Wishful Thinking (that "Bush lied")

New York Post ^ | 7/7/03 | Ralph Peters

[My2Cents]

PRESIDENT Bush is accused unfairly of falsifying intelligence. He didn't do it. That's not the way the system works.

On the other hand, I have no doubt that the president and his deputies read intelligence reports selectively and talked themselves into believing what they wanted to believe.

[My2Cents]

Is it just my imagination, or has the drumbeat that "Bush lied about WMD" been muted of late? I wouldn't be surprised if our investigators have found something big, and we're wrapping up further intelligence before it is made public...with key Democrats in the Congress being given a heads-up. Hence their relative silence.

[Bluegrass Federalist]

That was the rumor last week. You knew it had to happen. The Rats will never learn.

[eureka!]

Yep. Hence, the return to the "quagmire" whine....

[billbears]

No Bush didn't 'lie'. Overstate reports or have reports misinterpreted to him in defense meetings? Well now.... To lie insinuates that he did it intentionally. And I'll give the man the benefit of the doubt that he didn't do it on purpose. Now did someone else in the administration do it intentionally? Well that's a whole 'nother story

[ex-Texan]

I agree with your assessment.

What the author fails to mention is that bin Laden's rage was fueled by a Clinton cruise missle attack on the Sudan that killed several very close relatives. GWB has said very pointedly that he would not fire cruise missles into a country blindly and hit 'a camel in the butt.'

[Archangelsk]

The experience was discouraging, to say the least.

As discouraging as when then Capt. Peters sent my platoon down a bowling alley at Hoehenfels and was subsequently massacred by OPFOR, perhaps?

[TheDon]

Perhaps President Bush threatened to reveal some classified info, if the Demorats didn't shut up. More likely the Dems found the polls didn't support the approach they were taking.

Of course, all of this is irrelevant, as we didn't invade Iraq because we knew they had WMDs, we invaded because we didn't know if they had WMDs, and Iraq wouldn't cooperate with the UN inspectors to prove they didn't have them. A subtle point that the Demorats, and all of the foreigners who had a vested interest in keeping Hussein around, have tried to use against the Administration.

[pierrem15]

The intelligence community can't win. Neither Republicans nor Democrats are interested in objective analysis. It's always about supporting an administration's goals. Republicans do, however, make somewhat better use of intelligence in the foreign policy arena simply because they tend to have a more mature sense of global realities.

The point he ignores is that most intel is usually ambiguous. The president will always have to choose one of many possible political interpretations of the intel. I mean the president will have to use his judgment not only as to whether or not a certain weaposn system (for example) exists or has the capabilities indicated by some intel; he will also have to make a political judgement in the best interests of the country as to whether or not it will be used.

Almost all judgments of intel are "political" in the sense that you must understand the opponents intent, and that is the hardest thing to judge accurately. Clinton, for his own selfish political reasons chose to ignore growing danger signs. Bush decided that Hussein's continued leadership of Iraq, given his intransigence over inspections and other terms of the '91 ceasefire, was too great a threat to the US.

PS: If the democrats are to be believed, not only did Bush lie but Hussein managed to destroy all of his WMD and their infrastructure while hiding that destruction better than the weapons themselves.LOL

[Burkeman1]

Bush has what is called "plausible deniability" surrounding his decisions.

Now did someone else in the administration do it intentionally? Well that's a whole 'nother story.

That is the question. When you set up your own little independent "intelligence" organiztion that tells you what you want to hear while ignoring the CIA, DOD, and your own state department then there is a problem.

[Arthur McGowan]

If the Clintonites say that everybody is an adulterer, it means that Clinton is an adulterer. If the Clintonites excoriate those who don't pay their taxes and don't play by the rules, it means they know the Clintons don't pay their taxes and don't play by the rules. Is it any wonder that the Clintonites accuse Bush of LYING???

[Redwood71]

If you'll remember, Mr. Powell was not identifying all the photos we had because of compromise. And the stupidity, in my mind, is that Mr. Bush could use a "throwdown" easily enough and get away with it. He could plant WMD and claim a find anytime he wanted. This is done by the CIA, and other organizations that are not known about. If he wanted to be dishonest, no one could catch him at it and he could easily embarrass the RATS with such a find. But, we don't currently have a president that lies under oath or tosses tomahawks into aspirin factories to hide his filthy backside from the citizens because it still had Monica's fingerprints on it. Character does matter!

[My2Cents]

we invaded because we didn't know if they had WMDs, and Iraq wouldn't cooperate with the UN inspectors to prove they didn't have them.

Well-said, and I think most people understand this (except for the Bush-haters).

[TheDon]

Unfortunately, I've had plenty of FR posters who don't seem to understand the difference. They've been watching too much mainstream media and become brainwashed they've heard it repeated so many time.

[Chi-townChief]

bump

[verity]

Thanks for the insight!:<(

[lepton]

Now did someone else in the administration do it intentionally?

Define "it".

[billbears]

To lie insinuates that he did it intentionally. And I'll give the man the benefit of the doubt that he didn't do it on purpose. Now did someone else in the administration do it intentionally?

I think it's quite clear what 'it' is. However, for your benefit, it means lie, expand on the truth, twist reports to fit their needs, ignore data from intelligence agencies that didn't fit their needs to justify attacking Iraq. Is that clear enough for you?

[lepton]

I think it's quite clear what 'it' is. However, for your benefit, it means lie, expand on the truth, twist reports to fit their needs, ignore data from intelligence agencies that didn't fit their needs to justify attacking Iraq. Is that clear enough for you?

In order to address the accusation, one must first know the actions, which you describe, and what information this was done to. Watch closely: You will see a lot of "he lied about Iraq", with very very few examples given.

To justify the attack on Iraq, one needs to know the following: Iraq signed a ceasefire agreement, in which the government was allowed to continue to exist if they complied with several terms. These terms included documentation and presentation of all WMDs to an inspection team for verified destruction. No serious nation, nor the U.N., nor even Hans Blix has claimed that Iraq complied with this.

Further, every serious government has conceded or stated that Iraq was seeking to hide and deceive in regards its compliance.

Further, Iraq had admitted to large quantities of WMDs, and had not turned them over for verified destruction.

By the way, in regards the chemical and especially biological warfare materials, have you calculated the volume required to store such materials? As example, a standard 10' x 12' bedroom is sufficient to hold 27,000 liters. How many chem or bio warheads is that - and we've found a smattering of specialized warheads suitable for such use. We've also found quite a number of "dual use" facilities, designed in an odd manner so that they can produce mundane things other than bio or chem agents, but could clearly be converted.

So other than that Nigerian(?) Uranium fraud, what actual accusation is there, beyond the vaguery that someone in the administration lied about something related to Iraq?

[nopardons]

BTT