Senate WMD Report, the 9/11 Report–Will They Matter?
How much fallout will there be from the Senate intelligence committee report that concluded there was little evidence to back up the claim that Iraq posed an immediate and direct threat to the United States?
There should be tremendous outrage–in the halls of Congress, in the public commons. After all, the Bush administration ended up waging an elective war, which has consumed thousands of American and Iraqi lives, on the basis of misinformation and disinformation. (See my full review of the report here.) But who knows what riles people these days. In recent campaign appearances, John Kerry and John Edwards have challenged Bush’s honesty. The Senate report provides plenty of ammunition for such an assault upon Bush–particularly the section on Bush’s prewar claims that Saddam Hussein was in league with al Qaeda. The day after the report was released, Kerry and Edwards accused Bush of governing in a dishonest fashion. “The value of truth is one of the most central values in America, and this administration has violated” it, Kerry said. “Their values system is distorted and not based on truth.” And today’s New York Times reports that the final 9/11 commission report, scheduled to be released at the end of the month, will stick with its staff’s interim conclusion that there was no “collaborative relationship” between Hussein and al Qaeda in the years before the invasion of Iraq. This will be yet another blow to Bush’s credibility.
But even though polls show Americans in recent weeks have come to see Bush as less trustworthy, there is no telling if Bush’s honesty (or lack thereof) will become a decisive issue in the campaign. Are swing voters paying attention to this debate? If the situation improves in Iraq–a big if, but it’s possible–will voters care about how Bush paved the way to war with false assertions?
Though newspaper editorials are a lousy barometer of public sentiment, the contrast between the reactions to the Senate report from two leading newspapers is intriguing. Here’s how The New York Times began its editorial on the report:
“In a season when candor and leadership are in short supply, the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report on the prewar assessment of Iraqi weapons is a welcome demonstration of both. It is also disturbing, and not just because of what it says about the atrocious state of American intelligence. The report is a condemnation of how this administration has squandered the public trust it may sorely need for a real threat to national security.”
The Washington Post, though, displayed little anger about the intelligence committee’s report or the Bush administration. It did note that the report revealed “that the United States lacked reliable reporting about one of its most dangerous enemies, that the handling and interpretation of the data by its intelligence professions was shockingly incompetent, and that the CIA and other agencies badly served the policymakers who relied on them in making the fateful decision to go to war.” And the Post’s editorial board observed that “Mr. Bush, Vice President Cheney and other senior officials sometimes exaggerated the flawed intelligence they were given, even if they were correct in identifying Iraq as a threat.”
Talk about downplaying Bush’s dissembling. The editorial devoted more space to the committee’s finding–which was challenged by Democrats–that no pressure had been applied upon the CIA’s analysts by the administration. The Bush crew’s reliance upon “exaggeration” does not appear to trouble the newspaper, which supposedly is dedicated to the mission of bringing the truth to its readers. Moreover, the paper sticks to the prewar claim it shared with Bush: Iraq was a threat. But before the war, Bush argued that Iraq was an “immediate” and “direct” threat because Hussein had WMDs and a working relationship with al Qaeda. Since the intelligence committee’s report reaffirms that there was no evidence to support either of these assertions, then the “threat” that Bush described did not exist. Sure, Hussein posed a problem and was a long-term menace because of his desires to develop and possess unconventional weapons (as he had in the past). But those yearnings were not the basis for Bush’s war. The Post still cannot bring itself to admit that it and the administration overstated the threat.
In any event, how many troops does the Post editorial board have? Still, will elite opinionmakers–beyond the editorialists of the Times–make Bush’s credibility a certified campaign issue? And Democratic senators should be pushing harder on this point so Kerry and Edward’s don’t have to do all the heavy lifting. The Senate intelligence committee’s report has produced enough material for a week’s worth of angry press conferences. Why did a white paper on Iraq’s WMD produced by the CIA in October 2002 for public release distort evidence, ignore dissenting view, and exaggerate Iraq’s ability to attack the United States? Who was responsible for this paper? Has he or she been disciplined? CIA chief George Tenet resigned weeks ago, but was deputy CIA director John McLaughlin, now the acting CIA director, involved in the production of this phony white paper?
Democratic legislators–even Republican lawmakers–ought to be calling for answers. They also should be demanding that the White House defend or explain its prewar (and postwar) remarks on the supposed links between Iraq and al Qaeda. When Bush said prior to the invasion that Hussein was “a threat because he is dealing with al Qaeda,” what evidence did he have? Had he bothered to read the intelligence reports that concluded there was no working relationship between the pair? Why did Bush and his aides not pay attention to dissenting views in the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq that challenged the notion that Hussein was loaded to the gills with WMDs? Yes, Bush never read the NIE. But did anyone bother to inform him there were dissenting opinions? If so, how did he respond?
Here’s another line of questioning for the White House: Last September, the House intelligence committee–led by Representative Porter Goss, a Republican and former CIA case officer–sent a letter to Tenet noting that its review of the prewar intelligence had concluded the CIA had massively screwed up. (The Senate report confirms–and further explores–much of what the House committee found.) Yet after that letter was sent, Bush continued to insist that he had based his decision to go to war on “good, solid intelligence.” He apparently took no steps to ascertain if the House intelligence committee’s assessment was accurate, and he left Tenet in place despite reason to believe Tenet had presided over one of the biggest intelligence failures in US history (two, if you count the September 11 attacks). Why wasn’t Bush more vigilant in making sure all was well at the CIA?
In the wake of the Senate intelligence committee’s report, the CIA is not the only party that deserves to be hammered. So should the Bush White House. But who will do the pounding? Alas, in partisan Washington during wartime–that is, campaign time–it won’t be Republican patriots. (Where are you John McCain, Chuck Hagel, Richard Lugar?) And if the whacks come mostly from Kerry and Edwards, they will portrayed by many reporters (and the Post’s editorialists) as nothing but partisan jabs. But there is truth beyond partisanship. The big question is, will those mythical 37 swing voters in Ohio notice?
*******************
NOTE: I will be traveling this week and next prior to attending the Democratic convention in Boston. I will post to this blog when I can, but if it is not on a daily basis, please surf elsewhere and make sure to check back periodically. In the meantime, please consider purchasing The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception. It’s just been released in an expanded, paperback edition–"updated with new lies,” the publisher boasts–and makes for excellent beach reading during an election year. Make sure you read it before Bush delivers his acceptance speech at the GOP convention in early September so you, too, can identify all the misrepresentations and disingenuous statements in his address.
Like I was asking…What day do they line ‘em up against the wall. I wanna make my reservations early..
-T
Comment by T.Hajji — 7/12/2004 @ 1:12 pm
T.Hajji
You are referring to each and every elected member of the Senate Armed Services Committee who had oversight responsibility, correct?
Comment by Tim — 7/12/2004 @ 1:29 pm
Americans can’t be that stupid. Most of us knew before the war even began that there was no WMD’s and that there was speculation concluding that the Bush administration had only gone to war in Iraq because the opportunity arose post 9/11. It’s not surprising there’s now reported to be no link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda. Bush and his admin. would have said anything to get what they wanted and they continue to lie. I just hope that Kerry and Edwards don’t solely concentrate on “values” during their campaign, because it’s going to take more than that.
Comment by Anne — 7/12/2004 @ 1:32 pm
Each and every one. Better yet, let’s just move the Capitol to uhm, New Orleans and just start all over. (don’t tell anybody in D.C) Anybody out there wanna be “Stepfather of the Country?” I’m taking applications!
-T
Comment by T.Hajji — 7/12/2004 @ 1:44 pm
This is all amazing coming on the heels of knowing that a large portion of the US population STILL believe that Iraq not only possesed “massive stockpiles” of chemical and/or biological weapons, (nobody bothers to differentiate, ‘ceptin’ fer us folks actually paying attention) they still harbor some ideas that they were actually deployed and used by the fleeing Iraqi units that couldn’t get into street clothes fast enough to collect their share of candy tossed from passing troop transports.
Why should we even pretend to think that enough people are paying attention to digest this latest information? I want to ask people who continue to support the DubbyaShrub administration to tell me what might possibly occur before you’d end your support.
And I’d also
Comment by T.Hajji — 7/12/2004 @ 3:49 pm
…like to hear from the OTHER side. Could anything happen or might anything come to light to change YOU mind at this point.
-T
Comment by T.Hajji — 7/12/2004 @ 3:51 pm
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_071204/content/rush_is_right.guest.html
Additional Views
Jay Rockefeller takes the president to task for using faulty intelligence in making the case for war. But what did Rockefeller say back in 2002?
by Stephen F. Hayes
07/12/2004 8:40:00 AM
DEVASTATING. CRITICAL. SCATHING. Those are just some of the adjectives used to describe the report on prewar Iraq intelligence by the Senate Intelligence Committee. I’d like to add another: Hilarious.
Okay, not the whole report. But the “additional views” section contributed by the committee’s vice chair, Senator Jay Rockefeller (Rockefeller was joined in his view by Senators Carl Levin and Richard Durbin):
The Bush Administration’s case against Iraq was largely based on the argument that we knew with certainty that Iraq possessed large quantities of chemical and biological weapons, was aggressively pursuing nuclear weapons, and that an established relationship between Baghdad and al Qaeda would allow for the transfer of these weapons for use against the United States. This national security rationale being put forth publicly by senior administration officials in support of regime change in Iraq was simple, direct and often fundamentally misleading.
Perhaps Rockefeller, et. al. had in mind a categorical argument like this one.
There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources–something that is not that difficult in the current world. We should also remember that we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction . . . But this isn’t just a future threat. Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East. . . . [emphasis added]
Thank you, Jay Rockefeller, who spoke those words on October 9, 2002, in explanation his vote to “authorize the use of force if necessary.”
In their recent report, Rockefeller and friends charge the Bush administration with language far too “hyperbolic and urgent.” You see, “the qualifications the Intelligence Community placed on what it assessed about Iraq’s links to terrorism and alleged weapons of mass destruction programs were spurned by top Bush Administration officials, early casualties in the war with Iraq.”
The first example?
The danger to America for the Iraqi regime is grave and growing . . . Delay, indecision, and inaction are not options for America, because they could lead to massive and sudden horror.
(President Bush, radio address, October 5, 2002)
That criticism is awfully hard to square with this line from Rockefeller’s floor speech, just four days later: “The president has rightly called Saddam Hussein’s efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction a grave and gathering threat to Americans.”
Among the lines from President Bush singled out in Rockefeller’s “additional view” was this one:
And as I have said repeatedly, Saddam Hussein would like nothing more than to use a terrorist network to attack and to kill and leave no fingerprints behind.
(President Bush, remarks with Prime Minister Blair, January 31, 2003)
That argument doesn’t sound too different from this one, which Rockefeller included in his impassioned floor speech, delivered four months earlier.
And he could make those weapons available to many terrorist groups which have contact with his government, and those groups could bring those weapons into the U.S. and unleash a devastating attack against our citizens. We cannot know for certain that Saddam will use the weapons of mass destruction he currently possesses, or that he will use them against us. But we do know Saddam has the capability.
Or, for that matter, this one from the same speech:
Some argue it would be totally irrational for Saddam Hussein to initiate an attack against the mainland United States, and they believe he would not do it. But if Saddam thought he could attack America through terrorist proxies and cover the trail back to Baghdad, he might not think it so irrational.
The “additional view” from Rockefeller and friends cites this line from President Bush as an example of Bush administration exaggeration:
Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof–the smoking gun–that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.
(President Bush, Speech in Cincinnati, October 7, 2002)
And yet Rockefeller echoed those concerns in his floor speech two days later:
As the attacks of September 11 demonstrated, the immense destructiveness of modern technology means we can no longer afford to wait around for a smoking gun.
SOME OF THE REPORT’S other “additional views” are not merely hypocritical–they’re inaccurate:
Not until September 2003, a half-year after the start of the Iraq War, did the President state in clear, unequivocal terms the Intelligence Community position that [sic] was no evidence supporting such a link between Iraq and the murderous acts of al Qaeda on September 11th.
On January 31, 2003, some six weeks before the war, reporters from Newsweek asked President Bush if Iraq was involved in the September 11 attacks:
Bush, asked Friday about a 9-11 connection to Saddam, admitted, “I cannot make that claim.”
In one very important respect, Rockefeller’s language went well beyond that of the Bush administration:
There has been some debate over how “imminent” a threat Iraq poses. I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat, but I also believe that after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. It is in the nature of these weapons, and the way they are targeted against civilian populations, that documented capability and demonstrated intent may be the only warning we get.
And while Rockefeller now insists that he based his decision to vote for the war on inadequate intelligence–something no one disputes, given the intelligence failures outlined in the rest of the Intelligence Committee’s report–there was a time when he demonstrated little patience for those wanting to know more:
To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? We cannot!
Rockefeller has said in recent days that had he known then what he knows now, he would not have voted in favor of the Iraq War resolution. And he deserves credit for such candor. One hopes that the leaders of his party–John Kerry and John Edwards–will follow his example.
But his attempts to blame the Bush administration for making the same arguments he made–based on the same intelligence–is, well, hilarious.
Comment by Big R — 7/12/2004 @ 3:56 pm
Right on Big R! I just cannot get over the absolute GALL of these politicians who want to rewrite history (and recent history at that) to suit their political agendas. As responsible citizens we must call them out each and every time they open their mouths to spew such poisonous invective at our President.
Comment by Tim — 7/12/2004 @ 8:30 pm
It is the “spewing” at their own constituents that is galling, Timmy. The marionette in the oval office is fair game.
Comment by T.Hajji — 7/12/2004 @ 9:23 pm
We’ve got a choice, folks. We can force out each and every one of these hypocritical bastards, (I, personally, favor starting at the top) deny public office to anyone making, say, over 100,000 a year, lawyers, drug, energy, wall-street pimps, military-industrial warmongers, etc. disband all political parties, force local, regional and nation-wide media to give a set (and small) amount of time to anybody who wants to be burdened by the job for a couple of years to state their claim.
Anyone then elected would submit to 6-months reviews and be fired (or SHOT) if each and every item on their position paper had not been, at least addressed. Eventually, you might just get somebody who might do what they say.
Comment by T.Hajji — 7/12/2004 @ 9:35 pm
Y’know, Tim, when this abortion of a foreign policy began with this administration in Iraq, my stepson was massed at Camp Doha, Kuwait. Once the “Shock and Awe” campain ratcheted up, I wore my yellow ribbons and my Stars and Stripes pin (upside down, of course) on a daily basis. The first person who noticed my “distressed” flag said, “well, we’re at WAR now, you HAVE to support the Troops AND the President! ) Got me thinking Orwell, got me thinking about keeping power by maintaining a perpetual state of war. Telling her to go home and support her OWN kids by sending them out to play in traffic almost got me fired….
We can argue back and forth about semantics and syntax. We can continue to forgive immoral and criminal actions by our government and its “contractors". We can fight back and forth forever.
Until we respect the opinions and the EMOTIONS of the least of the minority, however, it will only be a see-saw pivoting aimlessly. It is time to suck it up and admit that a “majority” (be it popular OR electoral) has no right to force their religious or moral standards on any minority. Maybe then we can move forward.
I mention emotions because I grow weary of the eloquent but uhm, almost CLINICAL (not to mention, if put on paper, would single-handedly necesitate opening our pristine wildernesses to logging for pupwood ONLY) diatribes posted here. How many more times do I have to see someone shouted down for speaking their opinion or reflecting on a emotion they have. How many more times will someone be told that there’s no validity to the way they FEEL about something?
As wonderfully cerebral as ‘yall c’n git, I sure would like hear some personal emotion mixed in with the endless “he said, she said” back and forth. I know where my own opinions are formed, but it is kinda hard to know where someone is coming from if all they do cite and recite supposed “facts” which they can look up. We’re all assholes, and we all have opinions. When a man goes into a voting booth, a bar or a battle he is more likely ruled by his emotions than “facts".
C’mon where is it “all ‘yall’re” coming from?
-T
Comment by T.Hajji — 7/12/2004 @ 10:00 pm
T.Hajji,
We’ll have to amend the Constitution in order to implement your ideas on requirements for our representatives. Think it can be done?
Comment by Bill — 7/12/2004 @ 10:53 pm
Since not even the most learned and respected legal experts in the nation cannot even separate themselves from their politics long enough to interpet the intent of the framers of the Constitution, I’m not sure that an “amendment” would do much to change the constant wrangling over that document.
I’m thinking of building a house from the same type of parchment the (at least FINAL draft of) constitution was written on. Time has proven the material to be able to withstand the most damaging twisting, buckling and de-forming forces ever unleashed upon the planet. LAWYERS! I can imagine such a material holding up before the fiercest of hurricanes, the largest of tornadoes the ravages of time.
Documentary conservators say that the biggest danger to the parchmentof the Constitution is heat and humidity, yet we leave it in the care of the largest source of hot, moist air ever known!
The GOP will bring a vote to the senate this week proposing an amendment to this document to legislate which adults can publicly and legally express their love and commitment toward one another, likely generating years of verbal bull-shit production all for political purposes. At least any new Constitutional (I now know how that word became a euphamism for taking a CRAP!) sheepskin will have fattened for a long time on the greenest of heavily fertilized grasses.
Bill, we don’t even have to “amend” the Constitution, we can just have our congressional representatives cede the power to do so to the executive branch in much the same way they shirked the responsibility for delcaring war!
Yet another reason to flush the big D.C. toilet and start all over.
Who’s with me!? Let’s DO IT!!! AYAAAYAYA
-Bluto Blutarski
Comment by T.Hajji — 7/13/2004 @ 5:42 am
T.Hajji,
Thank you for a most eloquent Post (#11.) I will try to be more forthcoming as to why I believe what I believe and not just argue the facts as I see them. I do want you and others to know I respect your opinion. I do not call names or make personal attacks, but in the heat of discussion I can climb pretty high on my soapbox sometimes.
I only take issue with the following: “It is time to suck it up and admit that a “majority” (be it popular OR electoral) has no right to force their religious or moral standards on any minority” My belief about morals as they pertain to society is that all societies have moral underpinnings. That is to say you can’t have a functioning society with the rule of law without morals. Now the question is who gets to decide which moral principles will be part of that enduring foundation. I contend that it is the majority and yes, there will be times that the minority feels like their “rights” are being violated. I’m here to tell you though that discrimination is often a good thing. All of us practice it every day in one form or another. Society as a whole doesn’t tolerate certain types of behavior no matter what the individuals who are engaged in it believe with respect to their own morals. The reason? Any one person’s morals do not trump society’s morals. Extend that a little further to a certain small, vocal minority that insist their rights are being violated by the majority. They attempt to frame the debate in terms of “civil rights” when their behaviors have nothing to do with the color of the skin they were born with. They simply want to behave in ways that the majority of society has deemed to be outside the accepted moral norm. Now, who gets to decide? Do we allow the minority to redefine the moral underpinnings of the whole society? Further, do we allow them to use the courts to bypass the will of the people as voiced through the legislative process? The answers to these questions have profound implications for our society wouldn’t you agree? So I hope you see that I have strong beliefs when it comes to the moral underpinnings of our society. I believe our very way of life is under attack in this country and it is not from the so-called “religious right.” In fact, faith or religion (take your pick) is only part of the equation.
In conclusion, There will be times that a minority of folks in this country will have to accept the fact that they can’t dictate to the majority! That is not the kind of country we live in. Sure, we evolve in our thinking with respect to what is acceptable behavior in our society, but it is a process we all must be involved in as we all have a say. When people in the minority try to tell me my opinions don’t count because I’m “bigoted” in their opinion I tell them they are un-American! My opinions do have weight and I have the right to be heard.
Comment by Tim — 7/13/2004 @ 7:07 am
Tim,
I feel that it is not only welcome, it is healthy that if they choose to voice opinions or beliefs, they should expect to defend them.
I like to tell people that I’m living “just below the buckle” of the bible belt. Far too many people stick their fingers in their ears (not just a local phenomenon, of course) at the slightest hint of having their personal beliefs challenged but are quick to condemn those around them for believing in even a slightly different fashion. Hell the Bob Jones folks actually picketed the performance of “Jesus Christ Superstar” here because somebody (BJIII) told them it was a “parody” of their personal savior. While they have every right to do so, I was dissapointed to learn that nobody carrying signs could explain exactly what it was that was in opposition to their views.
I feel that political discussions have taken a similar path.
One seemingly cannot express his views and then not expect an opposition response. Should one emote in a public forum? I suppose one is looking for a support group for his beliefs he’d be barkingup the wrong tree. I’m sure there are less public forums for that sort of thing.
Like discussion of religion, political chit-chat will almost always invite inflamed passions. The anonymity of suchs blogs as these invite a level of incivility that wouldn’t be possible in public, personal discussions without daily Burr/Hamilton type activity.
Now, so far as being “dictated to by the minority” I hope you draw a distinction between being HARMED by a minority group’s desire to excersise their “rights” or “beliefs” and simply that such an excersise is OFFENSIVE to you or yours own.
I think THAT is the decision point.
-Hajji
Comment by Hajji — 7/13/2004 @ 9:06 am
…and sorry to be so far off the origin of this thread. I honestly expect that the 911 panel and the Senate Intelligence committee’s findings might just cause quite a few people to re-examine the history of their own beliefs about the war in Iraq. It might even cause some people to push for MORE secrecy from the Pentagon and the White House to avoid such embarrassment.
I personally know a few military personnel who’re not exactly thrilled with the discovery that what THEY were told was the reason for “sticking their dicks out” as we asked them to turns out to be bogus. I also know many of these same soldiers who were glad for a chance to make a difference in the lives of people in the towns and villiages they attempted to control while they were there. Every single one of them seems to remember the name and face of at least one confused, angry, hurt or hungry human being they were honored to help, in some way. “If only we hadn’t had to kill so many to get there,” they say, “but the killing is what we were TRAINED for, we had to figure out the other stuff on our own. It was kinda lke being a policeman in a town with no laws.”
I have personally maintained that we allowed the invasion of Iraq to go forward because of national feelings of emasculation after 9/11. Given time, logic and investigation, it seems we would’ve had a much harder time of it, if we knew then what we know now. I know many of you feel we should’ve gone in regardless of WMD or Al Queda connections (for legal prosecution and humanitarian reasons) but that always strikes me in the same way as fire-bombing a building where a criminal is holding hostages.
I think it will make a difference. I HOPE it does.
-Hajji
Comment by Hajji — 7/13/2004 @ 9:56 am