. Period. If he looked at the evidence, both pro and con, and had to weigh it, both pro and con, how do you think he was doing it with a mindset of post 9/11? Keeping in mind the intelligence missed 9/11, the intelligence missed the fall of the Soviet Uion, and many other misses. The intelligence was not always correct, one way or the other. As president, he had to make a decision. Does that mean he decided wrong? Not in my opinion. We now know, 100% for sure, Saddam will not pursue his weapons programs. For that, I am thankful to the soldiers, sailors, marines, airmen, that put it all on the line...

[TexasToast]

What's so maddening about this "revisionist" meme is that the history hasn't even been written yet. All we have is myth spun like cotton candy based on things like a heavily redacted NIE that was cherry picked to hide any and all prewar dispute about the "intelligence", colored with glimpses that there is much more to tell based on Clarke's "night of 9/11" story, Wilkerson's "cabal", Scowcroft's doubts, Powell's UN regrets, and all Cheney's pre-war BS. How many had the true picture on the pre-war "intelligence"? Not very many.

Richard III “killed” the princes in the tower because the Tudors wrote the history first. GWB, by this speech, is trying to create "common knowledge" by gettin' his "history" written first – therefore all that follows is “revisionist”. What a crock.

Remember, we knew where the WMD's were - "around Tikrit", IIRC. The Democrats, for the most part bless their souls, actually believed our President. It’s not his "decisions", its his deception. I am not saying “Bush Lied!”, but the buck stops with him and his administration didn’t tell us the whole truth – they gave us the spun-sugar cotton candy version, and I think we deserved something with more substance before he took us to war.

God bless our troops – I thank them for their service and devotion to duty. May their service not be in vain.

[Jim E.]

What is the president referring to in this line?: "When I made the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, Congress approved it with strong bipartisan support."

What did Congress "approve" in March 2003? Remember that Bush, prior to March, said he hadn't decided upon war, and had made no decisions about using force to oust Saddam. So he certainly isn't referring to the Oct 2002 resolution. Or is he?

[GT]

Not going to make much difference. Americans have already concluded that Bush misled them and has made a mess out of Iraq and the only thing that can change that is real progress in Iraq, which for now only diehard Bush apologists can see.

[BurkettHead]

A. Allegations of Influence
(U) Committee staff did interview five individuals who had come to the Committee's attention as possibly having information that intelligence analysts' assessments had been influenced by policymakers. None of these individuals provided any information to the Committee which showed that policymakers had attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their analysis or that any intelligence analysts changed their intelligence judgments as a result of political pressure. There was also no information provided to the Committee which showed that analysts had conformed their assessments to known Administration policies because they believed those assessments would be more widely read or accepted. The following describes information garnered from those interviews.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/congress/2004_rpt/iraq-wmd-intell_chapter9-a.htm

U) Conclusion 83. The Committee did not find any evidence that Administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities.

(U) Conclusion 84. The Committee found no evidence that the Vice President's visits to the Central Intelligence Agency were attempts to pressure analysts, were perceived as intended to pressure analysts by those who participated in the briefings on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs, or did pressure analysts to change their assessments.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/congress/2004_rpt/iraq-wmd-intell_chapter9-g.htm

[Gary Maxwell]

Anybody with any doubts about the Dems motives here need only read the strategy memo from Sen Rockefeller on how they were going to poiticize this stuff. I have read it and dont have an immediate link but I am sure another poster here put it up recently and will do so again. Craven is not too strong a word.

[JM Hanes]

Appalled -
And, was there any effort to make sure that Congress was alerted to pieces of intellignece the president chose to disregard?"

Unless and until you specify the pieces in question and do more than simply assert that the president disregarded -- vs say, evaluated -- them, your question will remain rhetorical. I would point out, however, that the footnoted reservations which so many claim the Administration somehow hid from view were, in fact, even included in the unclassified version of the pivotal National Intelligence Estimate which was released to the public at large.

[Syl]

Marcel

All you've got is:

Bush duped us, we're smarter than him.

Let's see if you can get past the giggles of the electorate on that one.

[boris]

they gave us the spun-sugar cotton candy version, and I think we deserved something with more substance

Whatta crybaby.

Kerry had the exact same intelligence W did and voted for. If you wanted another spineless simpering pretender you should have voted for Gore. That gutless fool couldn't even stop W from stealing the election. Like taking candy from a baby.

[The Unbeliever]

So say you're Bush/Cheney/a Congressperson/whoever, and in 2002 you called up the CIA WMD guy to your office. He brings his charts and graphs and satellite photos (some from foreign intelligence agencies) and gives you his presentation. Then as he's sitting him across from your desk, you ask him "Bottom line, yes or no: do you guys think Sadaam has WMDs?" And the guy looks you in the eyes and says "Yes, we're 90% sure he does."

If you base subsequent decisions off that answer, have you just "ignored vital intelligence"? If you repeat that Yes answer to others, have you misled them? Are you suddenly culpable of "not telling the whole truth"?

How sure should we be about our intel before we act on it--90%? 95? 99.9999%? Should we completely change an entire segment of our foreign policy if a single analyst writes a dissenting report from the majority of the agency's views?

Bonus question: if you've been charged with the safety of 300 million citizens, and the guy says he's only 50% sure about the weapons stash, aren't you failing in your duty if you don't go out and deal with that potential threat?

[Syl]

GT

Americans have already concluded that Bush misled them

Now they're hearing the other side. TT claiming Bush is taking first dibs on history is a crock. The Dems wrote it first, now Bush is setting the record straight.

The American people are smart enough to figure out who is saying what and Bush will win this, as he's won every other important battle with the Democrats.

and has made a mess out of Iraq

LOL

That was last year's talking point. Things have changed dramatically in Iraq with 2 completed elections, a 3rd on the way, a constitution, Sunni's joining the process, and al Qaeda on the run. Not to mention all the fine Iraqi police and soldiers doing their part to protect their own country.

We're winning. Even the Democrats can't say we're not.

[p.lukasiak]

Kerry had the exact same intelligence W did and voted for.

there is, however, a significant difference. Bush had complete control over the intelligence bureaucracy. He had the means to have issues examined more closely, and to demand that the assumptions and conclusions concerning Iraq intelligence be reconsidered at in light of the fact literally every claim made by the US regarding Iraq's weapons programs had either been disproven, or placed in serious doubt, by the UN inspections.

Kerry, on the other hand, was handed an NIE, and told to make up his mind. Despite being on he Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Kerry had been shut out of the full range of intelligence by presidential edict shortly after 9-11, and if he had a question about any claim made in the intelligence he was handed, it could not be answered by the SSCI staff because they too were denied the full range of intelligence info to which they had once had access.

Oh yeah... Kerry voted to authorize Bush to go to war if need be. He trusted Bush, in other words. Bush made the actual decision to go to war -- the trust was betrayed.

[SteveMG]

TexasToast:
Wait a second there pardner. Each U.S. Senator has his or her own staff of experts on a whole host of issues, including WMD and military matters. These members are privy to the intelligence material, the raw stuff.

Senators Daschle, Clinton, Levin, Bayh (and I believe several more) all said that they themselves went to Langley to view the intelligence and to talk to the analysts and to have their experts review things. This wasn't a question of accepting Bush's word or judgements.

Seriously, you think the above folks aren't going to check out the details themselves? And get their own experts to inform them on the matter?

This scenario of a wily Svengali manipulating the Democrats into war needs re-writing. I mean, being dazzled and seduced by the oratory skills of George Bush?

SMG

[boris]

We're winning. Even the Democrats can't say we're not.

Heh. About the time Iran has a nuke almost ready, Iraq really will have their own nuke program, with our help or the other regional democracy.

Who want's to bet Iran doesn't reconsider their program.

[Syl]

AM

Intelligence that runs counter to other intelligence is folded into the process. There's an entire cycle of analysis that occurs inside the intel agencies. Everything is weighted. From individual pieces, to bigger questions such as the state of such-and-such program.

And different divisions often end up with intelligence weighted slightly differently. INR, for example was extemely sceptical of an active nuclear program. WINPAC was not as sceptical. But even INR felt quite confident that chem and bio programs were active.

The higher ups get the weighted intelligence, not the individual pieces. You can't then leak to the NYTimes that 'Look! here's a piece of intel that says there's not nuke program and Bush ignore it!' because that is meaningless without the entire package. (Well you can, and some did, but it's dishonest.)

[SteveMG]

Bush had complete control over the intelligence bureaucracy.

Yep, that CIA is just putty in Bush's hands. Dissent isn't tolerated and no one in the Agency would ever dream of leaking to the NY Times.

Oy.

SMG

[JM Hanes]

TM -

With all due respect -- sorry, couldn't resist! -- the updated talking point is NOT "I couldn't see through Bush's lies" at all. Throw off the passive agressive yoke that's so yesterday's PC. The new improved version is, "He threw sand in our eyes!"

[I am soooo stealing that - TM]

[Syl]

p.luk.

If you put your trust in someone to make a decision, and that someone makes a decision, you cannot then claim you were betrayed. You either trusted him or you didn't. You didn't trust him to only make a decision ONE WAY.

If that's what Kerry claims (and it is) then he's a lying fool (and he is).

[boris]

If that's what Kerry claims (and it is) then he's a lying fool (and he is

Kerry made his choice using weasel words so he could waffle both sides of whatever result.

[cathyf]

Bush had complete control over the intelligence bureaucracy.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA *snort* HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA *gasp* HAHAHAHAHAHAHA oh it hurts HAHAHAHAHAHAHA * gasp* HAHAHAHAHAHAHA can't stop HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA please HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[JM Hanes]

What cathyf said!

[Syl]

Boris

About the time Iran has a nuke almost ready, Iraq really will have their own nuke program, with our help or the other regional democracy.

Great point oh Son of Osirak!

[TexasToast]

Now that was funny.

[Syl]

ROTF!!!

Cathy just ended the debate!!!

LOL

[clarice]

Rope a Dope Iraq:The Final Chapter

The President sat back, let his opponents knocke themselves out with preoposterous charges, and now is going in for the final blow--and when he's done we will be reminded anew why the Dems cannot be trusted with serious, grown up matters like national defense.

Glenn Reynolds says he should also charge they're unpatriotic because they are. http://instapundit.com/archives/026792.php

[Sue]

P. Luk,

Kerry wasn't shut out. He chose not to attend.

[p.lukasiak]

Was intelligence itself manipulated? Yes. No better example exists than the "aluminum tubes" fiasco. Apparently, there was ONE guy who came up with the idea that the tubes might be useful in centrifuges, and he was able to successfully push that theory despite everyone saying it was nonsense because it was what Bushco wanted to hear. So "these tubes are suitable for rockets, but its not completely theoretically possible for them to be converted into use in a centrifuge" became "the tubes are suitable for centrifuges, and Iraq hasn't come up with any other plausible explanation for them". (Of course, Iraq had explained that they were, in fact, for rockets.)

But what the real issue here is how intelligence was presented to the american people. What was really known was consistently stripped of its true meaning and significance -- yes, it was true that UNSCOM said that there were vast quantities of "unaccounted for" munitions -- but UNSCOM also knew for certain that almost all of these "unaccounted for" munitions had been destroyed -- they were "unaccounted for" because their destruction was undocumented, and thus unquantifiable. And, anything that hadn;t been destroyed had LONG since degraded into uselessness as weapons.

But all Bush ever told the American people is that the UN said there were all of the "unaccounted for" biological and chemical weapons, creating the impression that there were vast stores of chemical and biological weapons in Iraq that could be turned over to Osama bin Laden at any moment.

To describe what Bush did with the UNSCOM report as anything other than "manipulation" is absurd. And it is THAT manipulation that Americans are most concerned about --- the fact that they put their faith in Bush to tell them the truth about the nature of the threat facing the US, and he deliberataely and consciously lied to them about the nature of the threat.

[Marianne]

The intelligence that is provided to Congress - even the most senior leadership - is a tiny fraction of what is reviewed by White House staff, and an even smaller percentage of what is processed and analyzed by the various intelligence agencies. Congress is told what the White House wants it to know. And some Adminstrations are less forthcoming than others. It is an absolute falsehood to state that Congress knew what the President knew.

The NIE that was the basis of the war authorization resolution was a hastily-prepared sales presentation. In no way did it reflect the diversity of opinions in the various agencies.

[Syl]

Poor p.luk. just doesn't get it.

[SteveMG]

Apalled Moderate:
Was there any effort to make sure that Congress was alerted to pieces of intellignece the president chose to disregard?

Well, we know that the various defense and security committees often go into closed session when discussing classified intelligence. At that time (or even in open session), Senators can ask analysts or experts testifying detailed questions about the raw data.

Again, you keep saying "intelligence the president chose to disregard". The president views the finished product after its been reviewed and worked on through the various agencies. All he can do is rely on the best judgements of his staff and of the analysts viewing the intelligence.

I'm puzzled over this view that Bush himself is supposed to look over all the intelligence and all the various internecine arguments on the accuracy of the material.

He can't. No president can. Kennedy didn't, Clinton didn't when he decided to attack the pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan.

If critics wish to accuse Cheney or his staff or elements in various agencies of stovepiping intelligence of ignoring contradictory material, we can debate that.

But these attacks on Bush, it seems to me, have zero substance (based on what I think we know right now).

SMG

[Sue]

P. Luk,

You are free to post quotes from UNSCOM, pre-Iraq where they say, unequivocally, Saddam had no WMDs. You won't find any. But you are free to try. What they say now doesn't count. 20/20 hindsight and all that stuff. :)

[Syl]

Marianne

You had better have specifics, generalized whining won't cut it.

I'd suggest you go back and read all the reports that have been generated about this very issue.

See you in a month.

[Sue]

Congress did not need convincing from Bush. They had already been convinced...Bush was just restating what they had already heard...

[p.lukasiak]

Kerry wasn't shut out. He chose not to attend.

Sue, prior to 9-11, members of the intelligence committees of both houses of congress, and their staffs, had just about complete access to the full range of intelligence on every issue. Shortly after 9-11, the only people who had access to that "full range of intelligence" were the Senate and House Majority and Minority leaders, and the chairs and ranking members of the intelligence committees of both houses of congress.

Bush's directive virtually eliminated any effective congressional oversight of US intelligence --- and to pretend that isn't significant is just dumb.

[Anonymous Liberal]

There is such a black & white quality to this debate. The truth, as usual, lies somewhere in the middle. Liberals need to concede that there was a general consensus in the pre-war period that Iraq had WMD. Bush, Cheney and company genuinely thought Iraq had WMD (as did many Democrats and foreign countries), so in that meta-sense, the American people were not lied to.

That said, conservatives need to concede that many pre-war statements by Bush administration officials (the President included) greatly over-stated existing intelligence. For example, it's one thing if I say "most people believe X." It's quite another to say "we know without a doubt X." The Bush administration's statements regarding WMD were almost always of the latter variety. They deserve to be criticized for that.

Second, conservatives need to admit that some specific claims, particulary about Iraq's nuclear program, were not well-supported at all by existing intelligence. Cheney and Rice in particular made a number statements regarding Iraq's nuclear capability (aluminum tubes, etc.) that were widely-disputed by the intelligence community at the time, and they did so without acknowledging dissenting views. Cheney's statements regarding the timeframe for Iraq acquiring nuclear capability (i.e. within six months) were wild conjecture unsupported by anything. These claims in particular need to be investigated. It's worth knowing whether these officials actually believed what they were saying or whether they were consciously cherry-picking, spinning, or making things up in order to "sell" a war to the American people.

It's silly to assert that the Bush administration "lied" about everything related to WMD, or even lied about most things. But it's entirely reasonable to suspect that some specific (and important) claims about WMD were not supported by contemporaneous intelligence and therefore should not have been said. These specific claims need to be investigated.

[Dwilkers]

"Does any righty believe that Bsh did not tend to overlook pieces of intelligence that did not fit in with his preconceived notion of what was true? And, was there any effort to make sure that Congress was alerted to pieces of intellignece the president chose to disregard?"

I mean really, this is just silly. Think about this.

Does anyone think the president pores over intercepts and satelite photos, chooses which to credit and which to discard? Of course not. He has a 40 bilion dollar per year intelligence apparatus that does this work. We know from reports he questioned Tenet closely enough about it that Tenet eventually threw up his hands and said 'for heaven's sake Mr. President, its a SLAM DUNK!'. I dunno what more anyone wants him to do. Interview every employee at the CIA and get their individual opinions?

The companion argument to this is that he 'didn't inform the country' about the questions the CIA might have had. Assuming he even knew about them, is the thought here that the president was supposed to present the 'why we shouldn't go to war' case to the country, when they had decided the opposite? Surely everyone understands there will be arguments for and against in any such decision. It doesn't pass the laugh test.

Clearly in the wake of 9/11 the administration decided SH was a risk we couldn't afford to allow to continue. He was defying the UN resolutions, he was shooting at our airplanes enforcing same, he was in violation of the Gulf War cease fire.

They reviewed the reports, decided what to do, and led the country to that spot. To some this was "cherry picking" the intelligence. To me, and I think stripped of the Bush hate and viewed objectively, it was simple leadership.

And I don't remember Clinton making the case for why we shouldn't go to war in Kosovo either. They looked at the situation, decided what to do and led the country to that spot. That's what presidents do.