 |
|
Add to My Group
|
June 10, 2008 at 01:29:50
Promoted to Headline (H2) on 6/10/08: by Jeremy R. Hammond Page 1 of 2 page(s) |
|
 
|
The Washington Post had an editorial yesterday suggesting that it is difficult to say whether President George W. Bush "lied" about Iraq's possession of WMD, which has become "an article of faith" among many Americans. The author, Fred Hiatt, limits his criticism of Cheney and others in the administration to the severe understatement that they "spoke with too much certainty at times." No kidding. Hiatt then writes that if you "dive into" the recently released Senate Select Committee on Intelligence "Phase II" report on pre-war intelligence on Iraq's WMD "in search of where exactly President Bush lied about what his intelligence agencies were telling him," then you "may be surprised by what you find." He quotes the report as saying that statements made by Bush were supported by the available intelligence:
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."
Let's examine the matter for ourselves. And since Hiatt focuses on Bush himself, let's do the same, ignoring statements from Cheney and other high level administration officials for the moment.
On Iraq's nuclear weapons program, the report notes, Bush claimed that Iraq "retains physical infrastructure needed to build a nuclear weapon." This statement was not supported by the available intelligence, but was contradicted by it. The best intelligence on Iraq's nuclear program was open-source: the International Atomic Energy Agency, which had "destroyed, removed or rendered harmless all Iraqi facilities and equipment relevant to nuclear weapons production" by as early as 1992. In 1998, the IAEA was "confident that we had not missed any significant component of Iraq's nuclear programme."
Bush claimed that "The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program." There was no credible evidence that Iraq had reconstituted its nuclear weapons program. The intelligence suggesting this might possibly be the case was circumstantial at best.
To support his claim that "the smoking gun" that Iraq might have a nuclear weapon "could come in the form of a mushroom cloud," Bush claimed that "Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon." This statement was not substantiated by intelligence information. It was contradicted by the known facts about the tubes, which were not suitable for use in centrifuges but were perfectly suitable for use in an existing conventional rocket system, as noted by not only the US's top experts on centrifuges at the Department of Energy, but also by some of the world's leading scientists at he IAEA.
Bush claimed that "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." But the British government hadn't "learned" that. It was not a fact. In fact, the "intelligence" supporting this claim was so dubious the CIA had warned the British government about including it in the white paper Bush was referring to. The only evidence ever produced to support this claim were documents that proved to be forgeries.
On nuclear weapons, Hiatt quotes the conclusion as saying that administration claims "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates," but leaves off the end of the same sentence, which continues, "but did not convey the substantial disagreements that existed in the intelligence community." In other words, they stated as fact that which the intelligence community had not reported as such. In other words, their statements were not substantiated by the intelligence community.
This, of course, appears to contradict the part of the conclusion quoted by Hiatt, unless one looks closely at the caveats. First, the word "generally." All this means is that if an administration official made ten statements on Iraq with regard to its alleged pursuit of nuclear weapons, perhaps only one or two were not substantiated by intelligence community estimates.
Next, "estimates." Intelligence community "estimates," such as the key judgments of the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, are just that: estimates, judgments. A synonym for "judgment" is "opinion". Facts are facts. But judgments may be well or poorly made. The CIA, as we know, made many poor judgments, claims that were not supported by the intelligence.
1 | 2
www.foreignpolicyjournal.com
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
|
|
|
| 9 comments |
|
Back in the '60's
we had a term that covered all sorts of connivance, coverup, malfeasance etc. we encountered. We simply referred to the organ, agency, politician, media entity, whatever, as part of the establishment. Simple. Obviously. the paper is now part of the establishment, instead of a leader in the fourth estate. Time for change (and not necessarily the change the Democratic candidate is pushing for, change with no parameters, no goals, no policy on the horizon.) by Jack Harrington (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 675 comments [70 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jun 10, 2008 at 11:44:47 AM  (0+)
|
|
he lied!
bush either lied or is completely stupid. I suspect both. by irwin wingo (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 13 comments) on Tuesday, Jun 10, 2008 at 12:19:28 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Yep
Yep. It's got to be the one or the other. Or both. I think both, in Bush's case. With Cheney, et al, they're just liars. I've no doubt they believed most of their own propaganda, that they were self-deceived. But that's still lying. by Jeremy R. Hammond (42 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 86 comments) on Tuesday, Jun 10, 2008 at 9:34:36 PM (0+)
|
|
Bush's treasonous lies
Read Vincent Bugliosi's book. "The Prosecution of G.W. Bush for Murder." Bugliosi recites the many lies that hoodlum Bush and his henchmen told to excuse his invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation. He explains why these punks should be tried for murdering over 4,000 young American soldiers and over a million Iraqi civilians. It's a gripping read thsat cries out for accountability. by dglow (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 7 comments) on Tuesday, Jun 10, 2008 at 12:39:33 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Nuremberg
Yes. If the standard of Nuremberg were applied, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, Rice, Powell, et al would be hanged. The invasion is an act of aggression "the supreme international crime". by Jeremy R. Hammond (42 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 86 comments) on Tuesday, Jun 10, 2008 at 9:36:30 PM (0+)
|
|
Have these "Investigator's"
not heard of the Downing Street memo? Or know of UN investigator Hans Blix and his futile attempts in locating WMD's within Iraq before the mis-guided illegal foreign policy blunder that the "War Of Terror" has wrought? Will Buckshot Dick ever have to make his Energy Policy meeting public? Providing details that fomented the idea to usurp two sovereign nations governments that had nothing to do with or harbored the accused mastermind that was a CIA supported through Al-CIAda operative Osma Bin Forgotten... er Laden? On a different note in regards to your ESL-teaching. Are Taiwanese students as apathetic-sleeping/text messaging-non motivated as their mainland counterparts, where I have been ESL- baby sitter of university students the past 4.5 years? by Stanimal (2 articles, 226 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 1254 comments [234 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jun 10, 2008 at 2:54:53 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: ESL
Most are unmotivated, yes. But I can understand that. Most don't want to be there. When I was a kid, school was out at 3:00. These kids get out of public school then go to cram schools sometimes until 8 or 9. You get an occassional rare student who seems motivated and really wants to learn. Another thing is that kids don't learn how to think for themselves in the public school system. I haven't worked in the public system, but it's obvious from working with them that they just aren't getting that kind of education. It's rote memorization and repitition and math and stuff, but they don't have much ability with critical thinking skills and logic. They're mostly bright kids, but their brains just haven't been developed in certain areas. by Jeremy R. Hammond (42 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 86 comments) on Tuesday, Jun 10, 2008 at 9:29:58 PM (0+)
|
|
WMD's
Excuse me, but was I the only one watching TV when the American Troops were going into Iraq, getting ready to over take Baghdad, I heard Saddam tell America .. "If you attact Iraq, I will destroy you with our weapons of mass distruction"- I woudl think we would be more upset that we put Nancy Pelosi in Congress to go with the New America only to find out China and Cuba can drill for oil 60 miles off the coast of Florida, but WE can't ... President Carter got the ball rolling, only to be defeated by President Clinton in 1995. Are we that set against bringing the prices down by supplying more oil ? Bush lies............ the American Government as a whole has lied ........ by don bybee (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 206 comments) on Tuesday, Jun 10, 2008 at 4:50:01 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: WMD
No, Saddam never said that. US intelligence, however, assessed that Saddam would probably only use his alleged WMD in response to a US attack. by Jeremy R. Hammond (42 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 86 comments) on Tuesday, Jun 10, 2008 at 9:32:01 PM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
