Washington Post on access to prewar intel:
By on Nov 12th, 2005 at 2:47 am
Washington Post on access to prewar intel:
“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.” (Via Atrios)
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Bush Legacy
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
DADT
Economy
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Franken
Global Warming
Guantanamo
Health Care
International Relations
Iran
Iraq
Justice
Krauthammer
Kyl
LGBT
Limbaugh
McCain
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Public Plan
Race
Radical Right
Rove
Sanford
Sotomayor
Steele
Supreme Court
Terrorism
ThinkProgress
Tiller
Torture
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Chef Dicky cooked the intel like a stuffed pig and served it to congress. Unfortunately it was stuffed with sewage, and glazed with the blood of Iraqi children. Too bad Colin Powell was waiting that table - he was trusted, so they ate till they were gorged. The congress, the press, and the constitution were hijacked as foils, pawns, and gambits in the neocon plan for unjust war.
WAR CRIMES HAVE BEEN COMMITTED - KEEP CONNECTING THE DOTS...
November 12th, 2005 at 5:31 amHaving "intelligence" -- not sure what exactly that means anymore -- is one thing. What you do with it is another matter entirely. The administration has, in typical fashion, turned the spotlight on intel and those who provided it, deflecting attention from the real question of why it acted as it did, when it did. Most of the time, intel is more of a statistical probability than certainty, and of itself, benign. How it's used is what saves the day or leads to disaster. Judgement, not intel, is the issue.
November 12th, 2005 at 5:36 amThe Post should make up it's mind one way or the other to avoid being listed consistently as partisan.
quoted from the article
Milbank and Pincus concede the essential point in their third paragraph:
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.
If that's true, two questions arise: (a) what's all the fuss about and (b) why didn't Milbank and Pincus write this before, as the "Bush lied" meme went essentially unchallenged for weeks.
unquote
richb
November 12th, 2005 at 7:26 amRight on Rich. The WaPo contradicts its reporting so frequently regarding our current ship of state that it's impossible to take seriously. When you aren't being honest and every report is an awkward dance around the fringes of truth, you lose all credibility. Dana Milbank is a whore or worse.
The truth of course is that this administration kept as many intelligence secrets as possible in the run up to their war. Cherry-picked and presented only what they wanted the world to see, suppressed dissenting. They can point the finger all day long but it's only a matter of political spin, the facts are out there and the game is how effectively they can be swept under the rug. The WaPo can't decide which reality they want to propagate.
Thank God for the blogosphere!
November 12th, 2005 at 8:11 amhttp://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?
By Steven E. Jones
Department of Physics and Astronomy
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84604
ABSTRACT
November 12th, 2005 at 8:34 amexactly... and the admin only handed over the parts that helped their case...
November 12th, 2005 at 8:53 amHey RichB #4 thanks for pointing out the inconsistency of the Washington Post. The liberals here are trying to "rewrite history" as Bush put it yesterday. I'm a little confused, though, over what history junior is referring to as the history of this sordid affair has not been written yet.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you have to admit that the "Bush lied" theme is starting to stick. According to all polls, people are skeptical of junior and his Texas-sized tall tales. He just absolutely STINKS!!!! Doesn't that just frost your ass?
I mean, what Barbara Bush said about junior being a "little scamp" really hasn't changed much except that the little scamp is really a "little skunk" instead.
November 12th, 2005 at 8:56 am#6,
I just read the first half of that report and will read the rest later. It's no longer a conspiracy theory and in fact, I think the official story of 9/11 has been soundly debunked. The most damning thing I've seen yt is that closeup of the WT-7 collapse. Check out the very beginning of thie video: "Squibs along southwest corner of WTC-7". Check it out:
http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/Flashes/squibs_along_southwest_corner.htm
November 12th, 2005 at 9:49 amThe Democrats did not have the same intelligence as the White House did. Would Cheney allow it?
The President is misleading the American people every time he says it.
He's lying.
The Dems who were briefed prior to war need to document to the nth degree how many times they were told:
"we can't show you that part"
"it will be declassified soon"
"that's in another intelligence report"
"trust me on this one"
We know they did it with Plame. Same deal here.
November 12th, 2005 at 10:13 amAfter the tragedy of 911 bushlandia decreed that only a few people in congress would get intelligence information. I forgot the number, but do know one thing - there were no dems on the list except for Jay Rockefeller.
November 12th, 2005 at 10:20 amMARY HAD A LITTLE LAMB
IT HAD A GREAT BIG TUSH,
EVERY TIME IT RAISED ITS TAIL
November 12th, 2005 at 10:29 amYOU SAW A PICTURE OF BUSH.
I do not really believe that Bush intentionally "lied" to Congress and the American people in making his case for war. Nor do I think that too many people really ever believed that the War in Iraq was about weapons of mass destruction.
I think it's unlikely that the “outing†of Valerie Plame was either a vindictive act of retribution or a way of sending a message to other would-be whistleblowers critical of the Administration. But let’s assume, further, that Libby and Rove and anyone else from the White House who may have told or confirmed for the press that Joe Wilson’s wife in the CIA was the one who suggested that he go to Niger were engaged in a completely innocent, legitimate, political debate.
Still: What was the point?
Does that mean Wilson’s not credible, for some reason? Or unqualified? Does his wife have some type of secret political agenda that we don’t know about? Was this some sort of private investigation, not sanctioned by the government? He was just over there free-lancing it, on his own dime, having some fun?
If the investigation was bunk, then aren’t these guys in the White House ultimately only criticizing themselves?
My wife was a top prosecutor in the New Orleans District Attorney’s Office. If she had suggested that I participate in some type of investigation, I don’t think we would have seen the D.A. running to the press complaining that my wife got me the job. I think people would be asking him the question: If this guy Herman is so unqualified, or biased, or unreliable, and only got the job because of his wife, what the hell kind of office are you running?
So, let’s accept the Administration’s spin on things. Our government needed to find out whether someone had arranged for the sale of yellowcake uranium to Iraq. So some low-level administrative non-covert non-sensitive unimportant CIA employee with a desk job suggests that we use her husband, and the Vice President or the CIA or whoever says, “Okay.†Then he comes back, and it turns out that he was completely incompetent, with a secret political agenda to attack the President, criticize the War in Iraq, and undermine the re-election campaign. Well, what the hell kind of office are you guys running?
I had an interesting conversation a few weeks ago with one of my parents’ neighbors about the War in Iraq. He made a very strong case that, although they couldn’t say it publicly, the Bush Administration sincerely believed, based on classified evidence, that will likely never come to light, and which may or may not have been reliable, but in which there was a reasonable and good faith belief, that the best way to protect America’s long-term security interests was to make a statement, take hold in the region, neutralize the most immediate likely threats of a bio or chemical or nuclear attack on American soil, and introduce a Westernized climate of freedom and modernity, which would move Muslim governments from extremist to more moderate positions, and which, in fact, is what the Iraqi people and the entire Middle East, if not the entire world, are longing for.
Of course, this is just the bottom line. The interesting thing about the discussion was the way in which the ground kept shifting. We were never really debating, but merely talking past each other. There was a disconnect. And later that evening I realized that the disconnect was ultimately a function of the fact that I am essentially Kantian, while my parents’ neighbor is essentially Utilitarian.
What I mean by this, (at least as I remember it from college), is that there are essentially two lines of moral thinking, from an ethical or philosophical point of view. One line of thinking, sometimes referred to as the Epicurean line, is utilitarian. The means essentially justify the ends. What is “right†is what maximizes the greatest public good. The other line of thinking, typified by Kant, is a rule-based system of right and wrong. The ends never justify the means. What is “right†is defined by a universal or ideal set of “categorical imperativesâ€.
There has always been, and will always be, an inherent tension between Kantians and Utilitarians. Intentionally or unintentionally, one genius of the American system is that it allows for a blending of both approaches. The legislative branch, and certainly the executive branch, enjoy the flexibility of adopting utilitarian solutions. But subject to the categorical imperatives set forth in the Constitution, and, in particular, in the Bill of Rights.
(Which is, parenthetically, why there is such frustration, from all sides, with what is perceived as “judicial activism†or “restraint†– Utilitarians become frustrated when the courts apply strict rules in challenging situations, and Kantians become frustrated when they don’t.)
So my parents’ neighbor and I were never going to see exactly eye to eye. But I did find his argument somewhat compelling.
So let’s assume that the real reason we went to War in Iraq was not, so much, to diffuse a short-term or immediate threat of terrorism, but a long-term, big-picture, idealistic plan for seizing political and economic stability throughout the world, and in particular for America, for generations to come.
It’s a tough decision. A hard choice. Will require much sacrifice. Will provoke, at least in the short term, political, diplomatic, economic and perhaps even military responses from many in the international community. But, in the long run, it’s the right decision, for not only America, but for Iraq, the Middle East, and the entire world.
Now that’s something I could get behind.
Questions, to be sure. Reservations. Doubts. Even fundamental disagreement. (See, for example, the issues raised in my original Bush Doctrine piece.)
But at least it’s something bold. Presidential. Visionary. Like Winston Churchill, (who, as Evan Thomas puts it, writing about Libby and Cheney, “warned in the 1930s about the gathering Nazi storm, who were ignored and shunned – but then vindicated at England’s finest hourâ€). Abraham Lincoln. John F. Kennedy.
So, (assuming that’s the truth), why not “sell†that to the American people?
The political Right frequently talks about the hubris of liberal politicians who are offensively paternalistic, believing that they understand, and can provide for, the needs of the underclass.
But isn’t the Bush Administration’s attitude toward the American people equally (if not more) paternalistic?
We can’t trust you, the American people, to decide whether this bold vision should be adopted. To commit the capital. To make the sacrifices. To send your children off to war.
Trust us. The Government. We will protect you. We know what’s best.
Isn’t that the Bush Administration’s attitude toward Iraq?
You don’t want Saddam. You don’t want Islam. You don’t want extremism. You want freedom. You want democracy. You want Christianity. You want capitalism.
Trust us. We will liberate you.
Isn’t that what the Bush Administration says to the rest of the world?
One problem with Utilitarianism is defining the “public†in public good. If the public is the United States, then that’s one thing. That’s who elected Bush; that’s the subject of his oath of office; that’s where his primary responsibility runs. If the public is something larger, like the entire world, with respect to foreign policy issues, or future generations, with respect to domestic issues, then the calculus is significantly altered.
Wasn’t Hitler sincerely, in his own mind, acting for the “good†of Germany when he invaded Poland? (Likely, in his own mind, he was acting for the good of Poland.) Wasn’t Saddam Hussein acting for the good of Iraq when he invaded Kuwait?
Of course, in the long run, the answer turns out to be: No.
Which is, perhaps, the same risk facing the United States.
Backlash. Reciprocation. Unintended consequences.
How can you expect other countries to respect your boundaries, or protect the environment, or refrain from torturing your soldiers and citizens, if you are not willing to do the same?
Sure, in the 24 situation, where the time-bomb is ticking, I, like Jack Bauer, am going to vote to shoot the guy in the kneecaps and sort out the legalities later.
But that’s got to be the exception, and not the rule.
If our policy is that torture is okay to protect our national interests, then it’s okay for other countries to use torture to protect theirs.
It’s one of Kant’s categorical imperatives: Don’t do unto others as you would have them not do unto you.
It is inherently nonsensical to promote self-rule through invasion. To prevent terrorism through torture. To promote freedom by quelling dissent. To protect the free market through no-bid contracts, and pork barrel projects, or heavily weighted tax cuts, and subsidies. To pursue uncompromising ideals by any means necessary.
Why “out†Valerie Plame? asks Jonathan Alter. Because Joe Wilson “had the temerity to offer public dissent.... The same president who seeks democracy, transparency and dissent in Iraq is irritated by it at home.â€
Bush pretends to be a man of uncompromising Kantian categorical imperatives and ideals. (And I think, in his own mind, he sincerely believes that.) But clearly, he isn’t. The question, in my mind, is whether he is simply Utilitarian; or whether he ultimately subscribes to the third type of moral structure, rare in today’s world, from the age of Greek Tragedy, which is simply: Help your friends; hurt your enemies.
Give the Bush Doctrine the benefit of every doubt. Cast it in the most favorable light.
It may turn out to be pro-American-Interests. (And I hope that it is.) But it’s, at the same time, in many respects, un-democratic, un-Christian, un-American, and un- everything else it purports to be.
For more on the Media, Politics, Literature, and the Law, visit my Blog at: http://www.gravierhouse.com.
November 12th, 2005 at 10:46 amI have two questions about the following excerpt from the Washington Post article:
1. Is it true that almost no one in Congress read the full, classified version of the NIE?
2. If so, how much blame does it imply for members of Congress?
"The lawmakers are partly to blame for their ignorance. Congress was entitled to view the 92-page National Intelligence Estimate about Iraq before the October 2002 vote. But, as The Washington Post reported last year, no more than six senators and a handful of House members read beyond the five-page executive summary."
November 12th, 2005 at 10:48 amI hear ya, Curious #14. The Washington Post points out the two glaring examples of Congressional failure to question the "evidence" presented and show even a small attempt at respecting the Consititution's Seperation of Powers clause instead of jumping into bed with the Executive branch as they still continue to do.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I agree with the trolls here that it is time to clean house in Congress. Lets start from top down: Former House Leader Tom DeLay and Senate Leader Bill Frist for not questioning the administration and allowing the vote for war to go virtually unchallenged. I mean, it was their party who had inside Whitehouse information that the democrats were not piviledged to.
Now if you'll excuse me, I will go into the bathroom now and give birth to a baby republican.
November 12th, 2005 at 11:14 amHere are the latest GOP talking points.
November 12th, 2005 at 11:42 amWell, well…
When one’s hands get caught in the cookie jar, you either remove your hand without the evidence or take a portion and attempt to conceal the crime…
Classified data can be collected and distributed to members of Congress, but the portions that ONLY pertain to the matter in question. Then you have some plausible deniability saying, “I did not think those documents were pertinent to the issue or my staff created the dossier for Congress for their approval of our findings.â€
Bush is a fool, but with the corrupt circle, he avoids a lot of crimes that should have been disclosed long ago…He KNEW that there was not enough evidence in those documents, and he KNEW that there were no ties to Al Queda. But, at the end of the day, “if†your boss says he wants something a certain way, you either produce it his way, or lose your job! Coercion? Extortion? Manipulation? Deception? Fabrication? All have a suffix that indicates an action taken place after the deed has been accomplished…
Within that concept, ETHICS and MORALS each have 6 letters, and it was one too many for the 5 members who created this war of fear and incompetence.
November 12th, 2005 at 11:50 amCheck this story out at DU:
10/5/01: Bush Pulls Security Clearances From 92 Senators
“We can’t have leaks of classified information. It’s not in our nation’s interest.†- President George W. Bush, 10/9/01
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5340848
Was this to obstruct known intel of the 9/11 warnings or a shutdown of intel in advance of the marketing of the Iraq War? Either way, it looks like Bush did make the intel off-limits to our Senators.
November 12th, 2005 at 12:13 pmBe careful #18...
Pat will pray for your destruction and Bill will call for your twon to be destroyed for your baseless claims...
This was taken out of context...
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!
November 12th, 2005 at 12:16 pmContradictions abound in the Wa Po -- I think that's how they claim to be balanced in their reporting.
November 12th, 2005 at 12:40 pmI read it and the NYT as well, but they can make a reader's head spin...these two main papers of the nation.
After reading their lead articles, I read the editorials and op-eds -- I am furious that the NYT makes a reader PAY $50 a year now to read op-eds.
The fact remains -- Bush & Co. had intel that not everyone had. Congress rec'd only the selected intel. One can blame Congress for not doing their due diligence, but one cannot blame them for reacting to the public's emotional state at the time and believing that Buch&Co. would not lie about war.
November 12th, 2005 at 12:47 pmSeveral are now coming forward saying they regret their vote -- sounds like too little too late -- but better to confess that one was bamboozled by a con job rather than continue to defend a mistaken vote.
STEPHEN HERMAN
Give Bush the benefit of the doubt? What an asinine remark. That is what has been happening for the past five years, and look where we are.
Visit your website. Not me man, take your shit and peddle it someplace else. You try to sound like an intelligent person, but you are all wrapped up in the masking tape of the ultra-right.
You will never escape because you lost your cutting knife years ago.
November 12th, 2005 at 1:38 pm[...] The GOP Legislature and the White House is turning back to the same old, tired strategies - “everyone saw the same intelligence on Iraq (which of course, is not true), . How long till the next “captured Al Qaeda lieutenant, renewed terror threats, and shrill warnings of mushroom clouds coming out of Iran, Syria, or France. [...]
November 13th, 2005 at 11:41 amFriend of the Rugs
March 18th, 2008 at 9:03 pmpush knife
Another prominent feature on many folding knives is the opening mechanism. High carbon stainless steel blades do not discolor or
May 28th, 2008 at 10:38 amDistance Learning Colleges Deck Plans
I didn't agree with you first, but last paragraph makes sense for me
May 30th, 2008 at 6:58 pmComputer Hardware Cabinet Hardware Digital Camera Reviews
I didn't agree with you first, but last paragraph makes sense for me
May 31st, 2008 at 8:59 pmProm Dresses Emo Fashion Prom Dress
I didn't agree with you first, but last paragraph makes sense for me
June 6th, 2008 at 6:08 amMoney Magazine New Construction Associated Press
I didn't agree with you first, but last paragraph makes sense for me
June 10th, 2008 at 9:21 amJim Crow Laws Family Law Law School Rankings
I didn't agree with you first, but last paragraph makes sense for me
June 11th, 2008 at 12:09 amgolf rules questions
Your site regarding %TITLE% looks very interesting to me. I found it doing a search for %KEYWORD%.
June 17th, 2008 at 10:31 amGay Sex Gay Sex Videos Black Gay Men
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
June 17th, 2008 at 4:26 pmGay Sex Gay Teen Gay Men Having Sex
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
June 19th, 2008 at 12:07 pmDistance Learning Distance Education Seminary Dental Continuing Education
I didn't agree with you first, but last paragraph makes sense for me
June 19th, 2008 at 8:28 pmfool utah
All I can say is WOW! Extremely nice layouts, awesome graphics and great articles. No matter how many times I come here, I am still impressed by the very professional appearance. Congratulations on a job well done Free Mp3 Download.
June 22nd, 2008 at 5:38 pmwashington golf
A thinking person's site; this one gets an enthusiastic bookmark for future visits!
June 24th, 2008 at 6:31 pm