Monday, June 9, 2008

The Real Deal in the RUN UP Report

An article in the Washington Post has some interesting information on the report done by congress on the proceedings before the Iraq war. Fred Hiatt tackles the "Bush Lied" rhetoric and puts to rest the debate on the matter in my mind. The dems tried hard to find something incriminating on the President and found nothing. Here is an excerpt from the article from the actual report and a link for its entirety: Bush Lied

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.

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."

Mr. Rockefellar a democrat from West Virginia was of course the chairman of the Intelligence commitee who issued the report. Shocker. For an opposing view read The Pluribus Driver


namaste said...

huh?! are you making a joke? no, seriously. "substantiated by intelligence information." what the hell is THAT? umm... i respectfully and lovingly disagree with this NONSENSE. ppl lie, politicians lie, and the prez tells whoppers. that's just life.



Sandi said...

Love ya, Nikki. But putting Bush and "intelligence" in the same sentence just doesn't work for me.

Nikki said...

Hey Maria, I like how it was all lovingly...if other people would just lovingly disagree what a better world we would live in! Though if the report were to discredit Bush then it would NOT be lying? I know this bores you. You are a trooper for reading and commenting. Thats all I can ask. I lovingly let your rant slide! hehe :)N

Sandi,It was a struggle for me to put Rockefellar and intelligence in the same sentence too. I feel your pain girlfriend! :)N

Mike said...

Nikki, Fred Hiatt's reporting could be used in a class on how to cherry-pick from a report to create the conclusion that you want. (Ironic, considering the subject matter.)

For example, Hiatt says, "On Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements 'were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates.'"

But he deliberately left out the rest of the sentence, which says, "but did not convey the substantial disagreements that existed in the intelligence community."

And he seems to gloss over any conclusions that don't fit his objective. For example:

"Statements by the President and the Vice President indicating that Saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attacks against the United States were contradicted by available intelligence information." (Page 83 of the report.)

I call that a lie, but that's just me. :)

Johnny Utah said...

great stuff nikki, i've got a lot of reading to do. i'm not as prolific as you, but will try to keep up with the jones. thanks for the add.

GrEaT sAtAn'S gIrLfRiEnD said...

The thing about Iraq is actually quite danging. Remember how blair wanted to go back to the UN for a 2nd reso? Then BAM! Then Manchester Ricin Bust in January. Suddenly Blair didn't really seem to need a 2nd Reso.

Perhaps one of Iraq's 18 suitcases of Ricin made it Great Britain?

Thinking Sage said...

Daddy Sage is coming to ur defense!

well I agree that Bsh F'd it up. Bt I also know that every intel agency in the universe said Saddam had nukes! Hell Saddam said he he had nukes!
Ok some inside baseball here.
My cousin just retired, like 3 months after the limp-wrist-o-crats took congress from Naval intel.
23 years.
He says no question.
none what so ever.
he quit because e worked though clinton.
just sayin
and for the record.
everyone said we needed to depose Saddam.

Mike said...

Maybe Daddy Sage should read the report.

"Statements by the President, Vice President, Secretary of State and the National Security Advisor regarding a possible Iraqi nuclear weapons program were general substantiated by intelligence community estimates, but did not convey the substantial disagreements that existed in the intelligence community."

If, as you claim, "every intel agency in the universe said Saddam had nukes," what were the disagreements about?

DB said...

I am confused Nikki...reading your excerpts, it seems to me that the blame is merely being shifted from Bush to the intelligence community, but how does that justify the war? It seems it is only making another excuse for it. Shouldn't the President make a decision based on all the evidence available and not just the evidence that backs him up? Our country would support this war had they found something, anything that Bush claimed Iraq had. Bush made the call and is responsible for his actions. No one else. Isn't this the "personal responsibility" republicans talk so big about?

lmao where Mike finished the sentence that this clown cut off. Classic hack job for a writer...and they say the media is "liberally biased??" Bush effed this war up from the beginning to the no end.

Nikki said...

Hey Mike, I can stipulate that perhaps some intelligence was either ignored or not presented properly, however are you willing to stipulate that there was intelligence that supported the nuke threat? I see your point but until we know the extent or the details of the disagreements then then your guess is as good as mine. If you are the President and you are presented with 2 bad choices what do you choose after 9/11. Iraq had not been dealt with and now threats are seen differently. Do you choose to trust Saddam who was in bed with Zawahiri, which the report states, or do you become a douche bag President and deal with the problem with pre-emption. Hind sight doesn't count. I think the President chose on the side of caution vs. a nuke in the hands of terrorists. 2 bad choices. 1 outcome. I would rather be responsible for soldiers dying in battling an enemy than civilians dying from another terrorist attack. Maybe or maybe not. It was on all of americas minds on 9/12. I am with you, what were these disagreements, I am surprised the report did not elaborate, or did they? it sounds like you read the whole thing...whew. sleep reading. :)N

Hey Johnny thanks for stopping by! I am sure you will hold your own! Welcome to the jungle! and check out his blog everybody it rocks! :)N

Sage I have a cousin in the FBI and he is in the Iraq corner on every level. Intelligence after 9/11 changed, and getting it wrong with 9/11 made for taking chances with Iraq too risky. thanks daddy. :)N

Great Satans chick I will link it for about some spicy foreign policy talk head to her blog to get informed! :)N

Nikki said...

DB, the full excepts were provided. I am not saying Bush does not share in the blame. However to say that Bush was climaxing every time he thought of bombing Saddam is pretty retarded. This commitee was looking for Bush criminality and found none...The intelligence community should share the blame why are they exempt? I don't buy this idea that Bush was so hell bent on going to war that he fudged everything he could find like he has some sexual war fetish...What is the motivation. The report was fair and I think that is what most people have a problem with. If you think the blame has shifted talk to Rockefellar the democrat who did the investigation. You can't say Bush is the one pushing the blame he didn't write the report...and neither did I. But if you want I will kick your ass about it later right now I gotta go eat some fish tacos...haha :)N

DB said...

Yes, the intel community should share blame, and possibly a large portion of that blame if Bush did act in an ethical way, which you say he did. But assigning blame is still aknowledging fault.

While I am not "against" this war in the Obama sense, I sure as hell am not "for" this war in a Bush/McCain sense. The problem I have with this war is that our leaders running the show think they are running it perfectly and have their followers singing the same tune. They refuse to take a critical look at the war and how it is running, and would rather ignore all the obvious problems. If Bush would simply show a little common sense and focus on fixing the problems instead of ignoring them thus creating greater ones, more people would be on his side. Granted of course, that he is unable to take that honest look because the left will jump on him like there is no tomorrow. Where does this get us? Two extremes: 10,000 year war, or no war, when the middle answer is the only effective, realistic one.

I would prefer a war where we are told the truth about its accomplishments AND challenges. I want to hear our President address the weaknesses of fighting the war and tout the strengths. I want to be included in that conversation as I am an American. Right now we only hear the fluff from the President which leads the media's only recourse to tell the other side of the story. We should hear that side from the President first. This is a government of the people, by the people and for the people...but the people aren't included on the truth and now are questioning if the President is covering up something, or if the media is hiding something. That isn't how you handle the Public Relations of our country, especially during a war. We shouldn't be having to judge the truthfulness of our sources of information on a matter so important.

Nikki said...

Well said DB and I agree with most of what you have said. I do think that the President has a communication problem and perhaps gave up trying to communicate as I thought he communicated very well following 9/11. His speech following 9/11 outlined a very long and tough road and the emphsis began to be redundant as Americans began to feel safe again. Democrats share plenty of blame of downplaying as much as republicans overplay the threat of terrorism. I think the war is improving and there has been plenty of non Iraq news in the form of dead soldiers daily as there used to be. Saving face is not what the President should be doing I agree with that...I would like to hear a little come to Jesus like we heard in Israel. Thats the Bush I like. :)N

Americaneocon said...

Your blog looks really cool, Nikki!

Thanks for visiting mine. I'll be back!!

Mike said...

Nikki, on page 16, the report states: "No intelligence agency ever assessed that Iraq had reconstituted nuclear weapons." This goes directly against what Cheney said on Meet the Press: "And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." Not to mention Bush's talk of the smoking gun being a mushroom cloud. (Fear mongers? Nah.)

They believed it because they wanted to believe it, not because of any intelligence reports.

And DB, the main reason that Bush hasn't told the truth about the war is that he has no respect for the general populace. Also, he would then possibly have to own up to his mistakes instead of simply passing them off for "history" to decide if he's made any.

Nikki said...

Mike, I still don't understand why they wanted to believe it. Like I said before, you are taking excerpts that support your position and so am I...:)N

Nikki said...

Hey americanneocon, thanks for visiting and I am blogrolling You!! :)N