Manipulation for war?

[st8_o_mind]

From today's Washington post:

"That was a war based on lies and misinterpretations from London and Washington, claiming falsely that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11, claiming falsely that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction."

That was former President Jimmy Carter quoted in today's edition. With respect to your question, Carter went on to say Bush and Blair "probably knew that many of the allegations were based on uncertain intelligence."

There are numerous indications that the White House knowingly lied. To name a few;

The white house, at the direction of Tenant, withdrew the yellow cake assertion from a speech bush made before the state of the union address. Moreover, the request to investigate the yellow cake came from VP Cheney. It stretches credulity to believe that Cheney did not read the report from the CIA that he asked for, and then, months later, came to the opposite conclusion than Ambassador Wilson. Moreover, Hans Blix, on Friday’s “News Hour with Jim Lerher” spoke to the yellow cake claim pointing out that the head of the IAEA took only one day to conclude that the documents that the claim was based on were forged after US intelligence agencies had them for months.

That the White House knowingly lied seems not only an inescapable conclusion, but, as I already posted, the White House has acknowledged that the claim should not have been in Bush’s speech. This false claim, apart from undermining the credibility of the White House raises several other troubling questions about US intelligence gathering and vetting. But what troubles me most about this particular episode is that a senior White House aide, in an attempt to discredit Ambassador Wilson, exposed his wife as an undercover CIA agent. I believe that this constitutes treason at the highest levels of the US government. Moreover, it was done for the same reason the White House is now attacking Clark. They need to shoot the messenger, or at least cast a cloud of doubt over his claims to limit the damage to the Bush re-election campaign. This is not only disgraceful and unethical, but also literally criminal. As another former Bush Administration official, John Dululio noted in 2002, the Bush Administration is “the reign of the Mayberry Machiavellis.”

Well, all of this for just one lie and there is so much more. I think I’ll stop. I did not intend to write a book.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by st8_o_mind
There are numerous indications that the White House knowingly lied.

So we've went from them being outright lies by George Bush in the state of the union address to "indications" of lies by the white house. Yet still no proof, just opinion.

Why did you change from GW to the white house?

 

[eric]

"indications"

What ever happened to innocent until PROVEN guilty ?

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by eric
What ever happened to innocent until PROVEN guilty ?

gingrich did away with that in washington, didn't he?

 

[eric]

Very funny !:

 

[st8_o_mind]

Your last posting cracked me up. You remind me that denial ain't just a rive in Egypt.

In response to your specific questions, I changed from GW to the White House because the former referred to the state of the union speech with GW personally gave whereas the White House refers to Bush and members of his administration. This seems a bit obvious to me. You’re splitting hairs.

The point that you seem to be trying to make is that the White House (or Bush if you prefer) did not lie, but based their claims on faulty intelligence. Thus, the often repeated claim by Bush and his senior aides that there was a connection between Iraq and 9/11 was not a lie, but bad information. What makes Clark’s book so damaging to the President is that his book speaks directly to that point. Here is a senior intelligence officer in the White House saying, among other things, that the intelligence he personally gave Bush on September 12, was that the intelligence community found no such link.

The unmistakable, irrevocable, clear, unambiguous fact is that the claim of a connection between 9/11 and Iraq, made not just by Bush but also by his cabinet, is false. Ditto the weapons of mass destruction. For a year now, Bush and his aids have claimed that they simply did not know the information was false. If Clark is telling the truth, then the claim that they did not know is a lie as well.

Today and tomorrow on Capitol Hill, intelligence experts from both the Clinton and Bush administrations will be testifying before Congress on the intelligence given the White House both before and after September 11. We will learn more. I doubt that anyone will turn up with a tape recording of Bush speaking to Cheney saying, “hey, let’s publicly say whatever we can to justify going to war with Iraq, whether it is true or not.” Short of that type of “smoking gun” I doubt anything will satisfy you as proof. But at some point if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck….

 

[eric]

Here is a senior intelligence officer in the White House saying, among other things, that the intelligence he personally gave Bush on September 12, was that the intelligence community found no such link

Interesting that he waited until now, don't you think ?

 

[eric]

The unmistakable, irrevocable, clear, unambiguous fact is that the claim of a connection between 9/11 and Iraq, made not just by Bush but also by his cabinet, is false

I am glad you are so positive it is false, initial indications might seem that way, but don't you think this is a rush to judgement. Many times it takes years to sort of intelligence matters concerning ties and connections between groups.

 

[st8_o_mind]

I think what he said is far more interesting then when he said it. Today's Washington Post reported that White House press secretary Scott McClellen "argued that Clarks book was politically motivated and timed." That is McClellen's job. Shoot the messenger. But as I posted yesterday, the real story is not Clark, not the French (and old Europe!), it is not the credibility of the UN, it is not inspectors, it is not Secretary O'Neil, not what a bastard Saddam is, not gay marriage, not Ambassador Wilson...THE STORY is BUSH. Suppressing the true cost of the medicare bill was unethical, exposing Ambassador Wilson's wife was criminal, and lying to the country, the Congress, the United Nation’s, our allies, and worst, to American servicemen and women to falsely justify taking the country to a war in which 576 American's in uniformed service to their country have died and thousands maimed, consigns Bush to a special place in hell. That is the story.

 

[st8_o_mind]

Sorry Eric, I didn't see your post. With respect to your question...give me a sec.

 

[OCA]

Funny that a lot of this stuff comes from the Washington Post and the New York Times, couldn't be that they are anti-Bush or could it? This is in regards to the rush to judgement, these same people defended Bill Clinton who lied under oath.

 

[DKSuddeth]

I'd hardly consider the washington post 'liberal media'

 

[OCA]

Try reading them for a week straight then tell me what you think. I'm in D.C and believe me they have an obvious Demo-liberal slant, I don't really think that is in question by most people on either side same as the Washington Times is undoubtedly on the right.

 

[st8_o_mind]

You wrote: I am glad you are so positive it is false, initial indications might seem that way, but don't you think this is a rush to judgement. Many times it takes years to sort of intelligence matters concerning ties and connections between groups.

A couple of things Eric. First, if the alleged connection between Iraq and 9/11 is unclear as you point out, then the Bush administration should not have made it. It was one of the reasons given to go to war. That is pretty serious. Also, remember, the White House claimed that Iraqi intelligence officers met with Mohammed Atta in the Czech Republic. It turns out that that was false. We in fact know that it was false. Not only has the Czech intelligence service rebuffed the Administrations claim that the meeting took place, but we now have in captivity many of the highest-ranking Iraqi intelligence officers. If there was a connection not only would we know, but also the White House would have it on every network in the country. Moreover, the alleged connection is contrary to what is well known about al-quaida and Iraq. Iraq was the most secular country in the middle east. Al-Quaida are fundamentalists. There views are diametrically opposed.

Another thing we do know for sure. There is a connection between Al-quaide and Iraq now. Thanks George.

Finally, you wrote of a “rush to judgment.” I am stunned by that statement. Our country (assuming you are an American as I am) launched a “pre-emptive” war – or as the US Army War College report recently described it – “a war of choice” against another nation with all the death and destruction that goes along with war, based on intelligence that, it turns out, was completely false. That is the rush to judgment that counts. I did not take the country to war based on either bad intelligence, as Jim would claim, or based on lies, as the rest of the world now knows, Bush did.

 

[st8_o_mind]

I quoted the post (not the nY times) because I live in DC and that is the paper delivered to my door every day. If I lived in
Chicago, I'd be quoting the Tribune. It should be noted that the Post supported the war in Iraq, the NY Times opposed it. Earler today I wrote a lenghly post saying the story is not Clark, not O'Neil, not gay marriage etc. but the issue is Bush. Please add 'liberal media" to the list.

 

[eric]

I have to run out so I can not thoughtfully or properly reply till I get back in about an hour. The one thing I will say though is do not make the mistake of questioning my love for my country.

 

[OCA]

I live in D.C also, you should try reading the Times, much more balanced paper :

If the post did indeed support boy has that tune changed.

Bottom line is these so called "lies" are allegations only and in most if not all cases due to faulty intelligence which says that maybe the intelligence services need to be overhauled.

Just out of curiosity, it is generally agreed that something had to be done about Sadaam and diplomacy and U.N. resolutions had failed miserably so what would you have done? Note: nothing is not an answer that is on the table.

Almost forgot, although their views are diametrically opposed do given the money and resources that both sides possessed do you really believe that both sides were disciplined enough to not do business with each other? Really the fact that Sadaam was paying money to the families of suicide bombers in Israel is evidence enough of his support for terrorism thereby justifying his removal by force.

 

[st8_o_mind]

I would never dream of questioning your love of country Eric. At the risk of being tirelessly repetitive, your patriotism is not the issue, the so-called liberal media is not the issue, Clark’s motivation for writing a book is not the issue, President Clinton lying under oath is not the issue (although it is worth repeating that when Clinton lied, nobody died), the issue is Bush.

It is noteworthy that defenders of the President have raised all the issues enumerated above…the media, Clinton, Clarks timing etc. but have collectively refused to address the substance of Clarks book. I guess changing the subject is all Bush has left. It occurs to me that the White House, in the next few days, after the testimony on the Hill today and tomorrow, are going to have to find a dramatic way to change the subject as well. Otherwise Clarks book and the testimony on the hill this week will remain the lead story through Sunday’s news cycle. I don’t think they will allow that to happen. I just hope they don’t do anything crazy like invade somewhere else. If I were to guess, I’d say that by Thursday, there will be a big story out of Afghanistan. I guess we’ll have to wait and see.

 

[st8_o_mind]

Thank you for the suggestion regarding the Times. I think the Washington Times does a pretty good job of covering international news, their local coverage is weak. Still, the paper is owned by the Reverend Moon, remember the “Moonies”? Religious cults make me nervous. So I read the Post.

I’ve already written extensively about the claim that the intelligence was faulty versus the claim that Bush and his cabinet lied. I stand by what I wrote.

Your statement that “something had to be done about Sadaam [sic] is worth addressing but in doing so, I need to emphasize a point. Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. You can make the case that Saddam was/is a bad man, but I would respectfully suggest that when some freaks start flying airplanes into our buildings, THAT should be the President’s top priority. We were attacked. Not by Iraq, but by Al-quaida based in Afghanistan. Attacking Iraq after 9/11 makes as much sense as attacking Brazil because of Pearl Harbor.

The war against terrorism is neither over nor is it won. As Clark’s and many others have pointed out, the Iraq war has weakened our security by diverting our attention from a very real threat to our security posed by terrorists to fight Iraq. The war has also been a recruitment bonanza for Islamic extremists, taxed our active duty and reserve forces to a very dangerous point, has alienated our allies and international community who we very much need to fight terrorism and has cost US taxpayers (so far) over 150 billion dollars that could have been used to provide US first responders with adequate gear.

Okay, so Bush’s priorities are a little screwed up. Still, it absolutely blows my mind that the mass murder of the scale of 9/11 failed to hold the Presidents attention. Instead he turned to Iraq as I do now in response to your question. You wrote: “something had to be done about Sadaam…

I guess it is important to understanding how we got into this mess in the first place. As you know, the policy of the Clinton Administration is Iraq was “regime change.” That did not change with Bush 44 took office. Obviously, how each Administration implemented that policy was very different.

What changed was the sanctions regime. Clinton and Bush’s father used the sanctions to weaken and contain Iraq, but when Bush 44 took office, the international support for the sanctions has collapsed. France and Russia were actively seeking to end the sanctions. Public support for the sanctions was eroding fast due to the tremendous toll the sanctions were having on the Iraqi civilians.

I know some of you want to leap to your keyboards to write that the death of civilians under the sanctions were Saddam’s fault while others side with former Congressman David Bonior who described the sanctions during the Clinton Administration as infantcide masquerading as foreign policy. Don’t bother because it does not matter for my purposes here. What matters is that the sanctions could not be sustained at the UN. Secretary Powell was publicly talking about changing the sanctions to “smart sanctions” in response to the Russians and French who wanted to eliminate them completely. The bottom line is that the sanctions could not be maintained, and therefore, US policy of containment could not be maintained. You’re right in writing that “something” had to be done about Saddam because the status quo could not be sustained.

So, what should the US have done? There were only two realistic possibilities. Either the Bath government had to be removed (we could not just kill Saddam because apart from being against US law, a dead Saddam would mean one of his sons would take over (ack) and Islamic extremists would have a new martyr for their Jihad against the US). The second possibility was that the sanctions would be lifted or eased and Saddam would take a giant step forward toward rejoining the “community of nations.” That was an option that was simply unacceptable to Bush and many hawks in his Administration, many of whom were part of his father’s war cabinet during the first gulf war.

They chose the former option…removing Saddam. This, as Clark and O’Neil point out was well before 9/11. The decision was already made. At that point, it became a matter of getting the US public and the international community to support their decision.

You can make an intellectually legitimate argument that Saddam had to go as Richard Pearl, Wolfowitz and others have done. The Bush Administration should have made that case, but they had a problem. Would the US Congress support a war with Iraq if Bush told the truth…that while Iraq does not pose an immanent threat to the United States nor is there any known connection between the 9/11 attacks and Iraq, we simply have to remove Saddam because he is too dangerous to leave in power. The answer is no. The Congress would not have authorized the war. So they lied.

Note, I’m not saying the hawks were wrong about whether Saddam should have been removed or not. I do not agree with their conclusion that Saddam had to be removed by force, but like I said, you can make an intellectually honest argument that he should have been removed. But that was not the case Bush made because it simply would not have been enough to get a war resolution through the Congress. So he lied. The rest, as they say, is history.

Well, I wrote more than I intended. It would be nice although out of character if you Bush backers posted a response with a bit more intellectual depth than calling me a dumb-ass or something. Later.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by st8_o_mind
First, if the alleged connection between Iraq and 9/11 is unclear as you point out, then the Bush administration should not have made it. It was one of the reasons given to go to war.

Huh?

Source?