Bush lies about lying

May 31, 2008 at 3:37 pm

If two wrongs make a right, do two lies make a truth? Not only did Bush lie about Iraq and WMDs, he lied last week when he said the intelligence was faulty.

In an interview with the Politico and Yahoo! News, President Bush blamed faulty intelligence.

“I don’t think so. … Intelligence communities all across the world shared the same assessment. And so I was disappointed to see how flawed our intelligence was.” “Do I think somebody lied to me?” he said. “No, I don’t. I think it was just, you know, they analyzed the situation and came up with the wrong conclusion.”

Yes, they did analyze the situation. They came to the right conclusion. You ignored it and now you’re blaming intelligence,

Let’s take a look at the intelligence the Bush administration ignored going into Iraq:

1. As early as September 12, 2001, Bush administration officials quietly questioned the claims. Richard Clarke, Bush’s then counterterrorism advisor, responded to Bush’s query whether Hussein was linked to the attacks.

“But you know, we have looked several times for state sponsorship of al Qaeda and not found any real linkages to Iraq.”

2. Beginning November of 2001, Defense Undersecretary Douglas Feith led a team to explore the relationship between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. Almost a year later, the team briefed Colin Powell and then-CIA director George Tenet on their findings. On September 25th 2002, Bush linked the two:

“They’re both risks, they’re both dangerous. The difference, of course, is that Al Qaeda likes to hijack governments. Saddam Hussein is a dictator of a government. Al Qaeda hides, Saddam doesn’t, but the danger is, is that they work in concert. The danger is, is that Al Qaeda becomes an extension of Saddam’s madness and his hatred and his capacity to extend weapons of mass destruction around the world.”

In July of the same year, the Defense Intelligence Agency found “compelling evidence demonstrating direct cooperation between the government of Iraq and Al Qaeda has not been established, despite a large body of anecdotal information.”

In April 2001, the CIA drafted a report called Iraqi Support for Terrorism, that found “no credible information that Baghdad had foreknowledge of the 11 September attacks or any other al-Qaeda strike.”

3. September 8th, 2002:

“We do know that he is actively pursuing a nuclear weapon. We do know there have been shipments going into . . . Iraq, for instance, of aluminum tubes that really are only suited to—high-quality aluminum tools that only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs.”

In April 2001, the Energy Department concluded that “while the gas centrifuge application cannot be ruled out, we assess that the procurement activity more likely supports a different application, such as conventional ordnance production.” In September of 2002 when the CIA was preparing the NIE, the Department reminded them of their findings. The CIA ignored them.

4. In his September 28 radio address, Bush claimed:

The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given. The regime has long-standing and continuing ties to terrorist groups, and there are al Qaeda terrorists inside Iraq. This regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year.”

Until three weeks ago, there was no National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq and WMDS. The CIA scrambled to complete one, later debunked by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence: “Postwar findings do not support the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) judgment that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.”

5. His 2003 State of the Union addresses mentioned Iraq buying Uranium from African countries.

“The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”

As early as March 2002, the intelligence community was divided about the link. During that month the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research published a report named “Niger: Sale of Uranium to Iraq Is Unlikely.”

During July of that year, the Energy Department found “no information indicating that any of the uranium shipments arrived in Iraq” and the “amount of uranium specified far exceeds what Iraq would need even for a robust nuclear weapons program.”

The 2006 Senate Select Committee on Intelligence confirmed this:

“Postwar findings do not support the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) assessment that Iraq was ‘vigorously trying to procure uranium ore and yellowcake’ from Africa. Postwar findings support the assessment in the NIE of the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) that claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are ‘highly dubious.”

6. On February 3, 2003 Colin Powell presented to the UN.

“My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we’re giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence. I will cite some examples, and these are from human sources.”

He also claimed that “a senior terrorist operative telling how Iraq provided training in these weapons [of mass destruction] to Al Qaeda.”

Six days earlier, the CIA had concluded that the detainee “was not in a position to know if any training had taken place.”

No Mr. Bush, the intelligence was correct. What you took from that intelligence and told the American people is what’s flawed.

Thanks Center for Public Integrity!

var MyShoutItURL = “http://www.shoutwire.com/comments/162924”;

Share this: Twitter

Facebook

Like this: Like Loading... Related

Entry filed under: National politics, Opinion. Tags: 9/11, 9/11 commission report, bush, cia, colin powell, condoleezza rice, estimate, hussein, intelligence, iraq, lied, wmd.