The President says Democrats in Congress "had access to the same intelligence" he did before the Iraq war, but some Democrats deny it. ...IOW: FACTCHECK.ORG CONCLUDES THAT BUSH DID NOT LIE ABOUT WMD, OR DISTORT OR HYPE WMD INTEL, AND THAT CONGRESS HAD THE SAME DATA. So will the Dem/Left PLEASE stop saying we were "misled" into war?! Sheesh! Read the whole thing.
The President's main point is correct: the CIA and most other US intelligence agencies believed before the war that Saddam had stocks of biological and chemical weapons, was actively working on nuclear weapons and "probably" would have a nuclear weapon before the end of this decade. That faulty intelligence was shared with Congress – along with multiple mentions of some doubts within the intelligence community – in a formal National Intelligence Estimate just prior to the Senate and House votes to authorize the use of force against Iraq.
No hard evidence has surfaced to support claims that Bush somehow manipulated the findings of intelligence analysts. In fact, two bipartisan investigations probed for such evidence and said they found none. So Dean's claim that intelligence was "corrupted" is unsupported.
In case you don't know, here's what FactCheck is: "Our Mission
We are a nonpartisan, nonprofit, "consumer advocate" for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics. We monitor the factual accuracy of what is said by major U.S. political players in the form of TV ads, debates, speeches, interviews, and news releases. Our goal is to apply the best practices of both journalism and scholarship, and to increase public knowledge and understanding.
The Annenberg Political Fact Check is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. The APPC was established by publisher and philanthropist Walter Annenberg in 1994 to create a community of scholars within the University of Pennsylvania that would address public policy issues at the local, state, and federal levels.
The APPC accepts NO funding from business corporations, labor unions, political parties, lobbying organizations or individuals. It is funded primarily by the Annenberg Foundation."
4 comments:
I think the following, from the same factcheck article, qualifies as misleading:
In fact, before the war Bush and others often downplayed or omitted any mention of doubts about Saddam's nuclear program. They said Saddam might give chemical, biological or even nuclear weapons to terrorists, although their own intelligence experts said that was unlikely. Bush also repeatedly claimed Iraq had trained al Qaeda terrorists in the use of poison gas, a story doubted at the time by Pentagon intelligence analysts. The claim later was called a lie by the al Qaeda detainee who originally told it to his US interrogators.
Although Factcheck agrees that the intelligence presented to Congress was not distorted, or manipulated, it also clearly states that Bush hyped up intelligence which it knew to be dodgy. This qualifies as misleading the country (the public at large) to war.
I disagree.
Analysis of intel ALWAYS comes wwith counter-opinions; for instance the DIA and D'o'State thought that the nuclear tube eveidence was weaked, but Tenet - a Clinton/Dem-man and the CIA swore to it.
As pres, Bush is a decision mnaker and he decided that the overwhelming evidence/opinion of OUR intel serviceS (plural) and ALL foreign srvicesS (plural) was that Saddam has WMD programs AND stockpiles. ALSO: this is the only conclusion which explains why he NEVER gave proof he destroyed what was DISCOVERD in the 1990's, and why he LIED in his FINAL DECLARATION in 2005, and why he was - IN 2005 - still obstructing inspectors.
The FALSE FINAL REORT is no small matter: INPSECTORS were sent to VERIFY THE REPORT, not to play "detectives."
It must also be ACCEPTED that the inspectors did conclude that Saddam WAS IN VIOLATION OF UNSR#1441. I have posted on thius before; you can google it at my site.
The ONLY think the intyle servicesa "got wrong' was STO KPLIES (and Duelfer testified these MIGHT have been exported, maybe to Syria) and the statuys REPEAT STAUS of the nuclear program/. Duelfer concluded that Saddam had the intentionm of re-starting the nuke program and his other WMD programs AS SOON AS SANCTIONS WERE FINISHED - which seemed like in a year or so.
It is incontrovertible that Saddam ACTIVELY HID componets for a nule program from Hans Blix - in violation of UNSCR#1441.
My main point, thouhg - in answer to your point - is that intel --- and advice --- DOES NOT COME IN BOXES MARKED "GOOD" and "BAD."
On emust DECIDE what is good'likely/REASONABLE and what is LESS so.
The inte which Bush had was enough so that it was RESONNABLE to conclude that Saddam was in violation of his UNSCR's and that he would only dso this IF HE HAD WMD.
I belive that the eveidence IS BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.
Not to a moral CERTITUDE, but beyond a reasonable doubt.
Especially in a post-9/11 world.
It wouold have been UNREASONABLE for Bush to trust Saddam when it had been PROVEN BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBNT that he was violating UNSCR#1441.
Did Bush on occassion express the Saddam-WMD threat as CERTAIN when it was not?! Maybe once or twice.
BUT I REMIOND YOU THAT THE CONGRESS APPROVED WAR AGAINST SADDAM IN OCTOBER OF 2002.
The most infamous accusation against Bush - the 16 words in the 2003 SOTU, about the British intel on AFRICAN URAnIUM (intel they still regard as good!) - were OBVIOUSLY uttered MONTS after the Congress gace him authority to attack Saddam.
The RIGHT to attack Saddam was exercised AFTER it was PROVEN Saddam had violated the terms of HIS FINAL CAHNCE UNSCR#1441; theefore the wear was legal and justified and good and right.
BTW: Blair was also accused of SEXING UP the intel. Of HYPING it.
And that is also PURE BS>
In hindsight one can weigh intel differently.
At the time - and even now in a 9/11 world - one cannot and should give the benefit to the doubt to GENOCIDAL tyrants like Saddam.
(I remind you that we have discovered 400 gravesite with mass graves of 1000 ot more humans in Iraq. SADDAM WEAS GENOCIDAL!)
ANd Buish ofetn SPoke the words "benefit of the doubt."
One cannot utter those words and be guilty of OVERHYPING/SEXING-UP the intel.
Bush said that, and thereby ADMITTED that there was some doubt, but that he had the responsibility to act becasue Saddam had not ewarned our trust.
One of the reasons I have come to hate the Left/anti-war crowd is that they seems to trust Saddam more than Bush - and fear AsKKKroft more than Binladen.
It would have been IRRESPONSIBLE for Bush to giove Sadfdam the benift of the doubt.
Hindsight is 20/20. Maybe He could have used better rhetoric. But he could NOT have made a better decision.
And the Iraqis, the "Middle-Easterners" and we are better off.
Well, im confused, first you say that we should look at this article because factcheck.org is non-partisan, therefore the information on the website should be regarded, as basic truth. However, they you go one and rebut the article itself. It seems to me that you have just done what the Bush White House did. Omit that that is unfavorable to you view point. Please, at least be consistent, and next time read to who article before you post. Obviously, the need for you to go back and "fix" the article is an indication that either you did not read it completely or you simply left out the unflattering part delibrately. Please, at least be honest with your readers!
don't be confused.
i don't agree with every word of the factcheck article. but despite the fact that not every word/sentnece they write is right, THEY DO GET THEIR CONCLUSION CORRECT:
factcheck's conclusion:
The President's main point is correct: the CIA and most other US intelligence agencies believed before the war that Saddam had stocks of biological and chemical weapons, was actively working on nuclear weapons and "probably" would have a nuclear weapon before the end of this decade. That faulty intelligence was shared with Congress – along with multiple mentions of some doubts within the intelligence community – in a formal National Intelligence Estimate just prior to the Senate and House votes to authorize the use of force against Iraq.
No hard evidence has surfaced to support claims that Bush somehow manipulated the findings of intelligence analysts. In fact, two bipartisan investigations probed for such evidence and said they found none. So Dean's claim that intelligence was "corrupted" is unsupported.
THAT'S NOT VERY CONFUSING, IS IT!?
Post a Comment