'A Slam-Dunk Case'--What Woodward says about Bush's "lies" on Iraq.

Wall St Journal ^ | 4-28-04

[SJackson]

A funny thing has happened to the accusation that President Bush "lied" or "misled" Americans about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Bob Woodward's new book, "Plan of Attack," blows the charge away, not that you've read about that in many other places.

Instead, we've all heard mostly about the book's report that Colin Powell wasn't keen on going to war. This we already knew. The real news is what Mr. Woodward tells us about the President's state of mind concerning Iraq's weapons when he ordered American troops into battle: His Director of Central Intelligence had assured him that the WMD case was a "slam dunk."

Mr. Woodward describes a December 2002 Oval Office meeting in which CIA Director George Tenet and a deputy brief the President, Vice President, National Security Adviser and White House Chief of Staff on the status of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. According to the Woodward account, so far undisputed, Mr. Bush responded to the presentation by calling it a "nice try" but "not something that Joe Public would understand or would gain a lot of confidence from."

The President continued, "I've been told all this intelligence about having WMD and this is the best we've got?" At which point Mr. Tenet is said to have thrown his hands in the air and remarked, "It's a slam-dunk case!" Mr. Bush pressed again, "George, how confident are you?" Mr. Tenet: "Don't worry, it's a slam dunk!"

It isn't a shock, of course, that the CIA believed Iraq possessed stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. The Clinton Administration bombed Iraq for four days in December 1998 based on that assessment. Every other major intelligence agency in the world believed the same. What is new in the Woodward account is the extent to which Mr. Bush appears to have been a thoughtful and critical consumer of such intelligence. The President reportedly told Mr. Tenet several times, "Make sure no one stretches to make our case."

All of which puts the "Bush lied" crowd in a rather awkward spot. "He misled every one of us," John Kerry has said. "He lied to me personally." Ted Kennedy: "Week after week after week after week, we were told lie after lie after lie after lie."

The fact that the Massachusetts Senators didn't have the benefit of Mr. Woodward's account when making such serious allegations isn't much of an excuse for these false claims, since as Hillary Rodham Clinton has recently attested, "The consensus was the same, from the Clinton Administration to the Bush Administration."

[KC Burke]

This is a good article, but I still think Woodward was channeling Bill Casey when he wrote the book.

[TomGuy]

Woodward's book turned out to be more of a fizzle than a bombshell it was advertised to be. Clarke got more umph out of his book than Woodward did.

Next up seems to be Bill Clinton's book. It will get much of liberal media attention. As for its credibility, well, what would one expect from a confessed perjurer? We can expect it to be Bill's attempt to spin his legacy beyond what is already set in granite: Monica and Impeachment.

[samtheman]

as Hillary Rodham Clinton has recently attested, "The consensus was the same, from the Clinton Administration to the Bush Administration."

Interesting that she's the only RAT being honest on this subject.

[LucyJo]

Even truth and honesty are expedient to them on occasion.

[js1138]

She's not being honest, just smart. It's really impossible to hide the fact that clinton proclaimed the existence of WMD.

Woodward's book is doing poorly for the same reason. It doesn't support the "Bush lied" mythology.

[Dilbert56]

On Larry King Hillary said: "The difference is that they believed it" (and acted upon it).

Ponder that statement. What she said was that, in 1998, when the Clinton administration made its case for war against Iraq, it didn't believe Iraq was really a threat. I think she misspoke - they probably believed it but were afraid to do anything that might hurt bubba's popularity ratings. She is notoriously incompetent when off her script.

[samtheman]

She is notoriously incompetent when off her script.

This is why I would welcome a Hitlery candidacy. She'd collapse faster than a Mad Dog Dean at an Iowa "victory" celebration.

[samtheman]

She's not being honest, just smart. It's really impossible to hide the fact that clinton proclaimed the existence of WMD.

True. Even she sees the futility of lying so openly on this subject.

[Jeeper]

This woman has been making statements like this for decades.
If it sounds good, use it. The meaning doesn't matter.

However, you nailed the meaning of her words.
The Clinton Administration did not believe the WMD intelligence in 1998,
but they bombed WMD sites in Iraq anyway.
Heck, Slick himself said they might have destroyed them all.

If you try to apply logic and reason to liberal/progressive positions and actions,
you quickly find yourself chasing your tail.

The answer to their actions seem quite simple to me,
their foreign policy strategy was always about winning the Nobel Peace Prize.

[talleyman]

Great post bump!

[MamaLucci]

To all you stupid lib lurkers (and you know who you are) that have bought into the "Bush Lied" BS.....

The Clinton Administration bombed Iraq for four days in December 1998 based on that assessment. Every other major intelligence agency in the world believed the same.

[bigeasy_70118]

The Clinton Administration bombed Iraq for four days in December 1998 based on that assessment

Silly me. I thought the Clinton Administration bombed Iraq for four days in December 1998 to distract the country from impeachment. I'd like to thank the Wall Street Journal for correcting my understanding of the issue.

[Dilbert56]

Yes, it was to distract from impeachment but it was based on that assessment. Just as our invasion of Iraq was to get rid of a threat but legally based on Saddam's violation of UN resolutions and the Gulf War cease fire.