Suddenly, it becomes imminently clear

my demented brain | 10/11/2003 | dirtboy

[dirtboy]

For weeks now, to the point of annoyance, we’ve witnessed Democratic politicians and liberal media talking heads stating that the threat from Saddam wasn’t imminent, as President Bush had claimed. Nancy Pelosi said it, as did Senators Levin and Rockefeller. The AP and Reuters have claimed it. Bob Edwards on NPR stated it as fact in a softball question to Terry McAuliffe during an NPR interview. By the time the Kay Report was made public, the NY Times felt the lie well-positioned enough to incorporate it into their opening front-page salvo against the evidence Kay presented:

“Analysis: preliminary report delivered by David Kay, chief arms inspector in Iraq, forces Bush administration to come face to face with this reality: that nothing found so far backs up administration claims that Saddam Hussein posed imminent threat to world”

However, anyone who gets their news from non-PIPA approved media outlets is well aware that Bush said nothing of the sort. As a refresher, here are Bush’s actual comments from the 2003 State of the Union Address:

"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late."

So why would the Dems so transparently alter Bush’s clear meaning here? I initially chalked it up to their pathological tendency to play games with the truth, whether they need to or not. However, upon reflecting upon Charles Krauthammer’s brilliant analysis in his column WMDs in a Haystack, the purpose and timing of this lie and the need for the Dems to distort what Bush said becomes clear. From Krauthammer:

“Ekeus theorizes that Hussein decided years ago that it was unwise to store mustard gas and other unstable and corrosive poisons in barrels, and also difficult to conceal them. Therefore, rather than store large stocks of weapons of mass destruction, he would adapt the program to retain an infrastructure (laboratories, equipment, trained scientists, detailed plans) that could "break out" and ramp up production when needed. The model is Japanese "just in time" manufacturing, where you save on inventory by making and delivering stuff in immediate response to orders. Except that Hussein's business was toxins, not Toyotas.” (emphasis mine)

The Kay Report found the framework of an extensive chemical and biological weapons program, but no weapons themselves. Above and beyond the possibility that the finished weapons themselves are either still hidden or were shipped to another country such as Syria, the existence of this kind of program was both a vindication of the decision to invade and of Bush’s postulation that we should not wait until the threat is imminent.

Hence the need to alter the debate and Bush’s very words.

By shifting the debate to a position where the threat from Saddam was stated by Bush as imminent, the Dems basically are attempting to make the just-in-time manufacturing approach from Saddam irrelevant to the case against him, and the Kay Report, instead of being a justification for the war, instead becomes damnation of Bush and more “evidence” that Bush lied to get us into war.

But the timing is rather interesting – the Dems started lying about this well before the Kay Report went public. How could they have been aware of the need to engage in damage control over the Kay Report and lay the groundwork of widespread lying before the report came out?

I believe that the answer lies in Kay’s initial Senate briefing on his findings that happened in late July. Kay made it clear that Saddam had engaged in an extensive deception campaign to hide his WMD programs. I would also speculate that Kay confided to the Senators present that he had found programs but no weapons. It is my belief that at least one Dem Senator, seeing the problems that Kay’s findings would present to their attacks on Bush, saw the need to change Bush’s position regarding the threat from Saddam, hence the sudden barrage of claims from the Dems that Bush stated the threat from Saddam was imminent.

If this is the case, a Dem Senator took a classified briefing and used it for purely political purposes. It would be very interesting to track this lie back in time and see when it went into widespread Dem use.

[dirtboy]

Good find. July 8th. About the same timeframe.

[Samwise]

Bingo!

[aruanan]

The Kay Report found the framework of an extensive chemical and biological weapons program, but no weapons themselves. Above and beyond the possibility that the finished weapons themselves are either still hidden or were shipped to another country such as Syria, the existence of this kind of program was both a vindication of the decision to invade and of Bush’s postulation that we should not wait until the threat is imminent.

The Democrats' view of WMD's consisting merely of stockpiled finished product rather than the means to produce it and the will to use it is strangely similar to the belief of the poor lottery-playing dopes on welfare who believe that wealth consists possessing a big pile of loot and who have scarcely a thought about how it is to be produced or maintained or even that such a thing is possible, outside of really, really good luck (their own lotto playing) or criminal means (the rich).

WMD don't kill people. People like Saddam and Stalin and Pol Pot and Hitler and Osama bin Ladin kill people using whatever is at hand. Such people who have already demonstrated a willingness to produce and to use WMD as a means of inflicting their will on otherwise unwilling people have already demonstrated the minimum necessary behavior for folks like the U.S. to move in and de-fang them before they can do any more damage.

[dirtboy]

Got that one in Post 21. One would figure that Krugman would bat leadoff for a lie campaign. Although Arianna was also repeating that lie later in the month, in her usual shrill, nails-down-the-blackboard style.

[dirtboy]

And Bush never used the term in the October 7th address.

But he did, according to the NY Times school of editing quotes (Maureen Dowd, chairperson emeritus). Bush said this in that October 7th speech:

Later this week, the United States Congress will vote on this matter. I have asked Congress to authorize the use of America's military, if it proves necessary, to enforce U.N. Security Council demands. Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable. The resolution will tell the United Nations, and all nations, that America speaks with one voice and is determined to make the demands of the civilized world mean something. Congress will also be sending a message to the dictator in Iraq: that his only chance -- his only choice is full compliance, and the time remaining for that choice is limited.

Members of Congress are nearing an historic vote. I'm confident they will fully consider the facts, and their duties.

The attacks of September the 11th showed our country that vast oceans no longer protect us from danger. Before that tragic date, we had only hints of al Qaeda's plans and designs. Today in Iraq, we see a threat whose outlines are far more clearly defined, and whose consequences could be far more deadly.

Now, do a bit of judicious editing:

imminent ... ... ... ... ... ... threat

And then get rid of those annoying ellipses

imminent threat

And Bush said JUST THAT. So there, nanny nanny boo boo!

[Miss Marple]

Going back to Graham (who is on the Intelligence Committee), I think he is the one who started this hyperbole, perhaps at the request of someone else (such as Senator Clinton).

Graham started making noise right around last October, saying that we were ignoring Al Quaeda while we went after Iraq. At the time I thought that he had received intelligence information that we were probably going to be hit here in the US, and was trying to frame it like we were ignoring it, in order to hit Bush. I am almost posititve that Graham was the first to start in on the Iraq thing, because I got so incensed about it at the time.

[Cobra64]

...the Dems basically are attempting to make the just-in-time manufacturing approach from Saddam irrelevant to the case against him...

the dems are too flippin stooopid to understand 'just-in-time' manufacturing process.

[dirtboy]

Check post #34 - it was part of a DNC test campaign. Which means this has Hillary's fingerprints all over it.

[okie01]

Wonderful work!

And, yes, the 'Rats have been quite obvious about seeking their opportunity to implant a lie. That Madison test had slipped my mind altogether.

Accordingly, the June 14 article from the NYT (Buckhead's #12) clearly resulted in the July 30 TV spot in Madison you found in #34.

We now know that the TV spot must've tested well among the party faithful (Madison being an appropriate test site for this determination). So, the approach was thenceforth adapted by the Democrat pols. Meanwhile, the DNC fax machines went into full bombardment mode -- and the media had their marching orders.

This thread belongs with wolfstar's "Anatomy of a Lie", which dealt with the Wilson/Plame affair. And, given that these two affairs have proceeded separately, but at the same time, we might even suspect that they are a.) related and b.) coordinated.

[Miss Marple]

I also think they are related and coordinated. I also think they were coordinated with the effort to discredit Tony Blair with the BBC/Kelly affair.

[dirtboy]

Sorry for duping the Krugman stuff. I've been away googling and didn't notice.

No problem, it was good getting the additional info from the Krugman police.

I found a June column on Bush lied about imminent threat from June 12, 2003 by Joshua Micah Marshall, whoever he is. http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/001174.html

He just SOUNDS like a pinko.

So, it looks like this started w/ loony left columnists in the June time frame, and became an official DNC talking point in July after the administration backpedaled on the claim the Iraqis sought uranium in Africa.

That sounds about right - you had the erroneous info reported just after Bush's SOTU, that probably bounced around in the left-wing blogsphere for awhile and then Krugman ran with it (as he never fact-checks anyway) - the Dems tried to exploit it as part of the yellowcake story and then it kinda sat dormnant for awhile until the Kay Report came along and had to be defused, and it's been all over the place since. The gall of the NY Times to run the lie in the very first paragraph of the story shows just how scared they are of that report and its political implications. Usually they bury the lies a bit further down the page.

[dirtboy]

I don't think my initial premise held - that they started this campaign in direct response to the initial Kay briefing at the end of July 03 - instead, I think they started hammering on this point about the time of the yellowcake story, but it dwindled away when the public lost interest in that saga, but it was reincarneted with a vengence when the Kay Report came along and the Dems realized they had to alter Bush's position to defuse the impact of that report. So they basically recycled the lie, starting with page 1 of the NY Times.

But what we're seeing is, IMO, far more interesting - the patterns of how a lie develops in the left wing and how it can be re-used in a concerted manner when necessary. And they also use the media rather than say this stuff extensively themselves. Note that the media is saying that Bush claimed the threat was imminent while the politicians for the most part say only that the threat wasn't imminent.

[dirtboy]

the dems are too flippin stooopid to understand 'just-in-time' manufacturing process.

Au contrare, what we've seen on this threat is that they are quite adept at just-in-time manufacturing of lies...

[ATOMIC_PUNK]

We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002. The discovery of these deliberate concealment efforts have come about both through the admissions of Iraqi scientists and officials concerning information they deliberately withheld and through physical evidence of equipment and activities that ISG has discovered that should have been declared to the UN.

[...]

A clandestine network of laboratories and safehouses within the Iraqi Intelligence Service that contained equipment subject to UN monitoring and suitable for continuing CBW research.

* A prison laboratory complex, possibly used in human testing of BW agents, that Iraqi officials working to prepare for UN inspections were explicitly ordered not to declare to the UN.

* Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist's home, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons.

* New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the UN.

* Documents and equipment, hidden in scientists' homes, that would have been useful in resuming uranium enrichment by centrifuge and electromagnetic isotope separation (EMIS).

* A line of UAVs not fully declared at an undeclared production facility and an admission that they had tested one of their declared UAVs out to a range of 500 km, 350 km beyond the permissible limit.

* Continuing covert capability to manufacture fuel propellant useful only for prohibited SCUD variant missiles, a capability that was maintained at least until the end of 2001 and that cooperating Iraqi scientists have said they were told to conceal from the UN.

* Plans and advanced design work for new long-range missiles with ranges up to at least 1000 km - well beyond the 150 km range limit imposed by the UN. Missiles of a 1000 km range would have allowed Iraq to threaten targets through out the Middle East, including Ankara, Cairo, and Abu Dhabi.

* Clandestine attempts between late-1999 and 2002 to obtain from North Korea technology related to 1,300 km range ballistic missiles --probably the No Dong -- 300 km range anti-ship cruise missiles, and other prohibited military equipment.

[dirtboy]

Thank you both for your additions to this thread. I'm signing off now, will check back later.

[okie01]

"But what we're seeing is, IMO, far more interesting - the patterns of how a lie develops in the left wing and how it can be re-used in a concerted manner when necessary."

And how they are willing to test market a blatent lie in full public view, knowing they won't be called on it by the mainstream media.

We caught the Madison test, of course. And dismissed it, as I recall, because it was so obvious a lie. Therefore, we thought, doomed to fail. But we reckoned without a.) the willingness of the DNC to openly lie, b.) the readiness of the media to propagate a blatent lie and c.) the eagerness with which the Democrat base bought into the lie.

There is another important lesson in that...

[metesky]

db: excellent post.

Buckhead: great followup.

Diggin' the dirt is what makes this place A#1.