Bush The administration knew that the Iraq-al-Qaeda-WMD intel was bogus but pushed it anyway.
A top member of Al Qaeda in American custody was identified as a likely fabricator months before the Bush administration began to use his statements as the foundation for its claims that Iraq trained Al Qaeda members to use biological and chemical weapons, according to newly declassified portions of a Defense Intelligence Agency document.
The document, an intelligence report from February 2002, said it was probable that the prisoner, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, “was intentionally misleading the debriefers’’ in making claims about Iraqi support for Al Qaeda’s work with illicit weapons.
The document provides the earliest and strongest indication of doubts voiced by American intelligence agencies about Mr. Libi’s credibility. Without mentioning him by name, President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Colin L. Powell, then secretary of state, and other administration officials repeatedly cited Mr. Libi’s information as “credible’’ evidence that Iraq was training Al 8Qaeda members in the use of explosives and illicit weapons.
Quelle surprise.
norbizness
I’m not going to focus on the story so much as your treasonous use of French at the end. Another round of ethics classes for everybody!
Doug
I wonder if this actually changes anything. Seems like anyone who has been paying attention either will not change their mind about the honesty of the Bush adminstration regardless of evidence or has already reached the conclusion that the Bush administration deliberately overstated the potential threat of Iraq to one degree or another.
ppGaz
This could not have been anticipated. Bush is doing a heckuva job. Give the man time to eat his dinner. Then he’ll roll up his sleeves and bring it on, seeing to it that any ethical lapses in his administration are in their last throes.
We’ve now reached the point where the recongizable gaffes of the potatoheads can be strung together into little tableaus, and then taken apart and rearranged for another context, and still make sense. Potatoheads are such fun!
CaseyL
It gets even better: al-Libi gave this bogus info while he was being tortured.
Is that what the pro-torture 101st Keyboard Battalion meant when they said “Torture works!”?
joshua
Actually, what they meant was “Torture works better than Viagra. Just look at our pants.”
Vlad
I’m enjoying the fact that the administration is now facing negative consequences as a result of misinformation pushed by two different men named “Libbi”.
The Cavalry
It gets even stranger: “al-Shaykh” means “the scooter” in Arabic.
Perry Como
Don’t make me pull out my Hindrocket.
Ancient Purple
Well, well.
First, the evangelicals are called “wackos” by Team Bush.
Now, Team Bush uses fabricated info to get us into war.
Not to worry, friends. Bush’s base will still call him the best president in U.S. history.
Remember: Party before country.
Always.
Mr Furious
Doug-
Nope, won’t change a thing. Who you gonna believe? The Preznit of the United States or some acknowledged liar A-rab.
p.lukasiak
I wonder if this actually changes anything. Seems like anyone who has been paying attention either will not change their mind about the honesty of the Bush adminstration regardless of evidence….
well, the “crazification” factor posits that 27% of the American people (or thereabouts) will support the GOP regardless of what it does. Bush’s job approval ratings are now in the 35-40% range, which means that there is probably at least 10% of the American people who haven’t figured things out yet, but are capable of doing so….
Enigma
Suprise, suprise!
Stormy70
Seems like this same info has come out every other week since 2003. Same old, same old. Like this is the only reason we went to war in Iraq. Why would I trust anti-war liberals for any analysis on Iraq?
ppGaz
You don’t have to. The majority of Americans now essentially think it was a scam and a mistake.
Johnny
Back when Novak was reporting that planning for Iraq II began on the night of the first inaugaration (rather than 9 months later after 9/11), I remember wondering why we wanted to take out Iraq based on Al Qaeda attacks. It struck me then, as it does now, that Iraq was the only Middle Eastern Government (other than Isreal) that Al Qaeda opposed becuase it was “secular”.
Now this seems to increase the chances that it is true that Al Qaeda wanted us to attack Iraq. So, we did what Al Qaeda wanted? hmmmm….. And of course we have replaced Saddam, a bastard to be sure, with a theocratic government more in sympathy with Al Qaeda’s religious goals. Interestinger and interestinger.
Doug
I’m pretty sure that just means the Bush administration isn’t too bright. I wouldn’t say they were in league with al Qaeda, just useful idiots.
cd6
Could you give an example of what it would finally take before you stopped believing Bush?
Like, does Bush have to take the stage and say “that’s right, I lied, bitches”?
Mike S
DougJ, it’s not cool to spoof real people.
MI
It gets even stranger: “al-Shaykh” means “the scooter” in Arabic.
hahaha!
MI
Hey Stormy
I don’t get what your point is. WMD and Al Qaeda links weren’t the only reasons we went to war, so therefore the admin lying about WMD and Al Qaeda links isn’t troubling? I’m obviously inferring there, maybe unfairly, but you don’t seem particularly angry in your post. If they knew what they were pushing wasn’t true, that’s some pretty big shit.
Also the article says this info comes from “newly declassified portions of a Defense Intelligence Agency document” not “anti-war liberals.”
Pb
MI, you beat me to it.
That darn liberal ‘Defense Intelligence Agency’ is up to its old tricks again! Call O’Reilly, this is an outrage! I bet they’re in on it with ‘Media Matters’ and their confounded “fact-based” reporting! Damn liberal facts!
Stormy, your talking points are showing…
Mac Buckets
Am I supposed to pretend that this al-Libi guy is the only one to make the Al Qaeda – Iraq link with regards to WMD development? Is this where I’m supposed to pretend to forget that in 1998, the Clinton Administration, and Defense Sec’y Cohen in particular, also said that Al Qaeda and Iraq collaborated on VX gas production? Or am I supposed to pretend that the lefties all called Clinton on his “lies” when he bombed the Sudanese plant which was alleged making VX based on that collaboration?
I’m just not that good at feigning ignorance. I can’t un-know history as fast as you guys, I guess.
It had been established intel, years before Bush came into office, that this cooperation had taken place. This al-Libi was only saying what had been said by two administrations for years.
Baron Elmo
If George Bush were found in bed naked with a 12-year-old girl, that 27% of bedrock supporters would say, “The bitch wanted it.”
Charlie (Colorado)
I’m just not that good at feigning ignorance. I can’t un-know history as fast as you guys, I guess.
That pretty much says everything I was going to say.
Is there a category for “John Cole’s foolish credulity”?
Pb
Mac Buckets Says:
You don’t have to pretend.
Incidentally, way to change the subject to Clinton! Remind me again why you of all people would believe anything he had said? Or are you secretly his biggest fan–is that why you bring him up all the time? Yeah, I wish he were President too, but there’s that “term limits” thing, and for four years at a time–barring impeachment, illness, death, resignation, etc.–we’ve got to live with the President we have, not the one we might want or wish to have.
Bob In Pacifica
Instead of filing this under Republican Stupidity, shouldn’t this be filed under Republican Criminality? Or Republican Lying Sacks O Shit? This doesn’t seem to be anything about stupid, unless you figure it was stupid that they thought they could get away with lying about the intelligence.
And with enough Stormys out there they may still get away with it.
Bob In Pacifica
Mac Buckets, when the pictures of Gannon giving Georgie and Karl golden showers hit the press, are you going to say, “Well, Clinton had sex in the White House”?
Bottom line: There was no real connection between al-Qaeda and Saddam, no VX gas, no nuclear weapons. Clinton was wrong, only he didn’t start a war over it. And Bush did, and he knew it was a crock of shit before he did it, too.
Stormy70
Bob – I just learned quite a bit about you with that statement. The Black helicopters are on the way, dude.
Slide
Bucket Boy:
Don’t have to be, you’re quite good at the real thing.
AlanDownunder
p.lukasiak:
well, the “crazification” factor posits that 27% of the American people (or thereabouts) will support the GOP regardless of what it does. Bush’s job approval ratings are now in the 35-40% range, which means that there is probably at least 10% of the American people who haven’t figured things out yet, but are capable of doing so….
27% is pessimistic. Cheney approval is down to 19%, so 19% has to be the upper limit for bedrock GOP support. 15%+ of the US are very slow on the uptake but still capable of eventually figuring things out (or eventually admitting to themselves that they’ve finally figured things out)
chadwig
Stormy70 you have a way of saying something stupid, then ignoring anyone who asks you to explain or back up your point. Instead, you point to other’s obvious snarks and interpret them as thought they weren’t merely taking the piss.
You should have a show on POX errrr, Faux, errrrr nevermind.
AlanDownunder
John Cole:
Filed under: Politics, Republican Stupidity
Time to split the Republican Stupidity category into Republican Stupidity, Republican Mendacity and Republican Oppression? Maybe not – too many posts would rate double or triple categorisation. Perhaps just Republican Stupidity and/or Worse?
The marvel is how today’s consensus about the Bush/Cheney administration was so recently believed widely throughout the US and its influential institutions to be the ravings of the lunatic paranoid left. It’s interesting to watch the denials and readjustments of yesterday’s deluded mainstream.
J. Michael Neal
I think that it’s telling that the Bush defenders here don’t have any out for the charge of misrepresenting al-Libi’s statements. So far, all they have managed are attempts to change the subject.
Mark-NC
I note that John Cole got this right:
Saying that Bush knew anything about anything is always a stretch. His team knew – but what are the odds that they bothered to mention it to the king?
KC
Eh, par for the course.
Brian
Frankly, as far as I am concerned, Saddam had to go. If you want to say Bush lied, then fine. But give us a full accounting of everyone who lied, including Clinton, Gore, Kennedy, Rockefeller, Levin, Kerry, et al. Because, as much as you want to show Bush lied, you must also state that all of the above and more lied too to prove that Bush did.
Brian
Oh, and by the way. This debate was settled last year around this time. We know who won that debate.
The Cavalry
In the end, that’s the bottom line. It doesn’t matter how many stunts the Democrats pull, how many “forged documents” they pull out of the woodwork, how many “covert spies” they claim were outted. What matters is that Saddam has been jerking the UN’s chain and gassing his own people for long enough. He had to go. The Democrats, to their credit, agreed. And now that all that there’s questions about all that evidence they nodded and went along with, they’re whining and asking for a mulligan.
joshua
Is there a point at which people realize Balloon Juice has two people posting now?
Don’t you threaten me.
CaseyL
I don’t think Bush’s hardcore 30% put “Party before Country” so much as they put “Man before Country.” Bush is simply their current idol.
I’d like to think the problem will go away when Bush does. But I think Bush can be seen not as a politician so much as a TV evangelist, using a particularly toxic combination of American Exceptionalism and Crusading Christianity to simultaneously flatter and fleece his flock. Even after he’s gone, there are lots more like him to take his place.
joshua
I think this says more about you than anyone else can.
Otto Man
Yeah. Next you can remind me about how big Nixon’s landslide was in ’72.
ppGaz
Actually, no it isn’t.
The bottom line is that the administration fudged, spun, twisted, and cooked information and intelligence because it wanted the war so badly that it could not trust the people and the processes enough to do things right. They cut corners and used doublespeak and overlooked contradictory facts and evidence so as to manipulate opinion and get what they wanted.
It isn’t about what Saddam Hussein did … he has a perfectly good excuse: He’s a sociopathic thief, despot and general bad buy. What matters is what our government did. They have no excuses. The people aren’t going to judge that these lying shitheads were justified in treating the American people and the Congress like fools … because they weren’t. Ends do not, ultimately, justify means.
That’s the bottom line, and that’s why the public’s support for these assholes is in the toilet, and headed lower with each passing day.
The Cavalry
I suppose you’d buy an insanity defense then.
ppGaz
His defense is not my concern. The lying fools in our governmet are my concern, I’ll focus on them for now.
Perry Como
If that’s not a Freudian slip…
Wave hi to Rumsfeld for me!
Ancient Purple
Good job, Calvary. Now we know the meme for the next generation: lie to Congress, lie to the American people, out a CIA agent, spend money we don’t have, mortgage the financial future of our children, get 2000+ of our soldiers killed, kill tens of thousands of civilians, and it is all justifiable if you get the one despot.
Carry on, you brave honorable American you.
Otto Man
Yeah, all these Republican scandals are the fault of the mean ol’ Democrats for pointing out what the Republicans did. Sure, they can wave their “evidence” and “facts” in our faces all day long, but it just doesn’t matter.
Yes, yes. Nearly fifteen years after he gassed his own people, that was the right moment to step up and put an end to it. Next, George Bush will demand that Nikita Khrushchev remove the missiles from Cuba. What a leader!
And could one of the Bush defenders here tell me how I’m supposed to know when the UN is supposed to be revered and when it’s supposed to be ignored? The constant conservative flip-flopping on that is really getting annoying. One day, it’s all who-needs-the-UN and the next day we’re rushing to defend its honor like it’s a damsel in distress.
Is there some secret code word issued by Fox News that tells you when to love it and when to hate it? Or is it more a matter of having a sense of consistency and intellectual honesty surgically removed?
ppGaz
“Cavalry” is most likely DougJ.
If he isn’t, he needs to be paying DougJ royalties.
ppGaz
“Cavalry” is most likely DougJ.
If he isn’t, he needs to be paying DougJ royalties.
ppGaz
“Cavalry” is most likely DougJ.
If he isn’t, he needs to be paying DougJ royalties.
ppGaz
“Cavalry” is most likely DougJ.
If he isn’t, he needs to be paying DougJ royalties.
ppGaz
Oops. Sorry, it’s your web page’s fault.
Your bad.
Steve S
Can someone please explain to me how “Saddam had to go” justifies an occupation?
We’ve got saddam. He’s gone. Why are we still there?
Mac Buckets
Real, On-Topic Bottom Line: There was specific intel going back to 1998 that the Al Qaeda – Iraq VX link existed. Clinton’s Defense Sec’y Cohen testified to same in front of the 9/11 Commission.
So why make a big stink over one suspected liar, al-Libi, who was only repeating in 2002 what had been said credibly for years before? If al-Libi said that water was wet, would we expect everyone to assume that was a lie, as well, and refrain from mentioning the wetness of water, even though we’ve had reports about its damp qualities for years? After all, al-Libi’s pants were suspected to be on fire!
But, come on, we all know why the New York Times, WaPo, and Sen. Levin would foist this barely-a-story on us (well, on you) without even a mention of the Clinton era intel which said the same thing, and without a mention of Cohen’s testimony, don’t we? How naive must we all pretend to be? They’re only after the truth, right? Or half of it, at least!
The lede from the Times: “A top member of Al Qaeda in American custody was identified as a likely fabricator months before the Bush administration began to use his statements as the foundation for its claims that Iraq trained Al Qaeda members to use biological and chemical weapons…”
“A likely fabricator?” About the VX production claims? The Times doesn’t say, but they sure imply it. Was Clinton’s Defense Secretary Cohen a “likely fabricator” as well, because Clinton had made the same claims, four years before? Why no mention at all of Clinton’s intelligence on this issue, Senator Levin? Are we just supposed to pretend that Bush was the first President to report such a link? Are Senator Levin and his friends just banking (correctly) on 99.999% of the people not knowing their recent history?
“…the Bush administration began to use his statements as the foundation for its claims…” I see absolutely no evidence of this in the article. It’s an unsupported assumption that al-Libi’s statements were the basis for anything, although his claims were certainly used in speeches (and why not, since they restate the intel from the previous four years?). If we’ve learned anything of intelligence reporting in the last 4 years, we’ve learned that inertia is the basis for most intel, and has been for years, and there was at least four years of CIA intel saying that Iraq had trained Al Qaeda in VX production before we had any clue that al-Libi existed.
Was he…and, he didn’t?
Sorry, on the list of things I can’t pretend to un-learn, I forgot to mention Clinton’s (justified, in my view) bombing of Iraq (more cruise missiles than the entire Gulf War I, but not an act of “war?”) in 1998-1999, and the Iraqi Liberation Act, in which Clinton made regime change in Iraq official US policy.
Andrew J. Lazarus
Mac Buckets, I think it’s reasonable to have believed some of the claims about Saddam and WMD (although there was no reason to believe al-Libi, because people will say anything under torture, and the more they approve of torture, I suspect the faster they would falsely confess—would you like to participate in an experiment?). After all, the US intelligence agencies were the target of an organized disinformation conspiracy headed by Ahmad Chalabi (or by his Iranian controllers), which had picked up the American neocon movement with Chalabi’s preposterous leadership of the Iraq-Likud Friendship Association.
The question for grownups is what were the implications of the UN’s failure to find WMD after George Bush had gotten the inspectors readmitted? They called our highly detailed (but bogus) information “garbage” after investigating it. Actually, they called it “shit”, but Newsweek wouldn’t print that. In other words, by spring 2003, there were strong reasons to think that what Clinton and many others thought from 1998 to 2002 was wrong.
But Bush, Cheney, and you weren’t really interested in restraining Saddam. You were interested in a cute, quick war to kick his butt and further the fortunes of the Republican Party. Welcome to the Iraqwagmire.
jaime
Maybe Fox News is more your speed…
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,174708,00.html
This was a DIA memo. Not CIA. DIA. Let me repeat DIA. DIA. This report ran right through Donny Rumsfeld and straight to Dick Cheney. They KNEW Al-Libi was not credible, but still used it in their 16 word Niger Yellow cake “Saddam 9/11, 9/11 Saddam” way.
Seeing as you didn’t read the article or know about how the intelligence for this war was funneled through the DIA, I must conclude your comments are being pulled out of some dark corner of your butt.
Perry Como
The CIA took a soil sample and found a precursor to a key ingredient to the production of VX gas.
Cite please. I’m really not aware of that information. Please provide a source other than al Libi.
S.W. Anderson
Brian Says: Frankly, as far as I am concerned, Saddam had to go. If you want to say Bush lied, then fine. But give us a full accounting of everyone who lied.”
What nonsense. By that reasoning, someone who gets a speeding ticket would be within his rights to demand to know that everyone in the state who exceeded the speed limit was (A) ticketed and (B) paid a similar fine, or else he wouldn’t be obliged to pay his fine or show up in court to fight it.
Sorry, Brian, but things don’t work that way. Incompetents and/or liars who screw up are judged on their words and deeds individually. The fact that X-number of others might be wrong or dishonest sometime, somehow, in no way expunges the guilt of any particular individual.
Slide
Bucket Boy:
Yeah, why the big stink? Not as if we went to war on this shit. And while we’re at it, why the big stink about those damn forged documents about Niger yellowcake? Mushroom cloud, smushroom cloud, who cares. Big freakin stink. And that guy Curveball? and his lies about mobile labs? Big stink. And why do we always have to bring up that the Air Force discounted the lies about Iraq’s unmanned drones that could spray chem/bio weapons on the US. Big goddamn stink. And so what if Cheney kept saying that Atta met with Iraq agents in Pravda when our our intelligence agencies said that was impossible. Stinky, stinky, stinky. So we got a few things wrong. oh, and that big stink about those aluminum tubes? Anybody coulda got that wrong. Fuckinn things looked like centrifuge tubes to me, but I’m no expert. Anyone coulda got that wrong. Big fuckin stink.
Tractarian
This is the “B-b-b-b-but Clinton lied too!” defense in a nutshell. It is debunked well by Bob Somerby.
John S.
Damn, that’s some dead-on analysis by Bob.
TM Lutas
How many evaluations were there of Al-Libi’s truthfulness, 1, 10, 50? How many claimed he was not a liar, 1%, 50%, 100%? We can’t tell. If I’ve got 5 reports on my desk saying he’s truthful and 1 that says that he’s a fabricator, should I always discount the intelligence or is it a judgment call?
Every single word in the article could be true while leaving out enough context to make it all a lie for the purpose of evaluating the Bush administration’s truthfulness. Congratulations, you now know what it’s like to be in Bush’s shoes in 2002.
As for Chalabi, the guy’s been accused of all sorts of things, some of which he’s gotten investigated on and been cleared. People make stuff up to discredit sources. Again, it’s a judgment call.
As for the Bush administration. I’ve made in the past and continue to believe that the Iraq campaign in the wider GWOT was justified on convenience grounds alone, much as the WW II invasion of Morocco and Algeria (Operation Torch) is justifiable on those grounds alone. Everything else is gravy, though it might have been politically necessary to assemble a majority. After 10 years of successful Iraqi democracy, the positive effects on future generations of americans’ safety will be clear. Those who are shortsighted aren’t going to see it yet.
One final thing, Somebody else mentioned that there were other reasons to invade. Here’s one: Saddam was the world’s leading purveyor of a nasty new terrorist support tactic. He was paying 25k per suicide bomber. Like the Chechnya beheading technique that claimed the lives of lots of Russians before it started claiming Americans, this was something that was going to spread far beyond Israel. You don’t hear about these open state payments anymore. Again, that alone makes the invasion worth it because it cut off an avenue of state finance for US suicide bombers.
Bob In Pacifica
Tonight on FOX! Stormy70 and Mac Buckets discuss how Senator Cohen misled the Bush Administration into war!
p.lukasiak
oh stormy…
Is this where I’m supposed to pretend to forget that in 1998, the Clinton Administration, and Defense Sec’y Cohen in particular, also said that Al Qaeda and Iraq collaborated on VX gas production?
no stormy, you’re expected to tell the truth, rather than repeat flat out lies that you read on Free Republic or some other wing-nut website.
Here is the section of Cohen’s testimony he is referring to…
From this, stormy categorically states that Cohen said “Al Qaeda and Iraq collaborated on VX gas production.”
Of course he didn’t say that. What he said was that one of the elements which lead the US to suspect that the “baby aspirin” factory in Sudan was actually meant for the production of chemical weapons was a visit by the factory owner to a chemist in Iraq. We don’t know what was discussed at that meeting, nor do we have any evidence that the scientist helped the businessman–let alone any evidence that the Iraqi government was in any way involved. All we have is circumstantial evidence that supported the contention that the Sudan factory was intended for the production of banned weapons.
Nor is there a direct link between the plant and al Qaeda. bin Laden was being given sanctuary in Sudan, and was investing some of his money there in what is described as the “military industrial coporation.” Some of the money from the “military industrial corporation” had found its way into the funding of the plant. That’s about it.
What we had here was an unstable nation that was allowing bin Laden to live there that was also in the throes of a civil war in which genocide was being practiced, building what appeared to be a chemical weapons plant. The instability of the nation, the presence of al Qaeda, and the evidence of a chemical weapons plant all pointed to a significant risk that al Qeada might get its hands on chemical weaponry.
What we don’t have is any evidence that there was collaboration between Iraq and al Qaeda in the production of VX gas.
ppGaz
So, those who don’t peer into your crystal ball and make a gross extrapolation that isn’t supported by history or any other evidence, and which requires a nod to blind faith in the judgement of potatoheads who have been consistently and spectacularly WRONG in their judgements and policies in the region for 20-30 years depending on where you start counting ….. and agree with you ….. are shortsighted.
Alllllll…righty then!
Otto Man
It’s the same myopia that keeps me from seeing all the unicorns and pixies outside my window, too. I really need to get a new prescription.
DougJ
Nope, I was too busy writing Stormy’s torture posts for that this weekend.
Steve S
Actually since most of the fabrications came from Iranian agents like Chalabi… My guess is that the Republicans will spin it as proof we must invade Iran.
ppGaz
Good job. I especially liked the misdirection ploys …. all seven of them. We could barely keep up.
DougJ
I thought that “most Americans agree that torturing terrorists is fine” and the stuff about pig blood was a little over-the-top, even for me. But you guys seemed to think I was serious, so I guess it wasn’t.
ppGaz
LOL.
I thought “Stormy” couldn’t ever do better than last summer’s “lighting up Palestine” but this weekend proved me wrong. She/he/you is/are a piece of work in this new incarnation.
Krista
Sadly enough, there are enough people out there who would seriously express those sentiments, so that’s why we keep getting taken in.
You exhaust me, Doug. Who AREN’T you?
ppGaz
All right, I confess. I am DougJ. I am also you, Krista.
But I am not Darrell. And I did not shoot the deputy.
See what happens when spoofers spoof?
Nobody can believe anything. It’s like the Bush Administration, really.
Sojourner
Doug is everywhere. I think the US needs to invade his country.
Frank
DougJ-“I thought that “most Americans agree that torturing terrorists is fine” and the stuff about pig blood was a little over-the-top, even for me”
I don’t know what the reference to pig’s blood is about, but the first part is true, at least for certain values of “fine.”
They voted Bush back into office when they knew or should have known that they were aiding and abetting torture by doing so. We are a nation of evildoers.
Mac Buckets
You’re kidding, right?
Krista
I thought it was extremely well debunked by S.W. Anderson, upthread.
When it comes to the rationale for this war, the Bush administration needs to be assessed on what they actually knew, versus what they told the world.
If there was very little difference, and if it turns out that they were mistaken, then it’s not ideal, but people can forgive a mistake more than they can forgive a deliberate lie.
But more and more evidence is mounting, stating that there was a very, very large difference between what the administration knew to be true, and what they told the rest of the government, the rest of America, and the rest of the world. And if that is indeed the case, then that is something that very few people will be able to forgive.
DougJ
Frank, the severe dip in Bush’s public approval rating after Abu Ghraib proves to me that Americans do not support torture. I’m sure you can phrase questions that will make it seem like they do, but the American people — to their immense credit — despise barbarity when they see it, no matter how they answer questions like “is it okay to torture terrorists if it will save lives.”
Mac Buckets
Cohen’s testimony to the 9/11 Commission mentions the Clinton-era intel on the Iraq-Al Qaeda VX cooperation several times, both in his written and oral testimony.
The 9/11 Report mentions the original indictment of bin Laden and his Iraq ties:
p.lukasiak
How this one will be spun?
Its Osama bin Laden’s fault that we invaded Iraq, because if he hadn’t told his lieutenants to lie about an Iraq-al Qaeda connection if they were tortured, we never would have invaded.
Mac Buckets
No, the analogy he uses is pretty terrible. You know what the speed limit is — there are signs. No one in the intelligence community, or anyone who relies on the intel it produces, sees a sign saying “Weapons Plant Here,” “Red Herring,” or “Quiet! Terrorists Working Inside!” If so, we’d have had bin Laden, the Bosnian war criminals, etc., rounded up years ago! If we waited for that level of certitude before attacking suspected terrorists or weapons sites, the terrorists would have free rein, and they’d never face any repercussions.
Consensus — everyone speeding — means nothing in objective speeding infractions, but corroboration means a hell of a lot in the intelligence community.
So when there’s a consensus by two politically-opposed administrations in the US and by many organizations all over the world that Iraq and Al Qaeda cooperated on VX, or that Iraq had not halted its WMD programs, it’s naive or dishonest to pretend that only one administration (always the Other Guy’s Administration) was the only one who should’ve known the Truth as you understand it. And it’s silly to say that either one was “lying,” even if one of the al Qaeda guys who gave up the info is a “suspected liar” (who isn’t?) (…and, is lying really the worst of this guy’s attributes? I’m stunned the Times didn’t say we had relied on the testimony of a suspected murderous Islamofascist — seems to put more of a point on it).
So mentioning all the things that Clinton didn’t say about Iraq (without mentioning the things he did say), or mentioning that at least he didn’t “go to war” (which he really did, of course, and justifiably IMO), misses the point entirely when we’re talking about Bush’s rationale for the war, because his rationale was based largely on the Clinton-era intelligence and Clinton’s own CIA director.
Mac Buckets
As usual, you perform multiple contortions to ignore the truth. To you, the “father of Iraq’s VX program” is “a chemist,” and who knows what he and and the plant owner talked about — probably cricket results! Save it for suckers.
Otto Man
Too bad he didn’t listen to Clinton’s National Security Adviser. You know, the one who warned that Osama bin Laden would be the biggest threat facing the country?
Tractarian
Nope. Did you RTFA? If so, tell me where you think Somerby is wrong.
The bottom line is this: Bush took a piece of common knowledge – Iraq has chem and bio weapons – and through manipulation and exaggeration twisted it thusly – Iraq has nukes, can deploy them in 45 minutes with UAVs, and was involved in 9/11.
Those latter statements were all made by the Bush team only, and no one else: not Clinton, not Kerry, not Blair, not French intelligence, not British intelligence, not the CIA. And the Bushies were wrong.
Here’s another article explaining the “Clinton-lied-too” fallacy. Money quote:
Defense Guy
Speaking of Clinton era claims of Iraq Nuclear capabilities or desires. From the NCI:
Andrew J. Lazarus
Say Defense Guy, did you forget we bombed away the Iraqi program in 1998 under President Clenis? So skip the 1997 stuff.
I repeat, what makes the Bush Administration and its supporters dishonest is their repeated refusal to acknowledge the implications of the UN inspections of Winter/Spring 2003, specifically, that the very detailed information we had received from Chalabi and his “heroes in error” was false from A to Z.
scs
I haven’t read all the posts above yet, but I would love to see a list of just what exactly all the lies were that Dems complain about, because so far it’s been hard to keep track of as I just get little bits and pieces here and there.
scs
Here are my guesses at it: 1. Bush said Iraq was trying to buy yellow cake from Niger 2. Iraq was working on WMD programs and had mobile bio labs 3.Iraq was training Al Quaeda in explosives, and Iraq had “contacts” with Al Quaeda.
Is that it? Just need to know the full range before I try to make sense of it.
scs
No wonder Bush Admin thought there were WMD in Iraq. He had info like this coming in, and no real way to check it out. I say better safe than sorry. From the article:
.The info against their statement at the time from the DIA was this:
“Possible” doesn’t sound that strong to me, when you have this:
Mr. Libbi didn’t recant his statement until years later. Again, I say better safe than sorry.
Mac Buckets
It’s so bad that I’m not going to devote time to Fisk it properly, but here’s the gist.
70% of what he wrote (“things Clinton didn’t say”) is totally irrelevant, besides being logically incomplete. But Bob’s biggest mistake here is his unsupported statement: “Yet these are claims—starting in the fall of 02—which took us to war in Iraq.”
Not so. We went to war, not because of any of those individual claims, or all of them together even, but because of the perceived threat of Saddam’s WMD, an argument initiated not by Bush, but by Clinton and Kerry in 1997. We went to war specifically because of the violated UN Resolutions, which were universally believed to have been breached since 1993. So, to contradict Somersby, the rationale which actually took us to war had been discussed and largely decided long before 2002, and the instances he cites (well, the ones that are true, at least) were mere footnotes to the main issue.
The other 30% is based on faulty history. Somersby says:
First, the idea that Saddam wasn’t a threat to us was refuted often by Clinton himself in the last couple years of his presidency. There are dozens of hair-raising quotes from both sides of the aisle about the threat to the US that Saddam posed. Magazine covers were proclaiming Iraq and other “rogue nations” as the #1 threat to US security. How Bob casually asserts that no one in the US was worried about Iraq until Bush came into office is stunningly ignorant. Second, the Bush Administration never pimped that Saddam had a nuke. That’s just fiction. Some might call it a lie. Third, Clinton himself cited reports of a still-functioning Iraqi nuclear program before the inspectors were kicked out in 1998.
There are other problems with the specific issues, but generally, the “debunking” was shallow, largely asserted, and not logically compelling.
Mac Buckets
Even Clinton himself never made such an outrageous claim, probably because he knew that a large number of suspected Iraqi WMD sites were not even targeted in 1998, because they were “dual-use” facilities. The only quote I ever heard from Clinton was to the effect that “we might’ve gotten all of it, we might’ve gotten some of it, we might’ve gotten none of it, but we don’t know.”
Plus, are you guys turning your backs on the Duelfer Report now, after trumpeting it for a year? Didn’t that report say that Saddam’s illicit weapons were destroyed soon after the Gulf War in 1991? So what exactly did Clinton “bomb away” in 1998, then?
scs
Okay I read uppost and saw Slides comments about possible Bsuh Admin lies. To rephrase them they are:
-forged documents about Niger yellowcake
-Mushroom clouds over the US
-Curveball and his lies about mobile labs
-Air Force discounted the lies about Iraq’s unmanned drones that could spray chem/bio weapons on the US.
-Cheney kept saying that Atta met with Iraq agents in Pravda when our our intelligence agencies said that was impossible.
-aluminum tubes
I believe all of those mentioned above were the results of 1.) lies by foreign informants (forged documents, Curveball), or 2.) information from confused informants (aluminum tubes, bio-labs, which Iraq did to seem to have something that could have been mistaken for mobile labs. Remember those buried trucks?) or 3.) information that the jury is still out on (Czechs still stand by that Atta sighting, and Britain still stands by the yellow cake story).
I just see a bunch of mistaken info. Where are the LIES? To lie, as I believed we discussed recently, you need knowledge of info to the contrary, or you have to exaggerate info you are not sure about, in a deliberate way. Well we know for SURE that Bush Admin didn’t know for certain Iraq had no WMDs, so no lie there. And as to exaggerating, there had to be some solid information that they exaggerated. All of those items may have been shown to be wrong now, but were believed at the time, and believed with good reason because Saddam had a history of aggressive behavior and building up arms. Where is the overwhelming, rock solid info that the Bush Admin told the people anything that they didn’t have good reason to believe themselves at the time?
Mac Buckets
By the way, if Tim F. is around, maybe he can explain how anything that he wrote in this post has any factual corroboration in any part of the story he linked to. Hint: I don’t think it does. You’re not just a commenter anymore, Timmy. We demand better than witless assertions. Leave that to us!
Tractarian
I think those “things Clinton didn’t say” are quite relevant, when Bush’s supporters defend his questionable (and ultimately false) statements by saying “Clinton said them too.” Well, he didn’t say them. I don’t know how more relevant you can get.
The question here is not the technical, legal reasons for going to war, but rather the political and practical reasons.
That sentiment is ignorant – unforunately, Mac, it’s not what Bob said. His point, as I take it, is that the Iraqi WMD-related-program-activities were not viewed as an imminent threat to the U.S. until Saddam’s capabilities were exaggerated by the administration.
You’re right, it is a lie, but you are the only one “pimping” it. What the administration said was the following: Saddam can have nukes within six months (false), he has aluminum tubes which can only be used for nukes (false), he has UAVs which can
And with that statement you prove one of Jonathan Chait’s most salient points:
Tractarian
*UAVs which can deliver the nukss within 45 minutes (false)
Mac Buckets
Then they are only relevant if I had said “Clinton said Iraq had aluminum tubes, drones, and yellowcake, too!” I never said that, nor have I ever heard anyone say it. I have said that Clinton said Iraq had WMD, which is undeniable. The rest is irrelevant.
Huh? Easy enough to see what he actually said:
Exactly what I said — he asserts that Bush had to trump up charges of “nukes” (lie alert!) because Saddam’s weapons “weren’t a threat” (no mention of “imminent”) to the US. This statement puts Bob factually at odds with dozens of senators, media outlets, and citizens who truly believed that Iraq and other “rogue nations” were the #1 threat to the US. But I’m sure Bob had a better pulse on the country than they did (/sarcasm).
No, Bob is the one pimping the lie that the US said Iraq had “nukes.” He should be ashamed himself for being caught out so easily. I find no record of Cheney saying “six months,” so I’m assuming that’s another fiction until I see otherwise (Bob should really learn to source his rants, if he wants to be taken relatively seriously). The only Cheney quote I found was to the effect that “it could be one year, or five years, I don’t know.”
No idea what you’re trying to say there. It seems to have nothing to do with the fact that Clinton Administration reports of Iraq’s illegal nuclear program stretched back to 1998 (pre-Bush), though, which was my point.