Saturday, November 12, 2005


Well, that's what he should have said! Professor Reynolds (tipped off by POWERLINE) points to an article in the WASH POST by arch Bush foes Milbank and Pincus which ADMITS that Bush is right and the Left is wrong. MONEY GRAF:
The administration's overarching point is true: Intelligence agencies overwhelmingly believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and very few members of Congress from either party were skeptical about this belief before the war began in 2003. Indeed, top lawmakers in both parties were emphatic and certain in their public statements.
Yet the anti-war Left - led by Kennedy and Dean and Reid and Durbin and Pelosi, and other Democrats afflicted with McGovernitis - continue to charge that "Bush Lied" and/or hyped/manipulated/distorted the intel. They are stuck on stupid!

This level/breadth/degree of denial and misinformation is TYPICAL of the Left, who continue to propose statist and isolationist remedies for social ills even thought they have been completely discredited by recent history. The desire to prop up their long held MISBELIEFS is a central motivating factor: Rather than admit that they were wrong about Vietnam, welfare, the Cold War, disarmament, OSLO/Arafat, Free Trade, low taxes -- in short: nearly EVERYTHING Hayek proved and which Reagan and Thatcher accomplished -- they respond defensively with false, hypocritical, irrational and hostile attacks - this is classical psychological DISPLACEMENT, fueled by reaction formations, and cognitive dissonance.

This flailing-out and scapegoating (of their own failure) is typical of people who know deep down that they're hitched up to a worthless ideology, and ideology which the marketplace of ideas is rapidly driving toward a well-deserved extinction. Good riddance. The sooner the better.

More HERE. And HERE. And HERE. And also many good links HERE and HERE.

More professional analysis HERE.

UPDATE: Many Left-wing readers of the blog are ALSO STUCK ON STUPID. For their benefit, here are a few more incontrovertible disputations of the "Bush Lied" meme:

JUST ONE MINUTE provides us with quotes/links of what the Dem/left said then - HINT: THEY AGREED WITH BUSH!

WHITE HOUSE WEIGHS IN HERE (hat tip Professor Reynolds - for this and J.O.M.):
Setting the Record Straight: The Washington Post On Pre-War Intelligence

The Washington Post Implies That The Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) Was Superior To The National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) Given To Congress. "But Bush does not share his most sensitive intelligence, such as the President's Daily Brief, with lawmakers. Also, the National Intelligence Estimate summarizing the intelligence community's views about the threat from Iraq was given to Congress just days before the vote to authorize the use of force in that country." (Dana Milbank And Walter Pincus, "Asterisks Dot White House's Iraq Argument," The Washington Post, 11/12/05)

But The PDB Was The Focus Of Intelligence Reform And Was More "Problematic" Than The NIE Given To Congress.

* The Robb-Silberman Commission Found The PDB To Contain Similar Intelligence In "More Alarmist" And "Less Nuanced" Language. "As problematic as the October 2002 NIE was, it was not the Community's biggest analytic failure on Iraq. Even more misleading was the river of intelligence that flowed from the CIA to top policymakers over long periods of time--in the President's Daily Brief (PDB) and in its more widely distributed companion, the Senior Executive Intelligence Brief (SEIB). These daily reports were, if anything, more alarmist and less nuanced than the NIE." (Charles S. Robb And Laurence H. Silberman, The Commission On The Intelligence Capabilities Of The United States Regarding Weapons Of Mass Destruction, 3/31/05, Pg. 14)

* The Robb-Silberman Commission Reported That The Intelligence In The PDB Was Not "Markedly Different" Than The Intelligence Given To Congress In The NIE. "It was not that the intelligence was markedly different. Rather, it was that the PDBs and SEIBs, with their attention-grabbing headlines and drumbeat of repetition, left an impression of many corroborating reports where in fact there were very few sources. And in other instances, intelligence suggesting the existence of weapons programs was conveyed to senior policymakers, but later information casting doubt upon the validity of that intelligence was not." (Charles S. Robb And Laurence H. Silberman, The Commission On The Intelligence Capabilities Of The United States Regarding Weapons Of Mass Destruction, 3/31/05, Pg. 14)

The Washington Post Implies That There Have Been No Findings On The Use Of Intelligence. "But the only committee investigating the matter in Congress, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, has not yet done its inquiry into whether officials mischaracterized intelligence by omitting caveats and dissenting opinions. And Judge Laurence H. Silberman, chairman of Bush's commission on weapons of mass destruction, said in releasing his report on March 31, 2005: 'Our executive order did not direct us to deal with the use of intelligence by policymakers, and all of us were agreed that that was not part of our inquiry.'" (Dana Milbank And Walter Pincus, "Asterisks Dot White House's Iraq Argument," The Washington Post, 11/12/05)

But Congressional And Independent Committees Have Repeatedly Reported No Distortion Of Intelligence

* The Bipartisan Senate Select Committee On Intelligence Report "Did Not Find Any Evidence" Of Attempts To Influence Analysts To Change Intelligence. "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. 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." ("Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq," U.S. Senate Select Committee On Intelligence, 7/7/04, Pg. 284-285)

* The Robb-Silberman Commission Finds "No Evidence Of Political Pressure." "These are errors serious errors. But these errors stem from poor tradecraft and poor management. The Commission found no evidence of political pressure to influence the Intelligence Community's pre-war assessments of Iraq's weapons programs. As we discuss in detail in the body of our report, analysts universally asserted that in no instance did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical judgments. We conclude that it was the paucity of intelligence and poor analytical tradecraft, rather than political pressure, that produced the inaccurate pre-war intelligence assessments." (Charles S. Robb And Laurence H. Silberman, The Commission On The Intelligence Capabilities Of The United States Regarding Weapons Of Mass Destruction, 3/31/05, Pg. 50-51)

* The British Butler Report Finds "No Evidence" Of Intelligence Distortion. "In general, we found that the original intelligence material was correctly reported in [Joint Intelligence Committee] assessments. An exception was the '45 minute' report. But this sort of example was rare in the several hundred JIC assessments we read on Iraq. In general, we also found that the reliability of the original intelligence reports was fairly represented by the use of accompanying quali cations. We should record in particular that we have found no evidence of deliberate distortion or of culpable negligence. We examined JIC assessments to see whether there was evidence that the judgements inside them were systematically distorted by non-intelligence factors, in particular the in uence of the policy positions of departments. We found no evidence of JIC assessments and the judgements inside them being pulled in any particular direction to meet the policy concerns of senior of cials on the JIC." ("Review Of Intelligence On Weapons Of Mass Destruction," Report Of A Committee Of Privy Counsellors, 7/14/04, Pg. 110)
Links/footnotes for all the assertions in this article are available at the White House website (link above).


Reliapundit said...

trolls go home.

only cogent well argued criticisms are allowed.

if they are ON POINT.

i suggest to mccoy and spartan that they read bush's speech delivered to the UNGA on 9/12/02, and read the Congressional Joint Res #141.

Saddam's links to terrorism and to the war on terror, and the importance to the region and world of spreading democracy were all argued well before the war.


"The administration's overarching point is true: Intelligence agencies overwhelmingly believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and very few members of Congress from either party were skeptical about this belief before the war began in 2003. Indeed, top lawmakers in both parties were emphatic and certain in their public statements."

Case closed.

Anonymous said...

I couldn't give two hoots about what a couple of loony left, Bush-hating, Al Quaeda loving, loony crazies like Millbank/Pincus think.

What is important is what the RATS said before the Iraqi invasion, and what they are saying today.

1. Sen. Kennedy On Iraq

Sen. Kennedy Said Saddam Hussein Was Developing WMDs: "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." (Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA), Remarks At The Johns Hopkins School Of Advanced International Studies, Washington, D.C., 9/27/02)

2. Same Sen. Kennedy On Iraq again:

Sen. Kennedy: "Saddam Hussein Is A Dangerous Figure. He's Got Dangerous Weapons." (CBS' "Face The Nation," 10/6/02)

We have similar quotes from BJ Klinton, Algore, Madeleine NOTbright etc etc.
Everyone of these suckers was SURE Saddam had WMD's and couldn't say it often enough

Today, these same rabid individuals are busy lying as much as they can.

As for the insane rant from the RATS with their "Bush lied" scream..here is John McCain just today on the same metter.

SCHIEFFER: President Bush accused his critics of rewriting history last week.

Sen. McCAIN: Yeah.

SCHIEFFER: And in--he said in doing so, the criticisms they were making of his war policy was endangering our troops in Iraq. Do you believe it is unpatriotic to criticize the Iraq policy?

Sen. McCAIN: No, I think it's a very legitimate aspect of American life to criticize and to disagree and to debate. But I want to say I think it's a lie to say that the president lied to the American people. I sat on the Robb-Silverman Commission. I saw many, many analysts that came before that committee. I asked every one of them--I said, `Did--were you ever pressured politically or any other way to change your analysis of the situation as you saw?' Every one of them said no.

'nuff said!

Anonymous said...

Even more evidence of DemocRATic Pary malfeasance on Iraq, this time from 2003:

Senate Republicans expressed outrage yesterday over a memo that plotted a Democratic strategy for taking maximum political advantage of an investigation into U.S. intelligence before the war in Iraq.
The memo, written by a staffer for Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV, West Virginia Democrat and co-chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, suggested Democrats "pull the majority along as far as we can."
The Democrats then should change tactics and call for an independent investigation next year, when President Bush will be running for re-election, the memo said.
Sen. Pat Roberts, Kansas Republican and chairman of the intelligence panel, said he was "stunned" when he read the memo, and called it a "purely partisan document that appears to be a road map for how the Democrats intend to politicize what should be a bipartisan, objective review of prewar intelligence."


The DemocRATS are beyond contempt!

Reliapundit said...

smithy - you did GREAT! thanks.

but MCCOY is just stuck on stupid.
he's a troll.
been making idiotic comments her for months.

i dl;ete him now.

he bores me.

i don't delete criticisms of my arguments which are sound, fair and on point.

those who - like mccoy- willfully ignore facts are a waste of time.
not worth reading and not worth commenting on.

Anonymous said...

Harry said:

I saw Howard Dean on Meet The Press today and was amazed at his candor. When asked why the democrats had only criticism and no specifics to solve problems, Howard clearly stated that, lacking a majority in both Houses of Congress, the democrats could only oppose the "dishonest, incompetent, lying, evil party in power and prevent them from achieving their agenda." Thus, he clearly stated that the sole purpose of the democratic party was to prevent the Bush Administration from governing effectively, not matter what the consequences to America. After all, anything they want to do is bad for this country.

Pardon me. But, unlike the democratic leadership, I've served my country, and Howard Dean and the leadership of the democratic party are in no position to make judgements about the motives of the Bush Administration.

It angers me to think that I risked my life for America so that priviledged nitwits like Howard Dean, Charles Schumer and Ted Kennedy, who have never done spit for the United States, can enjoy a venue like Meet The Press to attack an administration solely for political gain. Color me disgusted.

Anonymous said...


"disingenuously ignores is that Bush had opportunities to verify and confirm those claims that none of the others did. Considering the stakes, he had the responsibility to do so the minute he started using those very claims to justify his course of action"

That is just baloney!
The RATS on the Senate Intelligence Committee had access to exactly the same intelligence from the CIA as President Bush did.
The RATS in the US Senate VOTED OVERWHELMINGLY for action in Iraq , based on the self same intelligence that President Bush had access to.
The CIA called the intelligence that Saddam had WMD a "slam dunk"!
That particular head of the CIA at the time, was appointed by non other than the RAT president BJ Klinton himself!

When you vote for something, like the RATS did for military action against Saddam Hussein, you can't turn round and refuse to take any responsibility for you actions, and instead fight with all your strength to shift the responsibility for your actions onto someone else, President Bush.

You guys can't have it both ways.
You are either responsible adults, ready to take full responsibility for your own actions, or you are going to continue to be treated like irresponsible children, who should not and will not be trusted with any major issues, let alone national security issues.

That might explain why the RATS have only the presidency just three times in the last 40 years.

We all remember the disaster that we had under Jimmy Carter's presidency when a bunch of medieval Iranian savages and mullahs spat on America for to the tune of 444 days, while the hapless, clueless, helpless, incredibly stupid Jimmy Carter waved his hands about in utter helplessness.

Americans are no going to trust the country to such a bunch of losers!

Anonymous said...

That paragraph is taken out of context. The whole article is actually stating the exact opposite of what you are suggesting. The article says that members of congress only had access to the information that the Bush administration was willing to give them, and that the commissions investigating the pre-war intelligence did not examine whether the administration exaggerated or distorted the intelligence. You probably could have found an article which actually provided the conclusions you wanted, so why did you link to one that comes to the opposite conclusion from your post? This is the sort of thing that reduces your credibility considerably, although at least you provided the link so that everyone could see how you distort information.


Reliapundit said...

what you're asserting/repeating is false.
a lie.

the congress had access the same intel.

analysis of intel is an art, not a science.analysis of the same intel almost always differs/varies.

bush erred on the side of caution.bush concluded that the worst case scenarios were what he had to defend aganist. as he should.

if you are intellectually honest -which i doubt you are - you will admit this.

and you will admit that your position leads to concluding that it would be better for everyone if saddam had been left in power.

tell that to the 22 million FREE iraqis who are dying for democracy. or to our soldiers ansd marines who also belive in the mission.tell it to kaddafy who caaved becasue of it. or to lebanon which is free becasue of it. or to assad who is cornered because of.

you seem to be siding with the 4 million who want saddamism or islamism. the people who run REAL torture centers and bomb halabja and jordan. and siding with assad. and zarqawi.

you and michael moore may idolize the insurgents; i do not.