Just who is rewriting history here?
At a Veterans Day speech on Nov. 11th, President Bush blasted Democrats for their scathing criticism of the Iraq war and their attempt to rewrite history. Below is a breakdown of some of the more misleading statements Bush made during the speech.
Bush: When I made the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, Congress approved it with strong bipartisan support.
Well this isn’t actually true. Congress never authorized the removal of Saddam. The resolution approved by the House and Senate in Oct 2002 only gave Bush the authority to go to war in Iraq if he deemed it necessary. The point of the resolution was disarmament, not regime change, as event by the condition that military action would only be used if diplomatic efforts through the UN failed. So is Bush saying he had already made up his mind for regime change by Oct 2002, despite his administration’s continued claims of willingness to work with the UN to disarm Iraq? At no time before the March 2003 invasion did Bush seek approval from Congress to remove Saddam.
Bush: While it's perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began.
When was the last time we heard Bush discuss the issue of how this war began, let alone the fact that the rationales for the war have changed more often then a teenager changes outfits in preparation for a big date?
Realize too that Bush is wagging a finger at the Democrats for supposedly doing the same thing he is guilty of doing: rewriting history. Several months after the invasion in 2003, Bush began making claims that Saddam forced his hand by not allowing UN inspectors into Iraq. It is a documented fact that inspectors entered the country in Nov 2002 and remained there until they were forced out by the Bush administration in advance of US troops.
Later in the speech, Bush seemed to contradict the legitimacy of criticism.
Bush: These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America's will. As our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of life, they deserve to know that their elected leaders who voted to send them to war continue to stand behind them. Our troops deserve to know that this support will remain firm when the going gets tough.
This is a key strategy the Bush administration has long used to attack his critics. He accuses them of not supporting the troops by criticizing his policies. It's the "you're either us, or with the terrorists" mentality. Anyone to disagrees with is policies is giving aid to the enemy. Though I would say launching a war based on false pretenses has given more aid to the enemy then mere words of criticism ever could.
Bush: Some Democrats and anti-war 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.
Now it might be true that there was no pressure (which I seriously doubt is entirely true) placed on the intelligence community to come up with intelligence that made the case for war. But Bush also fails to point out that the investigation doesn’t completely exonerate him of any wrongdoing. The following is from a Washington Post article about that Senate investigation:
… 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.
This may also be an issue of semantics. While Bush and company might not be guilty of ‘manipulating’ intelligence, they may be guilty of ‘mischaracterizing’ that intelligence. More on this later.
Bush: ...And many of these critics supported my opponent during the last election, who explained his position to support the resolution in the Congress this way: "When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security." That's why more than a hundred Democrats in the House and the Senate--who had access to the same intelligence--voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power.
This portion has more of a campaign speech feel to it doesn’t it? Bush even mentions when quoting John Kerry that the point of the resolution was disarmament. He also talked about Congress having access to the same intelligence he did. Why do I doubt that?
First, it is ridiculous to even suggest that Congress has the same access to the raw intelligence data that the President has, simply from a security clearance standpoint. And any intelligence that is presented to Congress is usually complied by the CIA in what is known as a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE). I am assuming that Bush was referring to the Oct 2002 NIE. But there are several reasons why I think this intelligence is at the very least “flawed”.
For one thing, while most NIE’s take some six months to complete, the 2002 NIE was completed in
just two weeks. The previous NIE of December 2001 concluded that Iraq did not have nuclear weapons or nuclear weapons programs. This assessment had remained unchanged for three years. But of course that assessment didn’t sit well with the agenda Bush and company had for Iraq, so they began making claims as early as Jan 2002 and then compiled a quickie NIE to back up their claims. And because the intelligence community was aware that the administration didn't like the views expressed in the previous NIE, this lead to a so called "group think" mentality, everyone assuming that Saddam had reconstituted his nuclear weapons program.
The 90 page, classified NIE was presented to Congress at 10 pm the night before Senate hearings were to begin. But the classified document was under tight, on site security. No Senators were allowed to take a copy for review nor were they allowed to take notes on what they read in the classified version. I can imagine the scene: the lone document is placed on a podium, surrounded by blurry Secret Service agents. It is not to be touched, except by an official page turner. Senators pockets would searched in ensure no notes could be taken.
But of course Senators were allowed to take for review what was claimed to be an unclassified summary of the full report, a so called “white paper” version. This 25 page document was little more then a Pro-War propaganda brochure. It was completely misleading. All dissentions, included in the full version, were removed as were qualifiers. It even added language that “hyped” the threat. When Senators began calling for the full version to be declassified, their calls were rebuffed. And because the document was classified, they could not use specifics to support their opposition to the war without revealing classified information. (A good example of this was the dissention over the intended use of aluminum tubes. The State and Energy departments were questionable of the assertions that Iraq was buying aluminum tubes that were only suitable for centrifuges to enrich uranium. The “white paper” version did not include this disagreement.)
In addition, much of the intelligence was not verified by a reliable source on the ground. The administration relied heavily on assertions made by Iraqi exiles or third countries, all of which had good reason to see Saddam removed from power.
There is also the possibility that Bush willfully made statements that weren’t supported by the intelligence. The Oct 2002 NIE stated that Saddam had an active biological research and development program. But Bush publicly claimed that Iraq possessed “stockpiles” of biological weapons. There is a big difference between an R&D program and stockpiles of weapons, neither of which it turned out existed. This may be why Bush can claim they did not manipulate the intelligence; they merely mischaracterized the threat posed by Saddam.
This speech was yet another disrespectful misuse of our military by President Bush as a political backdrop. Rather then use the speech to honor our nation’s veterans; he used it as a political soapbox from which to cry foul. Don’t believe me that this was just a political stunt? Bush shared the stage with a Humvee and a banner behind him read “Strategy for Victory”. Can we say photo op? Speakers blared “Hail to the Chief” to announce Bush’s arrival, a rarity for this president.
Still not convinced? Here is another sign this was a political event: Karl Rove crawled out from under his rock to attend.
(Originally posted on Yahoo360)
