Intelligence Committee Report: Bush’s Pre-War Claims Were Substantiated by Intelligence Information
June 9th, 2008 at 08:25pm Matt Margolis
Fred Hiatt, writing for the Washington Post, notes how Senator John Rockefeller, chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, has been erroneously fueling the “Bush Lied” meme:
Search the Internet for “Bush Lied” products, and you will find sites that offer more than a thousand designs. The basic “Bush Lied, People Died” bumper sticker is only the beginning.
Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, set out to provide the official foundation for what has become not only a thriving business but, more important, an article of faith among millions of Americans. And in releasing a committee report Thursday, he claimed to have accomplished his mission, though he did not use the L-word.
“In making the case for war, the administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when it was unsubstantiated, contradicted or even nonexistent,” he said.
Despite the rhetoric of Rockefeller and other liberals desperate to hold on to the long-debunked notion that Bush lied, Hiatt points out that when you actually read the report, their rhetoric doesn’t match the report’s findings (emphasis mine):
[…] 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.
Hiatt also debunks the left’s claim that Bush misrepresented intelligence.
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.”
Rockefeller was reminded of that statement by the committee’s vice chairman, Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.), who with three other Republican senators filed a minority dissent that includes many other such statements from Democratic senators who had access to the intelligence reports that Bush read. The dissenters assert that they were cut out of the report’s preparation, allowing for a great deal of skewing and partisanship, but that even so, “the reports essentially validate what we have been saying all along: that policymakers’ statements were substantiated by the intelligence.”
This is not the first time Rockefeller has signed his name to a report with findings that A, B, and C, but then went off to the media saying the findings were X, Y, and Z. The fact is this isn’t even new information… There have been several past investigations/reports that have all come to the same conclusion: there was no manipulation of intelligence prior to the Iraq war. Rockefeller is unfit to be the chairman of the intelligence committee, and the “Bush lied” crowd has to come to terms with the fact Rockefeller and other anti-Iraq war Democrats lied… not President Bush.
Entry Filed under: Democrats, War on Terror
28 Comments
1. Herman | June 9th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
“On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? ‘Generally substantiated by intelligence information.’”
And what “intelligence” would that be, the fellow known as Curveball???? The UN Weapons Inspectors (YOU KNOW, THE PEOPLE ON THE GROUND ACTUALLY LOOKING FOR THE DAMN WMD) found NOTHING. But though they had searched for weeks, actually months, they, alas, had to leave before they could finish up BECAUSE THE MORON KING DECIDED TO INVADE.
And so later on, what did Mr. Kay and Mr. Duelfer find? NOTHING, DAMN IT!!
No surprise there.
2. SC | June 9th, 2008 at 9:18 pm
Herman - You hammer home Matt’s point perfectly.
No surprise there…
3. Casper | June 9th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/Iraq.html
If you would like a copy of the report go to the above link.
4. Evergreen | June 9th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
Don’t any of you wingnuts get what the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame was all about? For the first time a member of the intelligence community was beginning to say the data being fed to Congress was skewed in favor of war. It developed into the perfect storm. The intelligence community would only send data supporting a call to war while squelching data with a contradictory view, therefore Bush could pass on this intelligence as all that is needed to invade Iraq. However Joe Wilson saw the scam and let America in on the administration’s secret. The rest as they say is a President with a 27% approval. Call it lying or deception, Americans like neither.
5. Pain | June 9th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
We have one word for you, Abramoff.
6. SC | June 9th, 2008 at 9:53 pm
Evergreen - us Wingnuts are still trying to figure out why Richard Armitage outed a non-covert agent. But back on topic, Wilson’s intelligence, through testimony to the CIA, actually supported Bush’s infamous “16 words”.
7. James | June 9th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
I have two words for you Pain:
Rezko, Hsu
8. neocon | June 9th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
All of this has been pointed out before, but despite even their own representatives supporting the conclusion, none of it will matter. The left will continue to distort the realities to further their agenda.
Wilsons report did indeed support the Administrations assertions and Plame has only Armitage and Joe Wilson to blame for her non-outing, and her 15 minutes of fame, which in the end, was what it was all about.
I do find it ironic though that those self proclaimed defenders of human rights will find every excuse possible not too defend them for others.
9. Pain | June 9th, 2008 at 10:17 pm
7. James | June 9th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
Two more for you Ralston and Glenn.
10. James | June 9th, 2008 at 10:29 pm
Google “Abramoff Democrats” if you really want to play this game.
11. neocon | June 9th, 2008 at 10:33 pm
I have long been fond of the names James Riady and John Huang.
12. Kahn | June 9th, 2008 at 11:45 pm
Pain - by all means yes. Lets talk about anything except the fact that President Bush made decisions based upon intelligence provided to him by our career intelligence community. Which later turned out to be bad. The same community that missed nuke programs in India, and Pakistan. That missed Iraq’s impending invasion of Kuwait.
There is a scandal there. But it’s not Bush. It’s the intelligence community. It hides behind a wall of secrecy with even a budget that is secret. I guess we’ll never know it’s true sucesses, but it sure is easy to name it’s failures.
But I’m sure that the bloated socialist government that Obama has in mind will be waaayyyy better.
13. bongoman | June 10th, 2008 at 12:52 am
Yeah, like the Office of Special Plans, Chalabi and the PNAC crew.
14. David Pettyfogger | June 10th, 2008 at 6:32 am
UN Resolution 1511, which legalizes the American occupation of Iraq, expires at the end of this year. The Iraqi government has made it clear they no longer want the US in Iraq. They have refused to sign or even discuss a bilateral agreement the US is pushing on Iraq extending the US’s stay after Bush’s office.
Bush has to go to the UN to humbly ask for an extension of Resolution 1511. If the UN refuses, US troops have to leave or they will be in violation of international law.
It is no longer a simple case of cut and run. We will have to leave because staying would be criminal.
15. Danish Artist | June 10th, 2008 at 7:18 am
The liberals have had nothing for 5 years.
They desperately grasp at straws.
Plame again? “Don’t any of you wingnuts get what the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame was all about? For the first time a member of the intelligence community was beginning to say the data being fed to Congress was skewed in favor of war. ” Her reasons for her “outing” was because of her husbands “damaging revelations” while in Africa. You need to get your talking points straight.
Abramoff? - what does he have to do with intelligence (or democrats for that matter)?
So we have several UN Resolutions that affirmed and reaffirmed the starting of hostilities if Saddam and Iraq did not meet the UN requirement of disarming, which he did not by UNs own documents. Now we have a resolution that legitimizes the occupation. I say that the Democrats repeated use of “Bush lied” and “illegal occupation” talking points have been completely squashed.
The UNs “violation of international law” - like Saddam, Iran, North Korea and other petty dictators that defy the UN.
What will the UN do?
Send a nasty letter?
The Democrats will continue to spread lies despite overwhelming evidence that Bush had the authorization and reasons to go into Iraq. These have been discussed and proven ad-nauseum, but they will continue to feign ignorance.
16. NeoClown | June 10th, 2008 at 8:47 am
We all have to wait for the indictments to be handed down. We don’t even know what crimes President Bush will be charged with yet.
17. neocon | June 10th, 2008 at 9:20 am
“We all have to wait for the indictments to be handed down. We don’t even know what crimes President Bush will be charged with yet” - Clown
Ahmendijad, is that you?
I love liberal delusion in the morning and clown is my favorite dish.
18. Zach | June 10th, 2008 at 10:01 am
“I love liberal delusion in the morning and clown is my favorite dish.”
I’m sorry but thats too damn funny!
19. majoriot | June 10th, 2008 at 10:56 am
I will not argue that Bush knew what was going on. We are all well aware that the words “President Bush”and “intelligence” do not intersect.
I do have to wonder, though, exactly what the President is and is not responsible for.
Oh wait. I do know. He is responsible for what works for the conservative agenda. He is not responsible for what doesn’t work for the conservative agenda.
Can I doubt, for an instant, that any Democratic President would be under careful conservative scrutiny if his intelligence office gave the wrong information that cost over 4,000 soldiers lives, over 100,000 civilian lives and…well, lots of money.
However, one cannot argue that the reasons for and ability to convince the American public that an invasion and occupation of Iraq was necessary was manufactured, and continues to be manufactured, by the government with help from the corporate media.
20. Mark Noonan | June 10th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
major,
Errr, well….no…you see, the report we link to in this article actually demonstrates that there was no manufacturing of the case for war. It is your worldviews which is based on lies, not ours.
21. Mark Noonan | June 10th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Evergreen,
Uh, no…Wilson verified that Saddam was attempting to obtain uranium in Africa…he made his report stating this, and then went out and bald-faced lied in the New York Times (after he became a Kerry foreign policy advisor) about what he found. The Bush Administration then demonstrated that Wilson was a liar…and it was anti-war Armitage, in an apparant bid to help Wilson retain his credibility, who revealed that Plame worked for the CIA to anti-war Novak.
Once again, your whole worldview is based on a series of lies…
22. Quietriot | June 10th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Wilson verified that Saddam was attempting to obtain uranium in Africa 21. Mark Noonan | June 10th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Mark, my God you are simply delusional. To make such an open lie about a fact that is easily refuted, you have no shame and does not make for a fair debate.
This is straight from Published on Sunday, July 6, 2003 by the New York Times “What I Didn’t Find in Africa”
by Joseph C. Wilson 4th
“The next morning, I met with Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick at the embassy. For reasons that are understandable, the embassy staff has always kept a close eye on Niger’s uranium business. I was not surprised, then, when the ambassador told me that she knew about the allegations of uranium sales to Iraq ? and that she felt she had already debunked them in her reports to Washington.”
“It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place. “
23. Mark Noonan | June 10th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
quiet,
Er, yeah…that is the lie that Wilson told. The whole Plame affair is built from that lie…and a dozen other lies told by Plame, Wilson and their supporters as it became ever more clear that Wilson was lying about what he found in Africa.
24. Pain | June 10th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
23. Mark Noonan | June 10th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
You still then believe that Saddam Hussein was trying to purchase uranium in the form of yellowcake from Niger? And how exactly do you think the DGSE would have reacted to this purchase since every gram of nuclear precursor material has to be accounted for by the French government as it moves within Niger and as it crosses international boundaries.
This has nothing to do with political lying or whose side is right in this or any Bush derangement nonsense this is the critical work of securing atomics. There is virtually no way save for mining uranium in your own country to get yellowcake from a mining source. Now if this were a case of smuggling weapons from a former Soviet state We might be able to grant you a bit of licence. In this matter We are resolute in Our certainty that Iraq while they may have sought to discuss purchasing yellowcake from Niger or even other sources these negotiations never took place and certainly never bore fruit.
All of this aside what was the purpose then what was the pearl of great price that Joseph Wilson IV was supposed to gain by lying about Iraq, Niger and yellowcake?
25. Mark Noonan | June 10th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
Pain,
Well, that is what Wilson verified, isn’t it? You have read all the reports about this from the official post-liberation of Iraq investigations, haven’t you?
Niger exports uranium and goats. Saddam sent a trade mission to Niger. What do you think he wanted?
And as for the French keeping a tight lock on the yellowcake…you might want to ask the French, then, how Libya managed to pile up tons of the stuff without anyone finding out…you also might want to check into the number of French politicians who were on Saddam’s payroll…
You know the truth, Pain - you know you believe a series of lies which justify your hatred of President Bush…but, you know?, you’re hatred of the man doesn’t hurt him and, meanwhile, your seething hatred and complicity in lies is harming your immortal soul.
Don’t you think its time you started admiting the truth which is plain as a pikestaff in front of you?
26. JustAnotherTaxpayer | June 11th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Who cares that Bush information was substantiated by an intelligence community that was a year and a half out of 9/11?
Bush and his supporters were firmly in charge of everything at that point. Even Hillary was bamboozled by the faulty intelligence Bush was feeding himself through Cheney vis a vis Ahmed Chalabi. This of course does what all liberals, secular or religious, do when they can’t take responsibility for their actions. Blame it on the great nobody. This even goes to the way loser CEO’s run vast swaths of the private sector they have run into the ground.
“Privatize profits. Socialize losses.”
No one was responsible for the socialized loss of 9/11. It just happened. There was no warning. Clinton should have focused on Bin Laden while repubs focused a 60 million investigation on a semen stained dress only to back down when the charges looked so ridiciulous, true or not, they knew to dismiss him would have been political suicide?
How do we know that Bush did nothing after 9/11 to reform intelligence services? Simple.
Name one top level intelligence official who was fired, demoted, or reprimanded in the wake of that disaster. How was the intelligence community leadership reorganized in the wake of 9/11 that prevented the failure of intelligence in Iraq?
So Bush didn’t lie. It’s only that he was incomptentent once again. But that’s ok with the 25% of you religious liberals who believe a man who repeatedly asserts that he made no mistakes as president in 2004 is to be believed. The rest of the country has a different opinion. Soon there will be a pole to deteremine who in the mind of the country which president was worse:Carter or Bush.
By the end of his administration, Bush will be a shoe in to win that poll.
Have a nice day!!!
27. Quietriot | June 11th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Er, yeah…that is the lie that Wilson told 23. Mark Noonan | June 10th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Then you are stating Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick, a career diplomat, lied as well and in some way took part in your Wilson conspiracy theory. I have never seen her refute anything said in the Op-ed piece.
I know you put GW up there on a pedestal with George Washington, but isn’t it possible he may not always be telling the American people the truth.
Some lies you expect from politicians, but not when it comes to the lives of 4000 troops.
28. The Absurd Report »&hellip | June 25th, 2008 at 8:31 am
[…] Read more from Blogs For Victory Social Networking: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. […]