<p>Susan, then from a “logic” perspective you must agree that there is evidence that just about every person on Capital Hill (Dems and Republicans alike) as well as the previous administration were liars regarding WMD? So where does that actually get us in terms of anything?</p>
<p>What kluge has actually done in his lawyerly way is use the Clinton technique of questioning the definition of the word “is”. He is grasping at minute straws to say that in some obscure legalistic way there is “evidence” to support the statement that Bush lied. In reality, however, there is no “real” evidence to that effect. He knows that as does any fair-minded person.</p>
<p>kluge, I took back what I said in #224. Are you willing to take back what you said in #222? That is: “By making the assertion that way Bush’s State of the Union address led the American people to believe that Iraq was in fact actively working on reconstituting a nuclear program at that time, while American intelligence sources did not support that claim.”</p>
<p>I think it has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that your statement is false. Don’t you think you should publicly retract it?</p>
<p>Fundingfather, the NIE was published in October, 2002. The State of the Union speech was given January 28, 2003. According to the State Department memo declassified three months ago, the Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) issued a report on March 1, 2002 entitled: Niger: Sale of Uranium to Iraq is Unlikely. INR also filed a lengthy dissent to the October, 2002 NIE with regard to the nuclear weapons claims in that document. And:
Powells UN briefing took place one week after the American people were treated to the 16 words in the State of the Union address.</p>
<p>Of course, a reference to the bogus Iraq-Niger Uranium deal was deleted from an earlier Bush speech because of doubts as to its veracity at that time as well.
<p>ff, the difference between what Bush and company knew and what Congress knew is that Congress only had access to whatever information and intelligence Bush and company chose to share with them, while Bush had access to all the intelligence. </p>
<p>Perhaps it is not technically a lie to say “I know this for a fact,” when it is not actually a fact. However, to me and most people, I think, saying something is a fact implies that is proven beyond any doubt. And that was NOT.</p>
<p>That is the cop out plea that was concocted by the DNC. It is the one that John Kerry and John Edwards have latched onto (making them weasels by my definition). The reality is that according to the Robb-Silberman report, the information that was presented in the NIE was more “nuanced” than they information which the administration had. Hence, the information that the President had access to was MORE damning of Saddam’s programs of WMD - it was not exculpatory. </p>
<p>One Democrat who admitted that the information was real was Dick Gephart who had the courage to say that he checked the information out himself with the intelligence community before he cast his vote. Hence Gephart is not a weasel.</p>
<p>kluge, you are grasping at a very minor point, one which most of the intelligence community agreed with the British intelligence community on - there was a near-unanimous belief that Saddam was seeking Uranium from Africa. However, looking at the bigger picture - that Saddam was reconstituting his nuclear program, there was no dissent from any of the intelligence communities.</p>
<p>I’m waiting for you to retract your statement. To continue to stand by it is “evidence of a lie”.</p>
<p>ff, you are saying that the President of the United States had LESS access to intelligence than the entire Congress??? Now that I find very difficult to believe! If there were more “nuances” in the Congressional report, whatever that means, then perhaps it is only because the president did not want nuances. But the president, vice president, secretary of defense, etc. certainly had ACCESS to more intelligence than Congress. Whether they chose to use it or not; that may be a different story.</p>
<p>I’m sorry, Fundingfather - the delusion that Iraq was “reconstituting [Saddam’s] nuclear program” was not unanimous, no matter how many times you confidently state that it was. What part of
… is hard to understand?</p>
<p>Even given the “top-down”, non-“reality based” management philosophy of the Bush Administration, there were ample voices pointing out that that particular Emperor had no clothes, even if those up top chose not to listen. There is a very simple reason that the nuclear claim was removed from Bush’s October speech, and from Powell’s UN briefing, and why the State of the Union addressed was weasel-worded to pass off the responsibility for the claim on the Brits. If the facts had supported the claim, it would have been made simply and plainly. </p>
<p>I recognize that you will believe whatever you have to believe to absolve the current administration of any responsibility for leading the American people to believe things that were simply not true. Taking responsibility has never been a strong point of the Bush administration. But this one is lying out there like a flounder on the dock, stinking in the sun. Kind of hard to ignore. No wonder the right is so obsessive about savaging the minor role player Wilson.</p>
<p>I don’t see how discussing the nature of this ‘lie’ matters to the course of action any of the participants in the argument would have wished for. Even it was a fact that a nuclear program was humming away vibrantly, as it is in iran, would those who present the bush team as liars have been willing to invade? I myself got the sense, when the admins were presenting the case, that iraq under saddam was more of a potential threat best defused in its early stages. I don’t remember being told to duck and cover. It seems similarly disingenuous for those who support this type of invasion to reconstruct the public relations campaign of an adminstration that had an clear agenda to muscle into that hellish region. These supporters of invasion simply believe that force promotes understanding and that the u.s. is the most benevolent conversationalist. People seem to have views first and then scrounge around for opinions to support. I myself am more interested in how that initial taking-sides line-up is generated.</p>
<p>You are latching onto a single very small point about the Niger issue (which was not by any means the extent of the evidence of a reconstituted nuclear program) and then on the even smaller point that while most agencies agreed that it was true and pertinent, one agency did not. From that tiny speck of support for your argument, you make the statement that the American intelligence community did not support the much broader claim that Saddam was reconstituting his nuclear weapons program. This is patently false as your own “testimony” would indicate. If there was doubt about this, why would Powell have spent so much time on the nuclear program in his UN speech? </p>
<p>Do ** YOU ** ever take off your political blinders and step back and realize what whoppers you are spinning?</p>
<p>Susan, I did NOT say that. What I said and what the Robb-Silberman report concluded was that the additional intelligence that the president had access to painted a MORE compelling case about Saddam’s WMD program than was included in the NIE. So, had the Congress been presented with every piece of information they would have been MORE likely to vote to authorize the war, not less.</p>
<p>Powell spent so much time in his speech regarding nuclear weapons becuase that is what he was told to do</p>
<p>And when he got the FACTS, he said, well, that was a mistake, he shouldn’t have made those claims</p>
<p>but he trusted his President</p>
<p>and if those facts are so clear, why haven’t we seen them?: they weren’t afraid to discuss the forged documents, etc., so why not share all the information</p>
<p>oh yeah, national security, we only get “facts” when the agree with the “plan”…but who really knows what that is anyway</p>
<p>CGM, I’m curious, do you ever bother to read anything that was posted or published that doesn’t suit your preconceived notions? From your posts, it is quite apparent that you don’t.</p>
<p>Fundingfather, there are lots of points to address - the split among US intelligence agencies about the aluminum tubes, The IAEA’s report refuting that claim, the advice of American agencies to delete reference to the African Uranium story from Bush’s October, 2002 speech and from Powell’s February, 2003 UN briefing, etc. </p>
<p>But you have a tendency to skip over the awkward parts, and change the subject, so I’m going to limit this post to one point: What is the explanation your blog-buddies give for Bush stating in his SOTU address:
… instead of “We have learned that…”</p>
<p>To me that reads like a sentence written by someone who wants other people to take a meaning from it that the author isn’t willing to actually stand behind - so he lays off responsibility for it on someone else, enabling him to later deny personal responsibility if it is proven to be false. Do you have a better explanation?</p>
<p>kluge, nice try at a diversion. Why don’t you just admit it that the US intelligence agencies were in agreement that Iraq was trying to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program and that what you said contrary to this was wrong? The reports are out there and I’ve shown them to you, yet you resist admitting that your statement was wrong. Why is that?</p>