Or maybe he just read…read the intelligence reports and made a judgment that he was elected to make. That’s what Fred Hiatt at the Washington Post is saying today. This is bound to infuriate the ‘Bush Lied’ crowd that feeds on a daily appetite of hate supported by much of the media. Here’s a portion of Hiatt’s piece:
Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, set out to provide the official foundation for what has become not only a thriving business but, more important, an article of faith among millions of Americans. And in releasing a committee report Thursday, he claimed to have accomplished his mission, though he did not use the L-word.
“In making the case for war, the administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when it was unsubstantiated, contradicted or even nonexistent,” he said.
There’s no question that the administration, and particularly Vice President Cheney, spoke with too much certainty at times and failed to anticipate or prepare the American people for the enormous undertaking in Iraq.
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 weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? “Generally substantiated by intelligence information.”
Statements regarding Iraq’s support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda “were substantiated by intelligence information.”
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 I also believe after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated.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.”
The New York Sun reminds us of similar analysis from Carl Ford that Democrats used to support their agenda:
“Our evidence suggests that Baghdad is strengthening a relationship with al-Qaeda that dates back to the mid-1990s, when senior Iraqi intelligence officers established contact with the network in several countries.”
“We have some evidence that Iraqi Intelligence has been in contact with elements in the northeastern area. And the al-Qaeda operatives there are in regular contact with other operatives located in Baghdad. The Iraqi government has also received information from other sources alerting it to the presence of al-Qaeda operatives in Baghdad.”
“We have hard evidence that al-Qaeda is operating in several locations in Iraq with the knowledge and acquiescence of Saddam’s regime.”
***
Guess who wrote that? If you have been following the Democratic Party’s narrative on Iraq, you might guess Ahmad Chalabi, Douglas Feith, Vice President Cheney or some neoconservatives hell bent on twisting intelligence to overstate the connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. But those words are from Carl Ford, assistant state secretary for intelligence and research, whose bureau was singled out for praise after the war for its dissenting assessment of Iraq’s nuclear program.
The quotes are taken from Mr. Ford’s memo to Secretary Powell before Mr. Powell’s presentation to the United Nations Security Council on the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. They were reprinted in last week’s declassified report of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on pre-Iraq war intelligence. That report was widely offered as a confirmation of the Democratic party’s narrative that Mr. Bush played fast and loose with the intelligence in the run up to the Iraq war. Quote Senator Rockefeller: “Sadly, the Bush administration led the nation into war under false pretenses.”
“False pretenses,” “Bush lied,” all an products of an agenda-driven rhetoric that has resulted in a far more shameful reaction to the war than any mistakes in judgment the Bush administration made. In hindsight, which has become the Democrats most useful political tool, it could be argued that the Bush administration mishandled the war. We should have been better prepared for the type of enemy we face in the Middle East. But it is intellectual dishonesty to imply the Bush administration lied to the American people. Especially when so many Democrats supported the efforts in Iraq with their votes only later to renounce that support under the ever-convenient hindsight. Why are they not accused of lying as well? Hindsight is always be the easy way out for anyone, under any tough circumstance. It is precisely what al-Qaeda was banking on when they recruited terrorists using the movie, “Black Hawk Down,” as an example of America’s lack of resolve.
Bush may not have technically “lied” to America. Our enemy could care less. Their primary goal was to cause death, division, and dissension among Americans. That they have achieved. And now they are laughing as we split hairs over how we got involved. But through all of this, the American spirit remains strong. America is a proud country. The men and women volunteering to fight are of an extremely high caliber and they should be thanked forever for their service. America may be wounded, but not out. The last thing she needs is an infection to set in derived from an agenda of hate. Thank a soldier the next time you see one and remember the media and Democrat party’s agenda the next time you hear anything about the War on Terror.
Recent Comments