Bush revives "revisionist history"

[bascule]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/IraqCoverage/wireStory?id=1303926

 

TOBYHANNA, Pa. Nov 11, 2005 — President Bush, in the most forceful defense yet of his Iraq war policy, accused critics Friday of trying to rewrite history and charged that they're undercutting America's forces on the front lines.

 

"The stakes in the global war on terror are too high and the national interest is too important for politicians to throw out false charges," the president said in his combative Veterans Day speech.

 

"While it's perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began," the president said.

 

Bush's combative defense of his policy came at a time of growing doubts and criticism about a war that has claimed the lives of more than 2,050 members of the U.S. military. As casualties have climbed, Bush's popularity has dropped. His approval rating now is at 37 percent in the latest AP-Ipsos poll, an all time low point of his presidency.

 

Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., quickly returned Bush's criticism.

 

"Its deeply regrettable that the president is using Veterans Day as a campaign-like attempt to rebuild his own credibility by tearing down those who seek the truth about the clear manipulation of intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq war," Kennedy said in a statement.

 

"Instead of providing open and honest answers about how we will achieve success in Iraq and allow our troops to begin to come home," Kennedy said, "the president reverted to the same manipulation of facts to justify a war we never should have fought."

 

The president spoke at the Tobyhanna Army Depot on a stage decorated with posters that said "Strategy for Victory."

 

His appearance came as his primary justification for the 2003 invasion that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction has come under fresh attack on Capitol Hill. Democrats have seized on the indictment of a now-resigned senior White House aide in the CIA leak case to shine the spotlight on how the president and other officials used intelligence about Iraq in the weeks and months leading up to the war.

[Pangloss]

Not only is Bush wrong, but it's unfortunate that he has to be corrected by a real national disgrace like Kennedy.

 

I guess the president has forgotten that he only introduced the WMD charge after it was clear that the American public was not behind invading Iraq based solely on a loose, largely unsubstantiated connection with Al Qaeda and 9/11. (A connection which later proved to be correct with regard to Al Qaeda, but incorrect with regard to 9/11.) That according to strongly independent and demonstrably objective journalists like Bob Woodward and Judith Miller.

 

So who's being the revisionist here, really?

[Douglas]

Bush said this.............

 

"While it's perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began," the president said.

 

He didn't say he forgot anything:

 

I guess the president has forgotten that he only introduced the WMD charge after it was clear that the American public was not behind invading Iraq based solely on a loose, largely unsubstantiated connection with Al Qaeda and 9/11.

 

And there's no doubt that the Dems are trying to re-write history.

[bascule]

And there's no doubt that the Dems are trying to re-write history.

 

Who specifically are you referring to by "the Dems"... Reid? And how specifically are they trying to "re-write history"? Because they originally supported the war (having just received a healthy dose of post-9/11 paranoia), expecting a repeat of Bush Sr's performance and not the lies and deception that marked this administration's march up to war?

[Douglas]

Who specifically are you referring to by "the Dems"... Reid? And how specifically are they trying to "re-write history"? Because they originally supported the war[/url'] (having just received a healthy dose of post-9/11 paranoia), expecting a repeat of Bush Sr's performance and not the lies and deception that marked this administration's march up to war?

Yeah, Reid, Kennedy, Pelosi, the usual suspects.....Seems like it's now common knowledge that Bush manipulated the CIA into providing info that Mr Saddam had WMD's.

 

The Dems seem to forget that that several CIA equivalents from foriegn countries corroborated said evidence, not to mention Kerry and other notable Dems.

[bascule]

Umm, have you not been keeping up on this whole Joseph Wilson thing? Namely the New York Times article he wrote over two years ago?

 

Ever heard of the Downing Street Memo?

 

These are the things people want answers from the administration about...

[Mokele]

(A connection which later proved to be correct with regard to Al Qaeda, but incorrect with regard to 9/11.)

 

I thought it was shown that Iraq representatives met with Al Qaeda, but there was no evidence that a relationship was pursued?

 

And there's no doubt that the Dems are trying to re-write history.

 

No, they aren't. There's a big difference between questioning what went on and "re-writing history". The latter is a willful attempt to skew of falsify what actually happened in favor of a particular ideology with little care for intellectual intergrity. The former is attempting to actually figure out what went on in the past by thorough investigation, to be sure that the curent version of what went on *is* actually right.

 

You cannot simply label any investigation into past events as "re-writing history" and dismiss it.

 

Mokele

[Douglas]

Umm' date=' have you not been keeping up on this whole Joseph Wilson thing? Namely the New York Times article he wrote over two years ago?

 

Ever heard of the Downing Street Memo?

 

These are the things people want answers from the administration about...[/quote']Yeah bascule, I heard of 'em all....and what does that have to do with the price of eggs?

[Pangloss]

Two wrongs don't make a right. What the democrats have or have not done is immaterial to the question of whether or not Bush is being deliberately selective in discussing how the war was sold to the American public.

[Skye]

What is Bush refering to here?

[bascule]

What is Bush refering to here?

 

As far as I can tell, people trying to assert that a deliberate misinformation campaign was used in order to justify the Iraq War...

[Skye]

In any case, I don't think it's irresponsible to rewrite history if the rewrite is closer to the truth.

[Pangloss]

Bear in mind that what we're seeing here really has nothing to do with the war in Iraq at all. This is a new initiative from the White House to raise poll numbers, and there's no doubt that the origin of this initiative is Karl Rove -- half of what he said today was straight out of the 2004 election campaign playbook. It's also an indication that Rove is still in the "inner circle".

 

From a purely political perspective, I think it's a mistake. At this level of politics, it's either a glaring error or a brilliant move -- one of those deals. But I believe it's a mistake.

 

Bush's poll numbers aren't dropping because he's failing to get his message out. They're dropping because people don't like what they're seeing. Continued presence in Iraq is a small part of it. Oil prices are a much larger part of it. Partisan bickering is an even bigger piece of the puzzle. (Poll after poll shows that Americans are even more annoyed at congress, and have no faith at all that Democrats are offering anything better than Republicans -- extremely revealing statistics, IMO.0

 

What Bush is doing now is what worked in the election cycle. But that won't work now, because once the election is over what voters want to see are *results*, not more talk. And in this environment more partisan bickering is the LAST thing he should be participating in.

 

My prediction: His poll numbers will drop further.

[john5746]

I'm not sure Pangloss, you think he may be trying to head off a Republican exodus from the Iraq war prior to the 2006 elections? He may want to avoid being pressured to withdraw from Iraq prematurely?

 

Just a hunch, have no evidence for it.

[bascule]

In any case, I don't think it's irresponsible to rewrite history if the rewrite is closer to the truth.

 

Yes, "revisionist history" is a euphemism they coined for "people who say we misrepresented the intelligence leading into the Iraq war are liars" in an attempt to cover their own lies about the Iraq war...

 

Excuse me, I should've used "misrepresentations of truth" in lieu of "lies" for you PC types...

[Pangloss]

For what it's worth, the only thing I think the Bush administration did that was inappropriate was to make the tactical switch to WMDs. I don't think there's sufficient evidence to suggest that deliberate deception was involved.

 

Bear in mind that if there was a mistake there, congress is equally to blame for that error. They receive intelligence independently -- the administration is unable to either prevent or alter the kind of intelligence that was presented to the intelligence committees on terrorism. So Nancy Pelosi, who said that the evidence was "unequivocal", made the same mistake Bush made. Not to mention John Kerry, who said "there is no question Saddam has chemical and biological weapons". Or Hillary Clinton, or Ted Kennedy, or any of the rest of 'em.

 

We need to get past the politically correct and ABB aspects of this issue.

[Douglas]

No' date=' they aren't. There's a big difference between questioning what went on and "re-writing history". The latter is a willful attempt to [b']skew[/b] of falsify what actually happened in favor of a particular ideology with little care for intellectual intergrity.

Mokele

Mokele, I think the operative word is "skew".

[Douglas]

you think he may be trying to head off a Republican exodus from the Iraq war prior to the 2006 elections? .

John, I don't think so. It seems to me that any level headed Repub or Dem, whether for or against the start of the war, has come to terms with the fact that we're there...period. We have to stay the course.

[Douglas]

Excuse me, I should've used "misrepresentations of truth" in lieu of "lies" for you PC types...

That's Ok bascule, in 10 years the phrase "misrepresentations of truth", will be conspicuously offensive and politically incorrect, the new PC word will be LIAR.

[bascule]

Here's my quick analysis of the article below: Bush filters the intelligence Congress gets, then blames them for voting for the war! Try to complain about the selective intelligence you received and Bush will accuse you of flip-flopping. And if that doesn't work he'll say questioning the Administration does a great disservice to our men and women in uniform.

 

(sorry Pangloss for juxtaposing this against your parroting of the administration's argument, but the "Congress had access to all the same intelligence as the President" myth just doesn't hold water)

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/11/AR2005111101832.html

 

President Bush and his national security adviser have answered critics of the Iraq war in recent days with a two-pronged argument: that Congress saw the same intelligence the administration did before the war, and that independent commissions have determined that the administration did not misrepresent the intelligence.

 

Neither assertion is wholly accurate.

 

The administration's overarching point is true: Intelligence agencies overwhelmingly believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and very few members of Congress from either party were skeptical about this belief before the war began in 2003. Indeed, top lawmakers in both parties were emphatic and certain in their public statements.

 

But Bush and his aides had access to much more voluminous intelligence information than did lawmakers, who were dependent on the administration to provide the material. And the commissions cited by officials, though concluding that the administration did not pressure intelligence analysts to change their conclusions, were not authorized to determine whether the administration exaggerated or distorted those conclusions.

 

National security adviser Stephen J. Hadley, briefing reporters Thursday, countered "the notion that somehow this administration manipulated the intelligence." He said that "those people who have looked at that issue, some committees on the Hill in Congress, and also the Silberman-Robb Commission, have concluded it did not happen."

 

But the only committee investigating the matter in Congress, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, has not yet done its inquiry into whether officials mischaracterized intelligence by omitting caveats and dissenting opinions. And Judge Laurence H. Silberman, chairman of Bush's commission on weapons of mass destruction, said in releasing his report on March 31, 2005: "Our executive order did not direct us to deal with the use of intelligence by policymakers, and all of us were agreed that that was not part of our inquiry."

 

Bush, in Pennsylvania yesterday, was more precise, but he still implied that it had been proved that the administration did not manipulate intelligence, saying that those who suggest the administration "manipulated the intelligence" are "fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments."

 

In the same speech, Bush asserted that "more than 100 Democrats in the House and the Senate, who had access to the same intelligence, voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power." Giving a preview of Bush's speech, Hadley had said that "we all looked at the same intelligence."

 

But Bush does not share his most sensitive intelligence, such as the President's Daily Brief, with lawmakers. Also, the National Intelligence Estimate summarizing the intelligence community's views about the threat from Iraq was given to Congress just days before the vote to authorize the use of force in that country.

 

In addition, there were doubts within the intelligence community not included in the NIE. And even the doubts expressed in the NIE could not be used publicly by members of Congress because the classified information had not been cleared for release. For example, the NIE view that Hussein would not use weapons of mass destruction against the United States or turn them over to terrorists unless backed into a corner was cleared for public use only a day before the Senate vote.

 

The lawmakers are partly to blame for their ignorance. Congress was entitled to view the 92-page National Intelligence Estimate about Iraq before the October 2002 vote. But, as The Washington Post reported last year, no more than six senators and a handful of House members read beyond the five-page executive summary.

 

Even within the Bush administration, not everybody consistently viewed Iraq as what Hadley called "an enormous threat." In a news conference in February 2001 in Egypt, then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said of the economic sanctions against Hussein's Iraq: "Frankly, they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction."

 

Bush, in his speech Friday, said that "it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began." But in trying to set the record straight, he asserted: "When I made the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, Congress approved it with strong bipartisan support."

 

The October 2002 joint resolution authorized the use of force in Iraq, but it did not directly mention the removal of Hussein from power.

 

The resolution voiced support for diplomatic efforts to enforce "all relevant Security Council resolutions," and for using the armed forces to enforce the resolutions and defend "against the continuing threat posed by Iraq."

 

Hadley, in his remarks, went further. "Congress, in 1998, authorized, in fact, the use of force based on that intelligence," he said. "And, as you know, the Clinton administration took some action."

 

But the 1998 legislation gave the president authority "to support efforts to remove the regime of Saddam Hussein" by providing assistance to Iraqi opposition groups, including arms, humanitarian aid and broadcasting facilities.

 

President Bill Clinton ordered four days of bombing of Iraqi weapons facilities in 1998, under the 1991 resolution authorizing military force in response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Describing that event in an interview with CBS News yesterday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said: "We went to war in 1998 because of concerns about his weapons of mass destruction."

[Pangloss]

I don't see how this counters my point that Congress shares in the blame. I also don't see how saying that congress is "equally to blame" is the same thing as saying "congress is fully to blame". It sounds to me like you just need somebody to vent your frustrations at the administration on.

[bascule]

I don't see how this counters my point that Congress shares in the blame.

 

Congress was lied to. Are you going to tell me that the Administration which sent both Joseph Wilson and 4-star Marine Gen. Carlton W. Fulford Jr. to Niger to investigate the forged documents obtained by British intelligence had absolutely no knowledge of these individuals' findings? Do you think the administration had an obligation to pass this information onto Congress, or do you feel that Congress is still culpable even though the centerpiece of the administration's argument for war was not only forged, but it was most certainly known by the Administration to have been forged and this information was specifically withheld from Congress.

 

I also don't see how saying that congress is "equally to blame" is the same thing as saying "congress is fully to blame".

 

Who are you quoting in the latter statement? And why are you even bringing this up? Shall we look at your statement you quoted in context?

 

...congress is equally to blame for that error. They receive intelligence independently -- the administration is unable to either prevent or alter the kind of intelligence that was presented to the intelligence committees on terrorism.

 

I believe this statement is factually incorrect. The administration must clear all information which Congress receives. The Washington Post article I linked corroborates my claim. When the administration claims that the British have documents saying that Saddam tried to obtain hundreds of tons of uranium yellowcake from Niger and omit the "Oh by the way, we sent both a celebrated diplomat and a four star general to investigate this claim, and they both came back and said it was false" part, I'm sorry, but that is a lie. Do you have any sort of source which can corroborate your claim that Congress is culpible for not obtaining this information themselves? How would they even have known what to ask for, let alone gotten it cleared?

 

It sounds to me like you just need somebody to vent your frustrations at the administration on.

 

You pay lip service to the problem...

 

I guess the president has forgotten that he only introduced the WMD charge after it was clear that the American public was not behind invading Iraq based solely on a loose, largely unsubstantiated connection with Al Qaeda and 9/11. (A connection which later proved to be correct with regard to Al Qaeda, but incorrect with regard to 9/11.)

 

(by the way, the Iraq/Al Qaeda connection has been shown to be incorrect [source])

 

...but then parrot the Administration's spin on the issue, and that's what frustrates me. Congress was intentionally deceived by the Administration. The Administration was caught in a bluff, they lost the wager, but they don't want to pay; they want to shift blame and discredit their opponents.

 

Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame are both victims of a horribly botched cover up/character assassination attempt by the Administration. Given this, it really surprises me that people continue to insist that there was no intentional deception on the part of the administration. I may be jumping to conclusions in that they would only attempt character assassination in order to cover up malice rather than incompetence, but regardless there was malice involved; I think we'll see at least Libby pay, if not the man Cheney himself.

[Pangloss]

Congress was lied to. Are you going to tell me ... (etc etc etc)

 

What I'm going to tell you is that that is a matter of opinion, not fact. I respect your opinion on it, but the evidence does not exist, and as has been pointed out here on numerous occassion, quite a lot of counter-evidence exists.

 

And that counter-evidence has firmly fallen into the "casual acceptance" category, by the way. If you watch the Sunday political shows, as I do, you'll find it part of the underlying premise of questions from reporters to politicians, etc. That encompasses another underlying premise, which is that several investigations have shown a complete lack of evidence that any analysts were under political suasion to change their findings. You're simply out in the hinterlands on this.

 

That is not to say, however, that you are wrong. You may be right. But the evidence is simply not there.

 

 

What I do find credible, however, and perhaps even patently obvious, is that the administration was deceptive in the way it "sold" the war to the public, vis-a-vis the shifting of emphasis from terrorism and 9/11 retribution over to the issue of WMDs. They took evidence which they knew was less than 100%, called it 100%, and sold it to the public.

 

They did it right out in the public domain, right in front of our faces, and the only reason that it's not the biggest issue of the 21st century is because the mainstream media is afraid to admit that it screwed the pooch.

 

 

I believe this statement is factually incorrect. The administration must clear all information which Congress receives.

 

First of all, even if the administration cherry-picked the data (which I have no problem believing is likely, even if it hasn't been proven either) you still have Democrats (like Hillary Clinton) saying that it was the right decision and backing it even today, even after all further revelations. Sure, you have some (like Kerry) saying otherwise, but you have insufficient evidence of non-partisan motivation here to call their claims objectively accurate.

 

Second, the intelligence committee operates independently of executive branch authority. It reports to the two intelligence committees whether the president wants it to or not. It's illegal for the president to interfere with that process, and such interference is newsworthy, and we would be talking about that if it were the case.

 

On a larger level, I don't really see why you feel it's so important to absolve congress of any blame for Iraq, or why you feel that lessens your case against Bush, but I hope it's not just more ABB-ness. You're really far too intelligent to be taken in by that sort of trap.

 

 

(by the way, the Iraq/Al Qaeda connection has been shown to be incorrect [source'])

 

That source doesn't do that. It does address the issue, and suggests that the relationship may not have been as direct as the administration made it out to be in 2002, but it doesn't address all of the claimed connections, such as the known meetings that took place. As such, it's not proof, and you can't claim that it is.

 

It's an interesting piece, however, and I appreciate you passing it along. I wouldn't be surprised at all if over time we found that any connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda was minor and more or less unutilized.

 

It is not my position that such a connection is relevent, or a good excuse to invade Iraq. But I think you knew that already.

 

 

At any rate, if you think that Joseph Wilson is a victim, you've got a lot to learn about politics, my friend. You need to get used to the fact that not everyone is going to follow you down the path every time, bro. Intelligent people can agree to disagree. That doesn't make them "parrots".

[john5746]

John, I don't think so. It seems to me that any level headed Repub or Dem, whether for or against[/b'] the start of the war, has come to terms with the fact that we're there...period. We have to stay the course.

 

What is the "course"? A golf course? This is the main problem I think. People are not sure what the objective is and cannot trust Bush has one either. When we leave Iraq, it will still have all the problems it has currently.

 

They need real objectives and real timelines to meet those objectives.

[Pangloss]

People are not sure what the objective is...

They need real objectives and real timelines to meet those objectives.

 

I'm afraid I don't understand this whole "timelines" argument. Do you think the terrorists will respect our timelines? How can you schedule something that is inherently unpredictable? Isn't that an impossible requirement? (Or is that the whole point -- making the requirements impossible to meet so you can call it a failure no matter what?)

 

What's wrong with the currenct objectives, specifically? You say they're unknown, but I (no fan of the Iraq war) seem to be pretty familiar with them right off the top of my head:

 

- Train the Iraqi army and police forces to the point of being self-sufficient

- Continue working on the infrastructure

- Re-establish oil production (done)

- Re-establish the power grid (vastly improved already)

- Improve other services (water/sanitation)

- Once these goals are met, begin pulling out our troops

 

What's so confusing or uncertain about that?