WP: Asterisks Dot White House's Iraq Argument

[kskiska]

By Dana Milbank and Walter Pincus
Saturday, November 12, 2005; A01

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."

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

[Rose Siding]

1. And by "asterisks", we mean LIES

Hallelujah :applause:

[rodeodance]

33. would have been great to see the word "lies' vs astericks.

[tanyev]

35. There are lies, damn lies, and asterisks.

:)

[The_Casual_Observer]

2. Imagine that, bush lies about the lies.

I wouldn't have expected that!:crazy:

[AuntiBush]

7. I'm Shocked I Tell You!

Just shocked - not!

[dchill]

3. Not "wholly accurate"

...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.

Uh - how about "both assertions are outright lies?" Saying neither assertion is "wholly accurate" is "wholly inaccurate."

And Stephen J. Hadley is just another BushCo liar.

[PurityOfEssence]

4. The more they bring it up, the better

The salient point is this: nobody came running to the administration yelping fear about an Iraqi threat. They had to force the intel community to help them distort enough excuses, and in the end, had to do it themselves with the WHIG and Feith's nasty little group.

Bush's biggest lie to date: "We didn't have the slightest inkling there was anything wrong with the intelligence." There's ample proof to show that the intel community fought ALL of the major contentions.

Congress did not have all the information, and this can be easily shown.

None of the commissions have been "independent", and to say so is to bring up the specifics about them.

Congress' joint commission on the 9-11 responsibility was done in the fall of '02, but suppressed until after the invasion; it was rather clear in saying that there was no connection between fundamentalist muslim terrorism and Saddam's regime.

I hope they bring up every argument they can; all can be shot down, and it keeps this all in the open.

[Pirate Smile]

5. Look at this crap Hadley and Rice said about Clinton:

"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."'

[daleo]

9. Four days of war (which ended), vs 1000 days (which have no end in sight)

There is no comparison here really.

[Pirate Smile]

10. I know, that is why it is such an idiotic statement. People who say

crap like that have zero credibility. Nada!

[ClintonTyree]

45. But how many Americans are aware of this?

Which brings us right back to Americans NOT PAYING ATTENTION ans the media NOT REPORTING THESE FACTS. Sure, we at DU know what the truth of the matter is, but how many DON'T?
That's what allows criminal, lying thieves like the BFEE to pull of their scams and get our country deeper in the doo-doo daily.

[BootinUp]

41. Limited air strikes vs invasion, what a comparison indeed. n/t

[Straight Shooter]

12. Oh, yeah, I remember all the right-wingers screaming about Clinton's war

on Iraq, and how he was finally doing the right thing to rid the world of the evil Saddam and his stealthy moves towards obliterating America in the form of a mushroom cloud. :eyes:

Four days of bombing weapons facilities. Tell me again, how did bush begin? Four days of bombing Baghdad, of which 50 percent of its population consisted of children under 15 years of age.

I may stand corrected on the four days, but not on the intent behind the use of force.

Ack, I'm getting all angry again.

[wordpix2]

50. by now we all know: "everything going wrong is Clinton's fault"

[usregimechange]

6. kick

[usregimechange]

8. Asterisks aka lies

[Media_Lies_Daily]

11. "The administration's overarching point" is NOT true....

...most, if not all, of the intelligence agencies did NOT believe that Iraq had WMDs. If that had been the case, why then did the NeoCons go out of their way to publicly expose CIA NOC Valerie Plame thereby compromising her WMD-tracking global network? Why then did Cheney spend so much time at Langley twisting arms?

The truth of the matter is that the Pentagon-based OSP worked closely with Cheney to doctor the raw intel coming out of Iraq. This doctored intelligence was then used in summaries supplied to Congress to convince Congress that Iraq had WMDs.

This article is nothing but a limited hang-out...exposing some of the truth while continuing to conceal most of the facts.

[PurityOfEssence]

13. "When I made the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power...

...Congress approved it with strong bipartisan support."

This is a huge smoking gun. He repeatedly claimed that he hadn't made such a decision, and the resolution doesn't talk about anything of the sort.

The more they try to bring up distortions they've gotten away with, the more people will be invited to show the distortions that were otherwise not that open to discussion. They're squirming in quicksand. Like Mussolini, he believes his lies, and to cite them as truth invites the scrutiny they can't bear.

Keep it up.

[lyonn]

14. Unbelievable isn't it

He made the decision to go to war with strong bipartisan support, I love it when he talks dirty. That whole speech is full of fodder for dem talking points. He is now repeating all the lies he started out with. One he didn't repeat today was when he was campaigning and said he was not a nation builder.

[davekriss]

48. He did not lie on that point

"He is now repeating all the lies he started out with. One he didn't repeat today was when he was campaigning and said he was not a nation builder."

He did not lie, he is still not a "nation builder". He is a nation wrecker. He's wrecked both the United States and Iraq.

[lyonn]

15. Silberman, now there is an unbiased person if he is

the Judge(Laurence?) Silberman that David Brock wrote about in Blinded by the Right. Hard, hard righter, with major neo-con connection and one who had a big role in getting Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court. I can't imagine him being impartial on any investigation concerning Bush. That appears to be true of all the investigations since 9-11.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

16. If we had simply done our job.... which should have been identifying

the root causes of terrorism and working to diminish those, and going after Al Qaida wherever it may be, we would have hundreds of thousands, more likely millions who would not be wanting to do America lethal harm. That's just the way things have played out, as if anyone with a brain didn't see it coming.

[spinbaby]

17. They never take responsibility for anything, do they?

It's like the kid by the broken cookie jar.

[BR_Parkway]

18. Asterisks Dot White House's Iraq Argument (WP calls chimpy a liar

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.

<snip>

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.

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

They're actually calling him out for lying to us now to prove he didn't lie to us back then!


Something in the Post that's actually worth recommending people read!

[POAS]

19. Administration knew more..

From the article, "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."

Exactly the point I have made from the beginning and the line "the Congress had the SAME intelligence" is just another weasel by the WH to be able to deny that they ever said the Cingress had ALL the intelligence. It's the same weasely tack they take now about linking Saddam with 9/11.

As Scotty has often said, "Go back and check the resord and the resord is clear. We never said that."

Of course they never came right out and said it, but they linked the two rhetorically so often as to make the case without actually saying the words.

[oscarmitre]

20. Recommended n/t

[salin]

21. You know things are bad for bushco, when the compliant press

begins to report things such as... reminding folks of the real - and recorded facts rather than just blithely reporting what bush says NOW.

It is a good reminder that the vote was sold as the ONLY way (by threat of force) to "Force Hussein to allow weapons inspectors back into Iraq, and have real weapons inspections (which destroy found WMDs)"

So ironic this verbage in a speech where bush is accusing others of trying to "rewrite" history. Projection.

[truthisfreedom]

30. exactly. projection is only ONE of the techniques rove uses to fake us out

though. he has a laundry list of misdirections and distractions at his disposal as well... watch his techniques (until he's indicted, that is!)

[rodeodance]

22. maybe they did it cause Media Matters hit them on Hadley! see below.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200511110012
News outlets failed to note recent prewar intel revelations in coverage of Hadley press conference


The Washington Post, The New York Times, and CNN highlighted national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley's public defense of the Bush administration's use of prewar intelligence and his criticism of Democratic efforts to ensure full investigation of this matter. But in their coverage of his November 10 press conference, these outlets omitted mention of recent reports that undermine administration claims that Congress had access to the same intelligence as the administration and further support allegations that White House officials ignored dissenting views within the intelligence community in the build-up to war.

On November 6, both the Post and the Times reported on a newly declassified document proving that the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) had voiced strong doubts about the credibility of an Al Qaeda operative whose statements provided the basis for many of the administration's prewar claims regarding Iraqi training of terrorists. The DIA report -- produced and distributed in February 2002 -- raised serious questions about the first interrogation report on the operative and determined that "it is more likely this individual is intentionally misleading the debriefers." Both newspapers noted that administration officials, in late 2002 and early 2003, repeatedly cited the alleged chemical and biological training as proof of an Iraq-Al Qaeda connection but never noted that the DIA considered this intelligence suspect. Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), who released the new materials, stated "that he could not be certain that White House officials read the DIA report, but his 'presumption' was that someone at the National Security Council saw it because it was sent there," according to the Post.

Four days after these revelations, Hadley held a press conference during which he responded to Democrats' ongoing calls for the completion of a congressional investigation into government officials' use of prewar intelligence. A November 11 Post article, a November 11 Times article, and the November 10 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight all focused on Hadley's response to the Democrats' efforts:.......


The Post devoted an entire article to Hadley's remarks; the article also included coverage of the Democratic response. The Times noted Hadley's defense at the end of an article on President Bush's current efforts to "to shore up his credibility and cast his critics as hypocrites." Dobbs gave only a brief report regarding his comments. But despite the Post and the Times' recent coverage of the declassified DIA report -- and despite the fact that Hadley was deputy national security adviser at the time that report was disseminated -- none of these news outlets mentioned the report......

[rodeodance]

23. and the Post actually mentions Hadleys comments in today's article.

......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.......

[rodeodance]

24. and looky what Condi said about Clinton's 1998 bombing--(wmd)--

...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."

[rodeodance]

26. they claired that the committee's did NOT look at HOW the intel was used.

Gawd-we need more newspapers, media to do this!--Hit back at this lies comming from the WH!

...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.".....

[murray hill farm]

25. and whats this "rewrite history" bullshit?

or "caca de torro" as we say in spanish! Ha! Nooooooooooo...history is the story of what happened..what really happened. What is really irresponsible, is faking what really happened...and then wanting it to be represented as what really happened.

[rodeodance]

27. There are many versions of history--not only the big History--and Jr is

afraid that his legacy is going downhill--afraid of these other histories. And he--and Rove--and Repugs who are in this with him are doing everything possible to keep the big History (WH vesion).

They are dangerous.

[LaurenG]

28. Now we're talking

Every time that president opens his mouth he digs himself in DEEPER. He is so busy lying that he hasn't figured it out yet. He's burying himself.

[calimary]

37. Then let's just make sure we keep handing him shovels.

I'm glad this story is on page A1. Unfortunately, it's on Saturday. Needs to be Sunday front page. And Dana Milbank needs to stop couching things. I suspect he's still reluctant to risk being frozen out of all those cool insider cocktail parties.

[eomer]

29. Come on, Bushco paid good money to get history written the way they wanted

and it was hard work. It took a tremendous amount of quid pro quo, bribery, schmoozing, coercion, threats, junkets, planting of moles, creation of fake news outlets and, of course, strategic leaking. They are being asked to pay again for something they already bought.

And, besides, they are busy writing "science" now.

[leftchick]

31. Ha! The Powell 2001 quote is in here!

It s the first time I have seen this mentioned anywhere except DU....

<snip>

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."

[rodeodance]

34. but Powell soon fell to the lows of the WH!!

[UpInArms]

32. does anyone else remember the first 4 weeks of the *Co admin?

http://www.pbs.org/weta/washingtonweek/transcripts/transcript010216.html

February 16, 2001

excerpt:

Analysis: Air strikes in Iraq to suppress Iraqi air defense system

GWEN IFILL, host: Deja vu today as 24 British and US aircraft take aim against what the White House says is a newly active Iraqi military.

Ms. CONDOLEEZZA RICE (National Security Adviser): This no-fly zone has been patrolled for--since 1991, 10 years now. We have been doing enforcement actions routinely and periodically during that period of time. What triggers is when the commanders on the ground believe that there are Iraqi assets that put in danger our personnel and our forces as they try to carry out that enforcement.

<snip>

Mr. TOM GJELTEN (National Public Radio): Gwen, it's a little bit of both. It's routine in the sense that, believe it or not, this is the fourth time that US planes have bombed Iraq since President Bush--Bush took office. He just--we just haven't heard about the first three times.

IFILL: Just in the last month?

Mr. GJELTEN: Just since January 20th. It's also routine in the sense, as Condoleezza Rice said, that all of these strikes are basically about the same mission, and that is suppressing the Iraqi air defense system that threatens US aircraft. But when the Pentagon briefed about this mission today, they did not say it was a routine mission. In fact, it--it's significantly an es--an escalation in several senses.

First of all, it was larger. Five targets were hit today and 24 aircraft, as you say. This is a much larger-scale operation than usual. Second, targets were hit outside the no-fly zone. This is the first time in more than a year that US aircraft and British aircraft have hit targets outside the no-fly zones, the north and south no-fly zones. And because of this, it had to be planned in advance. This was not a spontaneous bombing raid the way most of these are. Most of these are--happen when a US aircraft is fired upon and it simply returns the fire. In this case, this mission was planned carefully in advance and the president had to approve it.

...more...

[rodeodance]

36. we were already at war (we just did not know it)

[UpInArms]

38. I remember waiting (on Feb 16 2001) for the results from

a hearing on the stolen election - *Co was in Mexico - and the Black Caucus results were completely ignored and the news reports all started talking about how we were bombing Iraq and that *Co had ordered it done from Mexico.

I was horrified - and realized that it was the beginning of something that would destroy more than even I could comprehend.

[badgervan]

39. Who Determines Reality?

Remember the White House person who said that this administration was so powerful, so in control, that they could determine what is reality - as opposed to authentic reality? Well, here they go again. Bush/cheney/rove continue to put lipstick on a pig - and brazenly call it truth. These hypocritical slime are despicable, and not worthy of the American people's trust. It is very important that our MSM hold these folks to the truth, and not allow them to keep spinning/lying their way out of serious trouble.

[GoreDean2008]

40. Washington Post Should Be Ashamed of Itself for Attacking Gov. Dean

TOday, Washington Post published an article, "Democrats Losing Race for Funds Under Dean," by Chris Cillizza.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/11/AR2005111101833.html

This article says, "(Dean) faced widespread misgivings from establishment Democrats, including elected officials and Washington operatives, who questioned whether Dean was the right fit in a job that traditionally has centered on fundraising and the courting of major donors."

What is wrong with the Democratic Party losing the corporate donors that support the DLC Democrats? We are gaining the real grassroot progressive Democrats "because" we are starving the DLC Democrats by reducing the corporate big-money influence in the Democratic Party. Therefore, Dean is doing the right thing and the future of the Democratic Party is ever greater than before. WaPo is such a loser to not see the rise of the progressives in the country.

[pinniped]

42. Inaccuracies in Bush's defense of lead-up to war (Congress had less info)

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/11/12/MNGNUFNCC31.DTL

Inaccuracies in Bush's defense of lead-up to war
Congress had far less information than White House had

Dana Milban, Walter Pincus, Washington Post

Saturday, November 12, 2005

Washington -- 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.

<snip--

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.

<snip--

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.
----more...

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/11/12/MNGNUFNCC31.DTL

Same intelligence my ass, lying SOB.

The POS is trying that safety in numbers BS. Maybe that was the plan from the start. Get congress to view false info/less info then blame them later.

[C_U_L8R]

43. So why doesn't Bush tell us what his intelligence was.....

All we hear from Junior are vague "threats" that don't amount to nothing...
If that's all he had then he was fool to go to war...
if there is substantial proof that his war was justified ... then bring it on..
Otherwise .. Junior should get out of the way and resign
for his incompetent decision and misguided leadership.

[PhilipShore]

44. Editor & Publisher: 'Wash Post' Story Rejects Bush Claims on Pre-War Intel

Editor & Publisher
By E&P Staff
November 12, 2005

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001478770

NEW YORK Washington Post reporters Dana Milbank and Walter Pincus offered today a front-page reply to President Bush's claims on Friday that Democrats in Congress, now critical of the Iraq war, saw the same pre-war intelligence that the White House did.

[jsamuel]

46. Woot

[Ian David]

47. From Rapid Response Network: Asterisks Dot White House's Iraq Argument

<snip>

----------------------------
ISSUE
----------------------------

Asterisks Dot White House's Iraq Argument
By Dana Milbank and Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writers?Saturday, November 12,
2005
http://digbig.com/4fgkm

** THOUGHTS **

As mentioned briefly in yesterday's alert, this WaPo
story surmises that our conservative president's
speech defending his invasion of Iraq was not "wholly
accurate."

A shorter word for not "wholly accurate"?

"Fib." ("Lie" works too.)

** ACTION **

Check your local media to make sure they are reporting
not only on the president's speech but also the
progressives' response (plus the full background --
such as, according to Bob Woodward, the Prince of
Saudi Arabia having more intel than Congress before
the US invaded Iraq).

Write a letter to the editor with your own thoughts on
"rewriting history" and being not "wholly accurate"...

<snip>

Support your RR team!

Tell your friends about us and let 'em know where to
sign up:
http://www.rapidresponsenetwork.org

Become a volunteer
http://www.rapidresponsenetwork.org/volunteer.shtml
or donate
http://www.rapidresponsenetwork.org/donate.shtml

____________________________________________
Rapid Response Network (RR) is a group of volunteers
dedicated to advancing the principles of balance and
truthfulness in the media. RR is currently filing for
501c4 status as a non-profit organization.

To contact us: [e-mail]
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[e-mail]
____________________________________________

To contact your elected representatives:
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/home/
*
League of Women Voters Media email database:
http://www.capwiz.com/lwv/dbq/media/
*
TV news addresses: http://digbig.com/4bqmq
*
Addresses for major U.S. daily publications/wire
services/weekly publications: http://digbig.com/4cqge
*
Major publication addresses by state:
http://digbig.com/4bwxw

[garthranzz]

49. All the President's Spin...

Reading that great book from cover to cover for the first time. We now know what to expect. Bush doesn't lie. He just doesn't tell the truth. You know the courtroom oath - the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Now we know why it's all there. Because you can tell the truth and still lie, if it's not the whole truth and nothing but...

I wondered why Kerry, in the debates, didn't call Bush a liar and now I understand. Bush rarely lies outright. He just distorts the truth, manipulates perceptions - which is much worse because it's harder to pin down.

Remember how children will be very literal to avoid responsibility? Did you break the window? No. How did it get broken? The ball broke it. And who threw the ball. I did. So you broke the window? No, the ball broke the window; I'm not responsible.

[RedEarth]

51. very interesting...shows bush is continuing to lie

[warrens]

52. They cherry-picked the intelligence

And bullied anyone who had information that disputed the conclusion they wished to reach. Liars.

[Maggie_May]

53. I can't wait

till Tony Blair's investigation of the war. I wondering how this administration is going to deal with that. This is not going under the rug.