Monday, June 9, 2008
Did Bush lie then, or is Jay Rockefeller lying now? Fred Hiatt has a good one here at the Washington Post that really speaks to the problem we have now of a political party trying to criminalize political disagreements. Worst of all, the fundamental unseriousness of the accusations of lying distract us from the serious business of improving our knowledge systems for the future. What will we know and how will we know it in the future gets twisted into a tit for tat political mud-slinging match for morons lead by hacks like Rockefeller. We need an electorate making informed decisions on serious issues, instead we have Senators running around spinning reports tailored for mushy brains: 'Bush Lied'? If Only It Were That Simple. (apologies for the lengthy quote)
..."In making the case for war, the administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when it was unsubstantiated, contradicted or even nonexistent," he said...
...But dive into Rockefeller's report, in search of where exactly President Bush lied about what his intelligence agencies were telling him about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and you may be surprised by what you find.
On Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates."
On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president's statements "were substantiated by intelligence information."
On chemical weapons, then? "Substantiated by intelligence information."
On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information." Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? "Generally substantiated by available intelligence." Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information."
As you read through the report, you begin to think maybe you've mistakenly picked up the minority dissent. But, no, this is the Rockefeller indictment. So, you think, the smoking gun must appear in the section on Bush's claims about Saddam Hussein's alleged ties to terrorism.
But statements regarding Iraq's support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information." Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda "were substantiated by the intelligence assessments," and statements regarding Iraq's contacts with al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information." The report is left to complain about "implications" and statements that "left the impression" that those contacts led to substantive Iraqi cooperation.
In the report's final section, the committee takes issue with Bush's statements about Saddam Hussein's intentions and what the future might have held. But was that really a question of misrepresenting intelligence, or was it a question of judgment that politicians are expected to make?
After all, it was not Bush, but Rockefeller, who said in October 2002: "There has been some debate over how 'imminent' a threat Iraq poses. I do believe Iraq poses an imminent threat. I also believe after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. . . . To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can."...
Too little too late? I googled my own blogging on the actual lies and the lying liars who told them back then and came up with this gem from a Feb ‘04 William Safire column on the uses and misuses of the word imminent:
“So . . . did Bush claim an imminent threat? Interrogated in detail on this by Tony Snow of Fox News, Senator Jay Rockefeller, ranking Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, who said in 2002 that ‘I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat,’ replied about the Bush address in 2003: ‘If the word imminent threat wasn’t used, that was the predicate, that was the feeling that was given to the American people and to Congress.’”
Congenial lawyer or congenital liar?