The Same Intelligence
George W. Bush today:
Some Democrats and antiwar critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war. These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs. They also know that intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein. They know the United Nations passed more than a dozen resolutions citing his development and possession of weapons of mass destruction.
Mohamed ElBaradei, March 7, 2003:
Extensive field investigation and document analysis have failed to uncover any evidence that Iraq intended to use these 81-millimeter tubes for any project other than the reverse engineering of rockets. . . .
Through visits to research and production sites, review of engineering drawings and analysis of sample magnets, the IAEA experts familiar with the use of such magnets in centrifuge enrichment have verified that none of the magnets that Iraq has declared could be used directly for centrifuge magnetic bearings. . . .
Based on thorough analysis, the IAEA has concluded with the concurrence of outside experts that these documents which formed the basis for the report of recent uranium transaction between Iraq and Niger are in fact not authentic. We have therefore concluded that these specific allegations are unfounded. However, we will continue to follow up any additional evidence if it emerges relevant to efforts by Iraq to illicitly import nuclear materials. . . .
After three months of intrusive inspections, we have to date found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapon program in Iraq.
George W. Bush, March 17, 2003:
The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other.
Classified National Intelligence Estimate, October 2002:
Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or CBW against the United States, fearing that exposure of Iraqi involvement would provide Washington a stronger cause for making war. . . .
Saddam, if sufficiently desperate, might decide that only an organization such as al-Qa'ida--with worldwide reach and extensive terrorist infrastructure, and already engaged in a life-or-death struggle against the United States--could perpetrate the type of terrorist attack that he would hope to conduct.
Hans Blix, March 7, 2003:
Several inspections have taken place at declared and undeclared sites in relation to mobile production facilities. Food-testing mobile laboratories and mobile workshops have been seen as well as large containers with seed-processing equipment. No evidence of proscribed activities have so far been found. . . .
No underground facilities for chemical or biological production or storage were found so far. . . .
It's worth recalling when the war actually took place. It's also worth recalling that back in January 2002 this was all the CIA had to say about Iraq's nuclear program:
Without UN-mandated inspectors in Iraq, assessing the current state of Iraq's WMD and missile programs is difficult.
Saddam's repeated publicized exhortations to his "Nuclear Mujahidin" to "defeat the enemy" added to our concerns that since the Gulf war Iraq has continued Research and Development work associated with its nuclear program. A sufficient source of fissile material remains Iraq's most significant obstacle to being able to produce a nuclear weapon. The Intelligence Community is concerned that Baghdad is attempting to acquire materials that could aid in reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.
We went within a space of just a few months from "concerns that . . . Iraq has continued Research and Development work associated with its nuclear program" to "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." Then a few months later inspectors were on the ground (recall that in the absence of inspections "assessing the current state of Iraq's WMD and missile programs is difficult) and determined that the new allegations which had boosted us from "concerns" to "mushroom cloud" were, in fact, false. Shortly thereafter, the president launched an invasion. He specifically cited the threat that Iraq would give WMD to al-Qaeda.
Several months before the war began, the president had gotten a National Intelligence Estimate which concluded that even if Saddam did have WMD, he wouldn't give them to al-Qaeda unless he was already engaged in a "life-or-death struggle" (i.e., invasion) with the United States in which case he "might" do so.
Here's a very basic question that perhaps someone more knowledgable than me can answer: what information (if any) on the Iraqi weapons program was available to the White House before the war but not available to Congress? This seems to me to be a crucial point for pro-war Congressional Democrats in refuting this particular Bush talking point.
Thanks.
November 11, 2005 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Funny how during the campaign the Republicans were so determined to prove the Democrats were against the war and now seem equally determined to prove the opposite. No wonder no one trusts them anymore.
November 11, 2005 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't see how Bush can continue to claim the intel wasn't manipulated. The proof was there to debunk all their claims from internal and international sources. The only question is who orchestrated the manipulation (cough-cough Dick Cheney). But just like the lies that were used to sell the war, they are repeating the same lies after the fact. Hoping if they repeat them enough people will believe them, just like before the war.
There were people in this administration who knew the lies were just that. Colin Powell jumps to mind. Secretary Powell decided to toe the administration line at the time and then quit after the fact. These people have to live with their consciences. The people who manipulated the intel which has led to over 30,000 Iraqi deaths, over 2,000 American deaths and the wounding of over 15,000 Americans need to be held responsible for their actions in a legal sense.
November 11, 2005 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
What I find amazing is that this speech is apparently the opening salvo of a larger campaign to respond to Democratic criticism of the handling of pre-war intel. Does Bush really believe that the way to rehabilitate his poll numbers or support for the war is to conduct a high profile debate over whether Iraq was an honest mistake or a dishonest mistake?
November 11, 2005 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd like to see this thread used for all those "I wannabe the Dem version of Rove kung-fu fighter" out there to offer suggestions. This is a crafted P.R. campaign we are seeing. The objective is to raise Bush's approval ratings. So your objective is to make sure they don't go up. What should you be saying in response to the affect public perceptions?
November 11, 2005 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's interesting about this isn't that Bush is playing hardball or lying or whatever else. What interesting about this is that claiming that he has already been exonerated by the Senate is an incredibly weak argument.
Rove and Bush usually come armed with a bazooka. This time it's more like a badminton racquet. If this is the best they can come up with, they're in trouble, and they have to know it.
November 11, 2005 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
gaw59, I second that. I second that with a vengence. Could someone in the know please write a nice long, clear, article focusing entirely on that question and just that question. And also break it down by which Congressperson was on which committee when, and how they voted. I highly encourage charts and graphs. I'd be willing to dump change into a tip jar, Matt, to encourage you or someone you trust to do this. And I'd be really thrilled if people would point me to focused, non-shrill resources on just this topic.
November 11, 2005 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why waste your breath, or your fingertips? They are the Empire. They create their own reality.
November 11, 2005 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
The objective is to raise Bush's approval ratings.
I'm not sure how throwing a hissy fit is going to do this. One of Bush's strengths has been (for the life of me I don't know how) high ratings for "likeability." Those are going down along with everything else, and this isn't going to help. The Bush smirk (as much as we hate it) is really effective among his supporters, and I don't see him doing a lot of smirking right now.
It's true that Bush starts to sound more coherent when he's angry, but usually his target is a foreign enemy. When he's in trouble and appears to be blaming other Americans, it sounds less like "moral clarity" and more like a blame game. The answer to his charge of "revisionist history" is just to point out the real history of how he justified the war, how our prospects for success were presented, and what has really happened in the meantime. He's the one that needs to do some revising to make it look good.
November 11, 2005 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am seeing some in the opposition pushing back with the meme of "how dare you do this on Veteran's Day?" I like that one, I think it will hit a nerve. The speech, it really was oriented towards "pep rally for White House true believers," seemed quite a bit selfish/self-centered, not enough about veterans and current troops.
November 11, 2005 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
No. Bush is going to try to out-McCarthy McCarthy.
November 11, 2005 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
yes, i'd like to see that too, although it's virtually impossible to compare the experience of being exposed to the intel as a congressperson and being in the flow of information, as in the executive branch. indeed, i'm not sure we've ever heard an argument quite like this before: the executive branch is saying the legislative branch knows everything there is to know about iraqi intelligence?
but i digress: the real point i wanted to make is there's another category, which matthew's previous post addressed: what did congresspeople know but find themselves unable to talk about in public (i.e., graham bitching about seeing material like the classified NIE that wasn't in the public version, but not being able to cite anything specific).
that also makes a difference to the discussion.
November 11, 2005 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
"They also know that intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein"
Oh my goodness. A widely held suspicion is not the same as a widely held certainty. A certainty justifies pre-emptive war. A suspicion leads to caution and containment.
Suggested question for the prosecution: On what grounds, Mr. Bush, did you make those very certain, categorical statements leading the country to war?
November 11, 2005 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I realize this relates more to the previous NIE post, but I had to add this quote from Senator Bob Graham book, Intelligence Matters (chapter 16):
On September 5, 2002, in order to get an answer to those questions, the Intelligence Committee called George Tenet to testify in closed session. After Tenet finished his prepared statement, Senator Carl Levin, Senator Dick Durbin, and I asked to see the National Intelligence Estimate on the rationale for invading Iraq and the military and post-invasion occupation expectations.......our request for the NIE on Iraq was met with blank stares by George Tenet and the other intelligence representative who were with him.
No NIE had been requested by the White House and none had been prepared.
I could not believe that the administration was about to take us to war without the best information by which to judge the war's necessity, the tactics we expected to be used against our forces should an invasion become inevitable, the conditions we would face in postwar occupation, and the steps deemed necessary to maximize the prospect of success and minimize the risk to American lives
.How can there be any question that the Bush administration DIDN'T WANT TO KNOW. They didn't want intelligence. They only wanted to take out Saddam.
November 11, 2005 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
"what information (if any) on the Iraqi weapons program was available to the White House before the war but not available to Congress?"
Good question. Without digging too far, we do know a couple of things. First, Bush issued a memorandum in Oct 2001 that intelligence info was to be given only to 8 congressional leaders. So certainly everyone wasn't getting the same information -- though theoretically, leaders of both sides were.
Second, we have recent evidence that Republicans are privy to information that Democrats are not -- I'm talking about Cheney's recent meeting with Republicans where Trent Lott tells us that the secret CIA prisons were discussed.
November 11, 2005 11:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Here's a very basic question that perhaps someone more knowledgable than me can answer: what information (if any) on the Iraqi weapons program was available to the White House before the war but not available to Congress?"
Lots of people made a bad call in September 2002. You can argue that they made that bad call on inadequate examination of the actual threat to this country even if Saddam had chemical and biological weapons. Which was my position at the time. Saddam could have had hundreds of climate controlled chemical weapons arsenals and still not have been a threat to the United States. Chemical weapons are not Weapons of Mass Destruction and those who argue that they are are liars or idiots.
But let us not forget the fundamental point. Whether you agree or disagree with me on whether Chemical Weapons are or are not WMD the last chance Democrats in Congress has a chance to weigh in on the decision to go to war was September 2002. Between then and March 2003 it was all Mr. "I get to decide" and "the decision has not been made". And we had a whole different, and mounting, knowledge base once UN Inspectors were on the ground. Every day that those Inspectors were coming up with nothing was a day that argued against going to war. Bush and Co. may have thought they had valid intelligence that said Saddam had WMD and reasons not to share that intelligence with UN Inspectors (though that would have been a violation of our responsibilities under International Law) but the fact remains that they took us to war based on a threat that has proved to be absent.
Cheney was openly quoted as saying "We know where the weapons are". If he was talking in good faith why didn't he share that intelligence with the UN Inspectors?
Nobody expected Saddam to blink. Most everybody in September 2002 expected Iraq to be hiding at least a "WMD related program". And finding that would have given the Bush Administration cover for this whole debacle. But they didn't find it and the gap in what we knew in September 2002 and what we knew in March 2003 is a chasm. Which the Bush Administration is trying to treat as a Memory Hole.
Not working for me.
November 12, 2005 2:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
what information (if any) on the Iraqi weapons program was available to the White House before the war but not available to Congress?
The aluminum tubes.
President Bush said,
Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon. UN address 9/12/02
"Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons. Cincinnati, October 7, 2002"
"Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.." State of the Union Speech, January 28, 2003
Fact of the matter is, this claim was repeated by the President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Condoleeza Rice -National Security Adviser and other officials.
President Bush did not say ,Department of Energy - nuclear weapons experts reported it was unlikely they were for centrifuges, more likely that they were for rockets.
technical experts from the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Oak Ridge, Livermore, and Los Alamos National Laboratories reviewed the CIA analysis and disagreed with this interpretation because the tube dimensions were far from ideal for this purpose. In fact, the dimensions and the aluminum alloy were identical to those of tubes acquired for rockets by Iraq in the 1980s.
The DOE experts also pointed out that if these tubes were actually intended for centrifuges, there should be evidence of attempts by the Iraqis to acquire hundreds of thousands of other very specific components, but no such evidence existed. This critique of the CIA interpretation was seconded by the State Department’s intelligence branch and, independently, by an international group of centrifuge experts advising the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
White House -speaches
http://webexhibits.org/bush/9.html
November 12, 2005 8:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, that seems like a good candidate. But are we sure that's not something the public didn't know about but Congress did?
November 12, 2005 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
There are multiple phases in the build-up to the war during which Bush screwed up in either a grossly negligent or willlfully deceptive way. Let's not mix them up.
9/11----early 2002: It seems that they spent an inordinate amount of time and effort trying to link 9/11 to Iraq. This is mostly under the radar, and anyway, the Dems are somewhat more justifiably tongue-tied by all the "United We Stand." Stuff is being hid from Congress now.
early-mid 2002: began leaching resources from Afghanistan to prepare for the invasion. Dems start complaining about what they see as a lack of action in Afghanstan, but the leeching bit is also under the radar. Again, stuff is being hid from congress.
Mid 2002--September 2002: WH rampantly promotes notion that Iraq is dangerous and obtaining nukes, with help of certain Manhattan-based reporter, for example. The nukes and a perceived connection with 9/11 are what bring urgency to the matter even across the Aisle. So we need a snapshot of the time leading UPTO the Congressional vote--what did the white house know? what the intelligence committees know? and what did whole of congress know? And then given that snapshot, we need to examine two questions. What was the difference between what Congress and what the White House knew? And would transferring that undisclosed information to Congress change any votes?
In the Fall of 2002, when they voted to authorize the president to use force, what intelligence and analysis was Congress looking at and, with that in mind, how reasonable were their votes? Clearly some Democrats (people like Boxer, Feingold, and rest in peace, Wellstone) were not convinced. But clearly others---Kerry, Clinton, and perhaps say, a hypothetical Representative Yglesisas--were. And while I fell squarely behind my Senator Boxer, I, for one, am still willing to accept that (and was willing to accept) that a tenable argument could have been made based on what was publicly understood/known to Congress at that point. Such arguments should be checked against the relevant roll call votes: (House and Senate). If you have a list of arguments, accurately culled from that time, wherin Congressperson A say something along the lines of, "well, if I see X or Y, then I would vote Nay, but since I only see Z, I must vote Yea," then you have to examine the evidence Congress has then and see if there was any X and Y present. But if there wasn't, you then have to examine what the White House had access to, and see if they knew there was X and Y present. And if you do, then that fairly clearly assigns the blame for Congressperson A's Yea vote to the White House, though the Congressperson A is still to be chided for having criteria that differred from Congressperson B who voted Nay anyway, being a little more intelligently suspicious of the White House. If you don't, then it's true that some of those Congresspeople were voting Yea just to be expedient or whathave you, and are as blamable as Bush for starting the war, with once exception. (That still doesn't absolve Bush of being incompetent in prosecuting the war.)
The exception is pretty important and applies to the time after the Congressional vote. If between fall of 2002 and March of 2003 the Administration go substantially new intelligence weakening the case for war and still went ahead, without notifying congress that they did so, that also partially absolves all the Congresspersons A who voted for it, and puts more of the blame on Bush. Even if full Administration disclosure in the Fall of 2002 wouldn't have changed any votes, if full disclosure in, say, February of 2003 would have changed enough votes, or at least enough Democratic votes, then the war is STILL almost entirely Bush's fault, or the fault of Bush and his party.
So we have four separate phases when Bush was or might have been hiding information from Congress. Any analysis of whose to blame has to take into account what the relevant parties knew at what point. At the same time, it also has to take into account the fact that Bush had four oppportunities to come clean, and quite possibly four different sets of pre-war deceptions.
All this of course doesn't touch the problems of incompetent prosecution and no plan for peace.
November 12, 2005 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's your point? I freely accept that there were different information streams right up to the point of the September 2002 vote. The five month gap was between that vote and when Mr."I get to decide" took us to war in March 2003. The assymetry of intelligence started there. Nowhere else.
I knew more in February 2003 than I knew in September 2002. And so did Kerry, and do did Boxer, and so did you if you were paying attention. But the calculus changed between those two months and some people just were not up to the math. But during that whole time Mr. Bush was holding the calculater.
November 12, 2005 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
So my rather longwinded point is that there are sort of four separate potential streams of deceiving congress and misleading the country. (The former being more important for real misconduct charges.) And Bush should/could be nailed on any or all of them. And that there are two possible layers of culpability-removal from hawks-turned-critics.
November 13, 2005 12:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
or focused.
But the fact is that there was an asymmetry of information between Kerry, Clinton and Edwards voting "Yes" in Sept and Bush ordering "Go" in March. And BushCo is intent on obfuscating the difference. Not until they pry my highlighter from between my cold dead fingers.
November 13, 2005 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink