Bush Suckers the Democrats

[igloo]

Bush Suckers the Democrats

From the July 28, 2003 issue: Anatomy of a scandal that wasn't.

by William Kristol

07/28/2003, Volume 008, Issue 44

KARL ROVE is a genius. No--Rove probably gets more credit than he deserves for political smarts, and the president gets too little, so let's rephrase that: George W. Bush is a genius.

Almost two weeks ago, the president ordered his White House staff to bollix up its explanation of that now-infamous 16-word "uranium from Africa" sentence in his State of the Union address. As instructed, and with the rhetorical ear and political touch for which they have become justly renowned, assorted senior administration officials, named and unnamed, proceeded to unleash all manner of contradictory statements. The West Wing stood by the president's claim. Or it didn't. Or the relevant intelligence reports had come from Britain and were faulty. Or hadn't and weren't. Smelling blood, just as they'd been meant to, first the media--and then the Democratic party--dove into the resulting "scandal" head first and fully clothed.

Belatedly, but sometime soon, the divers are going to figure out that they've been lured into a great big ocean--with no way back to shore. Because the more one learns about this Niger brouhaha that White House spokesmen have worked so hard to generate, the less substance there seems to be in it. As we say, George W. Bush is a genius.

In its October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, the CIA concluded that Saddam Hussein remained "intent on acquiring" nuclear weapons; that actual development of an Iraqi nuclear weapon would be but several months to a year away if Saddam could acquire sufficient fissile material; and that Baghdad had, in fact, already begun "vigorously trying to procure" such stuff, uranium ore and yellowcake, either of which would speed Saddam along.

This then-secret CIA report was filed one month after the British government had announced a similar judgment in public. Subsequently, a variety of American officials echoed this claim in public statements between October and January, in the context of repeated expressions of concern about Iraq's "continuing, and in some areas expanding," chemical, biological, nuclear, and missile programs, as the CIA put it in its October estimate.

On January 28, the president said in his State of the Union address that "the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Perhaps he should have said "the British government believes" rather than "has learned." But this statement was unremarkable at the time, and remains unremarkable today. And, contrary to the implications of George Tenet's disingenuous press release of July 11, the president said nothing that the Central Intelligence Agency had retracted or controverted in the months between the distribution of their October estimate and the State of the Union address.

It now turns out the CIA had its doubts--though they were less than definitive. It also turns out the British are sticking by their claim. And it remains the case, most important, that the African uranium business, whatever the truth of it, was never more than a single piece of the otherwise voluminous evidence driving allied concern over Saddam and weapons of mass destruction. How important were those "significant quantities of uranium from Africa"? The White House now acknowledges, in retrospect, that the matter didn't merit mention in the State of the Union.

There's your "scandal."

American journalism's frenzy over the thing--the hyperbolic, rush-to-judgment, believe-the-worst character of the coverage--has been plenty bad enough. But the Democratic party has been even worse. Here, for example, is what unsuspecting Internet visitors learn from the Democratic National Committee's website: There has been "a year-long campaign of deception involving a bogus intelligence report on Iraq's nuclear program." And who has directed this deception, for reasons so terrible, apparently, that they cannot be identified? DNC chairman Terry McAuliffe has cracked the conspiracy: "This may be the first time in recent history that a president knowingly misled the American people during the State of the Union address," he says. And "this was not a mistake. It was no oversight and it was no error."

What it was instead, according to former governor Howard Dean of Vermont, currently the Democratic party's leading candidate to replace President Bush in the White House, was a "pattern of distorted intelligence" that raises a real question whether the American people can confidently "retain their trust in their government"--or whether the United States "can retain its credibility as a moral force in the world."

And the answer to these questions, adds Sen. Ted Kennedy, not to put too fine a point on it, is: no. "It's a disgrace," in the Sage of Hyannisport's expert assessment, that "the case for war seems to have been based on shoddy intelligence, hyped intelligence, and even false intelligence." There being no other conceivable case for war, so far as Kennedy is concerned, the Bush administration has therefore "undermined America's prestige and credibility in the world."

Of course, were all this true--had Bush really sent American soldiers into combat against what he knew to be an imaginary, fabricated threat--then the nation would be ripe for yet another presidential impeachment drama, maybe. Not maybe, says Florida senator Bob Graham, one of Howard Dean's many rivals in next year's Democratic primaries: "My opinion is, if the standard that was set by the House of Representatives relative to Bill Clinton is the new standard for impeachment, then this clearly comes within that standard."

Not that anyone in the Democratic party is prepared to defend Saddam's deposed regime, mind you. Or dares to propose that Iraq is worse off now that Saddam is gone. Or that America is worse off now that Saddam is gone. Or that the Middle East is worse off now that Saddam is gone. (Though Gov. Dean is agnostic on all counts.) No: The Democrats' problem is not that Bush judged Saddam a present danger. Their problem isn't even that Bush based this judgment on American intelligence estimates to that effect. How could it be, since Bill Clinton and Al Gore made the very same judgment, based explicitly on the very same intelligence estimates?

George W. Bush's one great and unforgivable sin, it seems, was to have acted on the judgment that Saddam Hussein was a present danger--acted, as Clinton and Gore repeatedly threatened but failed to do, the way a serious president must. At his moment of decision, the American people supported Bush. They support him still. And the fact of that support--as the Democrats' hysterical attack on a 16-word sentence in the State of the Union suggests--is driving one of our two major political parties...stark, raving mad.

God knows the Bush administration is not beyond criticism for either its prewar planning or its execution of postwar reconstruction efforts. And it would be a valuable contribution to our politics if such criticism were mounted by the Democratic party--acting as an intelligent, loyal opposition. But it's a free country, and if the Democrats prefer instead to act as a pathologically disgruntled lunatic fringe, then it'll be their problem more than anyone else's.

Certainly the White House won't think it a problem. That muffled sound you hear coming from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is the sound of George W. Bush chuckling at the success of his nefarious scheme. Misunderestimated, once again.

--William Kristol

[seximofo2k]

Funny how Republicans forget how much drama they stirred up over president Clintons sex life and yet they downplay something in the state of the union address as "insignificant".

[igloo]

Originally posted by seximofo2k

Funny how Republicans forget how much drama they stirred up over president Clintons sex life and yet they downplay something in the state of the union address as "insignificant".

Difference is that Clinton DID INDEED lie about Lewinsky--you do remember "I did not have sexual relations........."

There is zero proof that Bush lied........ZERO......let alone that he offered the same intelligence and same statements that Clinton, Gore, Daschle, Carl Levin, Albright, Christopher, Cohen, etc offered....

Also, Bush was not only working from CIA intelligence, but from UN intelligence and foreign intelligence services.....and BTW, the 16 words in the State of the Union---Britain still stands by those claims....

In addition, when 150,000 troops are in Iraq still in danger, and with so much on the line, the Dems and leftists should focus their energies on making sure that the Iraqi plan is successful, instead of undermining this administration and damaging US credibility with shameless political opportunism......

[bigpoppanils]

Originally posted by igloo

In addition, when 150,000 troops are in Iraq still in danger, and with so much on the line, the Dems and leftists should focus their energies on making sure that the Iraqi plan is successful, instead of undermining this administration and damaging US credibility with shameless political opportunism......

funny. the republicans didnt leave clinton alone when US trrops were in Serbia

[igloo]

Originally posted by bigpoppanils

funny. the republicans didnt leave clinton alone when US trrops were in Serbia

Not even remotely close...not one bit close to what the Dems (some) are doing now....the two situations could not be more different

Bad try....

[seximofo2k]

Originally posted by igloo

Difference is that Clinton DID INDEED lie about Lewinsky--you do remember "I did not have sexual relations........."

There is zero proof that Bush lied........ZERO......let alone that he offered the same intelligence and same statements that Clinton, Gore, Daschle, Carl Levin, Albright, Christopher, Cohen, etc offered....

Also, Bush was not only working from CIA intelligence, but from UN intelligence and foreign intelligence services.....and BTW, the 16 words in the State of the Union---Britain still stands by those claims....

In addition, when 150,000 troops are in Iraq still in danger, and with so much on the line, the Dems and leftists should focus their energies on making sure that the Iraqi plan is successful, instead of undermining this administration and damaging US credibility with shameless political opportunism......

Very good i see you did your Sean Hannity homework. Lets get something straight the original statement out of the White House on the matter was that the information was FALSE and " probably shouldn't have been said" Donald Rumsfeld. Why shouldnt have it been said? Hmm because its not true. So now who's responsible? Who was the idiot that put that in the speech if it was a mistake? If this is the only false statement (I wont say lie cause as of right now their is no proof he knew it was false) then i really dont see this as serious as democrats do but what bothers me is that if this is false what other reasons for the need for a regime change in Iraq due to the IMMINENT THREAT that country which we conquered in weeks was. Hmm what comes to mind how about that 9/11 saddam connection I bet that had alot of clout. By the way because i am critical of the war with Iraq does not constitute that I am a democrat, liberal or whatever you want to say i long for a serious 3rd political party.

[igloo]

Originally posted by seximofo2k

Very good i see you did your Sean Hannity homework. Lets get something straight the original statement out of the White House on the matter was that the information was FALSE and " probably shouldn't have been said" Donald Rumsfeld. Why shouldnt have it been said? Hmm because its not true. So now who's responsible? Who was the idiot that put that in the speech if it was a mistake? If this is the only false statement (I wont say lie cause as of right now their is no proof he knew it was false) then i really dont see this as serious as democrats do but what bothers me is that if this is false what other reasons for the need for a regime change in Iraq due to the IMMINENT THREAT that country which we conquered in weeks was. Hmm what comes to mind how about that 9/11 saddam connection I bet that had alot of clout. By the way because i am critical of the war with Iraq does not constitute that I am a democrat, liberal or whatever you want to say i long for a serious 3rd political party.

Nice spin, and diversion from the orginal statement made by you (taking a shot at the Republicans), which I had to promptly expose as one-sided and biased.....

To answer this latest rambling jibberish from you, and "to get something straight" I do not recall the White House saying the Uranium claim was "false" but a "mistake" to put it into the State of the Union....again, the British Govt stands by the claim, and cites multiple sources, not just the forged documents.....I also recall Bush specifically said in the State of the Union, "British Intelligence has learned....."

If you could show me where the White House said "false" I will stand corrected......

For the rest of your cyncical, conspiracy laced thinking, that is a deficiency you will have to deal with on your own......that is a arguement that is tired and useless

[bigpoppanils]

Originally posted by igloo

Not even remotely close...not one bit close to what the Dems (some) are doing now....the two situations could not be more different

how so?

[igloo]

Originally posted by bigpoppanils

how so?

If you are serious, that you do not understand the monumental difference between the two, and the long term implications of this current action, than you are blind.....

[seximofo2k]

Originally posted by igloo

[

To answer this latest rambling jibberish from you, and "to get something straight" I do not recall the White House saying the Uranium claim was "false" but a "mistake" to put it into the State of the Union....again, the British Govt stands by the claim, and cites multiple sources, not just the forged documents.....I also recall Bush specifically said in the State of the Union, "British Intelligence has learned....."

Hmm u say i'm evasive but you quote the white house as saying it was a "mistake" to add it. If the information was not false then why was it a mistake to say it? If it was true then their would be no reason to deem it a mistake to be said. I really can care less to argue this any more myself I really dont see it going anywhere

[igloo]

Originally posted by seximofo2k

Hmm u say i'm evasive but you quote the white house as saying it was a "mistake" to add it. If the information was not false then why was it a mistake to say it? If it was true then their would be no reason to deem it a mistake to be said. I really can care less to argue this any more myself I really dont see it going anywhere

You are a fucking retard if you do not know the difference between "false" and a "mistake" to put it into a State of the Union...

[seximofo2k]

You take two arguments against me friend, CHOOSE one. Was the information true and was Iraq obtaining nuclear capability from Niger or was the information false? Don't say it was a "mistake" to add the statement in the SOTU which states plain and simplely the intelligence was false but then comment after that Britain stands by the intelligence whereby you are infering that the niger-Iraq connection was in fact true.

By the way no need for cursing this is a political debate thats not nice. You know mental retardation causes semantical defaults where as the retard is unable to decifer the proper instances where vulgarity is appropriate.