Center for Public Integrity accuses Bush Administration of false pretenses

[JohnnieEnigma]

@tomndebb

We have been subjected to this bit of bait-and-switch polemic from Bush apologists since the summer of 2003. Unfortunately, those claims, (probably deliberately) conflate two separate situations. It is quite unfortunate that you are repeating things that have been debunked numerous times over the last five years.
In the 1980s, Hussein used chemical weapons, first against the Iranians and later against his own people.
Following the First Gulf War, he was ordered to destroy his stockpiles and to dismantle his production of those weapons.
This he apparently did, although he hindered the UN inspection teams in ways that made it appear that he had continued to hold and produce such weapons. (Speculation: By making it appear that he still had the weapons, he felt that he had a useful bluff to prevent his neighbors from rising against him.)
When it was discovered that the U.S. had planted spies within the ranks of the UN inspectors, the UN pulled those inspectors out of Iraq in embarrassment, further making it appear that Hussein still had such weapons.
Up until the summer of 2002, it was the general opinion of the various intelligence agencies and world leaders that Hussein still had WMD.

In the Fall of 2002, with the U.S. administration hell-bent on having a war, Hussein permitted the inspection teams to re-enter Iraq in the hopes of staving off a war. The UN teams found increasing evidence that Hussein had gotten rid of his WMD by around 1992. However, the Bush administration began seizing on the most flimsy bits of evidence to deny what the UN inspectors and their own intelligence groups had already discovered–that there were no longer any WMD in Iraq.
They even went so far as to set up a special “intelligence” group in the Department of Defense, the Office of Special Plans, manned by analysts untrained in genuine intelligence, to recast all intelligence reports in a way that favored the administration opinion, regardless of actual evidence.
By the time of the March, 2003 invasion, every intelligence agency in the world–including the consensus opinion of U.S. agencies–recognized that Hussein no longer had WMD capability. There were limited departments within different agencies who still suspected that there might be WMD in Iraq, but they were minority groups (who, in retrospect, were clearly mistaken or were propaganda groups who were not interested in the accuracy of their statements).

The Bush administration demonstrated that they were aware that Hussein had no WMD when they ordered Army and Marine units moving through Iraq to bypass the purported locations of WMD storge or production. If they believed that those sites posed a risk, they were criminally negligent in ordering them to not be secured. If they knew that those sites presented no risk, they demonstrated that they were aware that their casus belli was a lie.

Good post, and your last paragraph is a hell of a good point. But do you recall the weeks before we went into Iraq, do you recall the caravan of trucks leaving Iraq… it’s like they were given fair warning to clean out before we went in. That’s the impression I got. All those trucks filled with government stuff heading toward Syria; and right before we went into Iraq, I recall the media interviewing local Iraqi’s who claimed the WMD’s left the country and others were buried near where they were located.

And I’m no one’s apologist, I’m just trying to know the truth like everyone else here.

[Squink]

April 2005:
Report Finds No Evidence Syria Hid Iraqi Arms

Report
From addendum: (pdf available at same page)

Based on the evidence available at present, ISG
judged that it was unlikely that an official transfer of
WMD material from Iraq to Syria took place.

[JohnnieEnigma]

@tomndebb

Really? That is not the impression that others have:

Bush Defends Assertions of Iraq-Al Qaeda Relationship Washington Post, June 18, 2004

Regarding the above link: Right. I agree with Bush.

Bush: “The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda: because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda,” Bush said after a Cabinet meeting. As evidence, he cited Iraqi intelligence officers’ meeting with bin Laden in Sudan. “There’s numerous contacts between the two,” Bush said.

“This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and al Qaeda,” Bush said. “We did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda.”

Again, I believe this.
Look at this:

Officials with the Sept. 11 commission yesterday tried to soften the impact of the staff’s finding, noting that the panel, formally known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, agrees with the administration on key points. **“Were there contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq? Yes,” Thomas H. Kean (R), the panel’s chairman, said at a news conference. “**What our staff statement found is there is no credible evidence that we can discover, after a long investigation, that Iraq and Saddam Hussein in any way were part of the attack on the United States.”

Right, this guy (Tom Kean) is saying there was no credible evidence that Iraq and Saddam were part of the 9/11 attack. That’s right, and that’s exactly what Bush claimed too. But there were indeed contacts between Al qaeda and Iraq.

If you want to talk about degrees of their ties, than fine. But there clearly were ties.

[Ale]

@JohnnieEnigma

I recall the media interviewing local Iraqi’s who claimed the WMD’s left the country and others were buried near where they were located.

Are you saying that there were WMD buried prior to the invasion and subsequently found by the invading forces? Really?

Thats one of the reasons why we ask "cite?" here; frankly, you dont know what you`re talking about.

[Frostillicus]

There were members of Al-Queda in the United States prior to Sept. 11, 2001. Around 19 of them, if I am not mistaken. Does that mean that there was a relationship between the Bush government and Al-Queda? Cause that’s what you are trying to argue in your “Al-Queda was operating in Northern Iraq” nonsense.

[Princhester]

@JohnnieEnigma

If you want to talk about degrees of their ties, than fine. But there clearly were ties.

The page of your link in the OP entitled “Key False Statements” discusses the Bush Admin’s statements about such ties, and the intelligence community’s actual conclusions about such ties, in the second section from the top. The gist is that while Bush was saying things like …

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."

… according to your link this statement was pretty much pure hype, since there was no real danger as Bush suggested at all.

Do you actually have any cites to show that any element of the article to which you link is wrong in any particular?

[Gala_Matrix_Fire]

@JohnnieEnigma

another fact is there were terror training camps throughout the Middle East including Iraq. What do you think, the terrorist camp coordinators made a point of saying, “lets place our camps eveywhere except Iraq”?

When you say there were terror camps throughout the Middle East, would you care to be more specific? Are you contending that every Middle Eastern country had at least one training camp, as if they were McDonalds franchises?

I think the “terrorist camp coordinators” made a point of saying, “Let’s place our camps in areas where we can get away with it and not in a country where the brutal and rightly-paranoid dictator will crush us and our extended families for the merest hint that we might be threatening his rule.” Yes.

@JohnnieEnigma

I’m just trying to know the truth like everyone else here.

No, you’re not.

[BrainGlutton]

@JohnnieEnigma

Media Matters is a Hillary with an agenda site.

What are you basing that on? Media Matters has a definite political orientation, but I’ve never heard it accused of favoring HRC in particular; that’s not even mentioned in the criticism section of the Wiki article.

@JohnnieEnigma

The other site is all for fairness and accuracy in reporting mainly only right-slanted stories.

So? That does not discredit its content. Furthermore, FAIR does not even claim political neutrality – which Accuracy in Media dishonestly does. AIM has also defended Joseph McCarthy and propagated the theory that Vince Foster was murdered. Not a credible organization by any means.

Regarding the Center for Public Integrity itself, how does anything about its funding undermine its credibility?

[JohnnieEnigma]

@BrainGlutton

What are you basing that on? Media Matters has a definite political orientation, but I’ve never heard it accused of favoring HRC in particular; that’s not even mentioned in the criticism section of the Wiki article.

I’m basing it on what Hillary has directly claimed. Around the 2:50 minute section of the video, you’ll hear her admit to this:

Hillary Clinton Speaks At Yearly Kos www.COTTONMOUTHblog.com

I thought it was common knowledge anyway…

[JohnnieEnigma]

@BrainGlutton

Regarding the Center for Public Integrity itself, how does anything about its funding undermine its credibility?

Do you think funding from right wing sources would undermine the credibility of a thinktank or political site?

I think funding indeed influences and determines a political agenda for either side; I don’t think it’s out of the ordinary to believe that a left-leaning site with a deep aversion to the Bush Administration could possibly be slanted in their reporting. That’s my personal opinion based on past observations… so I don’t have a cite for you.

[Miller]

@JohnnieEnigma

Do you think funding from right wing sources would undermine the credibility of a thinktank or political site?

I don’t see why it should, unless one assumes that “right wing” equates with “dishonest.” The fact that a particular organization is funded by people on one side of the political spectrum shouldn’t be used as a reason to automatically disregard the findings of that organization.

I think funding indeed influences and determines a political agenda for either side; I don’t think it’s out of the ordinary to believe that a left-leaning site with a deep aversion to the Bush Administration could possibly be slanted in their reporting.

I doubt anyone would argue differently. However, merely pointing out that an organization has an agenda is not the same as discrediting their information.

[Princhester]

So you’re clearly very happy to assume bias. We’ve established that pretty clearly. We understand that.

Do you or do you not have any cites that show that the site you link to in your OP is incorrect in any specific particular?

Yes or no? Put up or go the hell away quietly.

[Poor_College_Student]

I just want to throw in my favorite quote here:

“It is pointless to argue facts and figures with someone who is enjoying a sense of moral superiority in their ignorance.”

[BrainGlutton]

@Poor College Student

I just want to throw in my favorite quote here:

“It is pointless to argue facts and figures with someone who is enjoying a sense of moral superiority in their ignorance.”

Who’s that from?

[Robot_Arm]

@JohnnieEnigma

I’m just wondering how a fund for Independence in journalism, an extension of the Center for Public Integity which just happens to be heavily funded by George Soros, a well known Bush critic, can claim any integrity in their reporting.

Just for the record, Johnnie, could you tell us what stand you’re trying to make here. From my reading so far, it could be any of the following:

a) The Bush administration did not justify the invasion of Iraq by claiming Saddam Hussein’s regime possessed weapons of mass destruction and was an imminent threat to the United States.

b) Iraq did possess such weapons and was a threat.

c) This particular analysis was carried out by a biased organization and so the underlying facts may be disregarded.

d) Other people/governments lied too, so it’s okay.

e) Other. (please specify)

[RedFury]

@JohnnieEnigma

…And I’m no one’s apologist, I’m just trying to know the truth like everyone else here.

Lots of stand-up material on this. Have you considered going that route…ya’ know, for truth’s sake and all. Otherwise you could try and remain serious on the matter for it will still be a hoot & holler riot a-la Steven Wright.

In any event, thanks for bringing much-needed deadpan humor into GD.

[elucidator]

See what happens when someone lives in a cultural backwater like Yurp? What you got there, Red, that there is your post-modernist irony. Glad to help.

[Poor_College_Student]

@BrainGlutton

Who’s that from?

It is usually futile to try to talk facts and analysis to people who are enjoying a sense of moral superiority in their ignorance. – Dr Thomas Sowell.

So I got it a bit wrong, but the same meaning. and I only found the author by Google searching it =P

[Poor_College_Student]

Put simply,

A wrong person can say a right thing and
A right person can say a wrong thing.

That’s why we keep it about the facts.

[BrainGlutton]

@elucidator

See what happens when someone lives in a cultural backwater like Yurp? What you got there, Red, that there is your post-modernist irony. Glad to help.

“Post-modernist” is so last year. I prefer “cyberzoic.” It sounds cool, it sounds like it actually means something if only you were smart enough to work it out, and it’s got “cyber” in it.