Fred Hiatt has penned an excellent column in yesterday’s WaPo that summarizes the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence’s Phase II report on Iraq intel. To make a long story short; surprise surprise… President Bush didn’t lie when he spoke about Iraqi WMD’s.

…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 biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president’s statements “were substantiated by intelligence information.”

On chemical weapons, then? “Substantiated by intelligence information.”

On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? “Generally substantiated by intelligence information.” Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? “Generally substantiated by available intelligence.” Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? “Generally substantiated by intelligence information.”

As you read through the report, you begin to think maybe you’ve mistakenly picked up the minority dissent. But, no, this is the Rockefeller indictment. So, you think, the smoking gun must appear in the section on Bush’s claims about Saddam Hussein’s alleged ties to terrorism.

But statements regarding Iraq’s support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda “were substantiated by intelligence information.” Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda “were substantiated by the intelligence assessments,” and statements regarding Iraq’s contacts with al-Qaeda “were substantiated by intelligence information.” The report is left to complain about “implications” and statements that “left the impression” that those contacts led to substantive Iraqi cooperation…

That didn’t stop committee chairman John Rockefeller (D-W. Va.) from mischaracterizing the findings of the report though. Here’s what he had to say about the findings.

“In making the case for war, the administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when it was unsubstantiated, contradicted or even nonexistent,” he said.

This makes no less than three reports that all say the same thing; President Bush did not lie about the case for war. When will the Democrats stop lying about the war and start concentrating on winning it?

By the way, The American Thinker’s Rocco DiPippo has a great article that explains the Democrat’s strategy for the last seven years. These paragraphs sum it up nicely I believe.

Less than a year after the 2000 election was finalized, September 11, 2001 arrived. In the baleful blink of a jihadist’s eye, most of the issues that normally occupy the American polity in peaceful times were swept off the table. Issues that normally help Americans differentiate between the two major politicalparties and define those party’s respective agendas — health care, taxes, the environment, social programs and civil rights — took a far-distant back seat to two far more pressing matters: Exacting justice for the 911 atrocities and protecting the homeland from additional attacks.

Since the American electorate historically views Republicans as being more competent and trustworthy than Democrats in matters of war and security, and since all other issues that Democrats could normally use to make political hay with had been blasted off the table by 911, the Party was facing the threat of irrelevance. There was another factor that did not bode well for the future political fortunes of the Democratic Party in the wake of the 911 attacks: George W. Bush had become an extraordinarily popular president.

Whatever patriotism was stoked within the hearts of Democratic Party leaders by that September Day of Infamy was likely tempered by an unsettling reality: If America stayed united behind George W. Bush and the Republicans during the coming military response to 911, the Democratic Party would be out of power for a long time. [Emphasis added -- Jim C]

As they say; read the whole thing.

1. 

   Wow, just wow… I’ve read each of the actual reports (as opposed to partisan reports on i) and when you read the parts pertaining to the pressure put on our intelligence placed on out intelligence agencies it’s rather obvious that the whole thing = lies couched in plausible deniability.

   Comment by Robert — 6/10/2008 @ 09:55

   ---

2. 

   Robert,

   That’s strange. I’ve read the reports as well, and they say nothing of the sort. They say that the President’s statements are supported by the intelligence communities estimates.

   I think you got the “pressured the intelligence agencies” line from one of these left wing books.

   Jim C

   Comment by Jim — 6/10/2008 @ 11:43

   ---

3. 

   You may be right, I realized belatedly I may have mixed in some of the reports from state department and cia employees. apologies.

   Comment by Robert — 6/10/2008 @ 18:46

   ---

4. 

   the report does say (I made sure to check this time) that the contradictions between departments were never addressed. It’s human nature however to find in a report what you’re looking for and dismiss the rest.

   I should say that I don’t think Bush lied, I won’t say that though for the administration as a whole.

   Comment by Robert — 6/10/2008 @ 19:19

   ---

5. 

   The fact that no one wants to admit is that Saddam Hussein fooled everyone: his people, his officers, and every other nation around. Even Iran, which had the most extensive spy network in Iraq, was amazed to find that there were no WMD. The irony is that when he spoke the truth, no one believed him.

   Comment by Neal5x5 — 7/1/2008 @ 21:40

   ---

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Trackback URI for this post:
http://thinking-right.com/2008/06/09/how-many-more-reports-do-we-need-that-say-the-same-thing/trackback/