Democracy Has Prevailed.

June 9, 2008

Fred Hiatt Spins

For those of you who don't regularly read Duncan Black's indispensable Philly-based blog, you should know that Atrios regularly criticizes Washington Post Editorial Fred Hiatt for any number of journalistic sins.

I am sure he'd have a field day with today's editorial.

As I've just declared it's Pittsburgh for Philadelphia--Primanti's for Geno's--Steelers for Eagles day here at 2PJ, I'll have a go at the editorial.

Fred writes about the "Phase II" report out o the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Hiatt finds less there than meets the eye (or at least he shows us all what he thinks is enough for us to believe that there's less there than meets the eye).

For example he writes:

But dive into Rockefeller's report, in search of where exactly President Bush lied about what his intelligence agencies were telling him about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and you may be surprised by what you find.

On Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates."

That's from page 15. What Hiatt leaves out tells you what the lie was. Here's the complete sentence:
Conclusion I: Statements by the President, Vice President, Secretary of State and the National Security Advisor regarding a possible Iraqi nuclear weapons program were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates, but did not convey the substantial disagreements that existed in the intelligence community.[emphasis added]
And what were some of those statements? On October 7, 2002 President Bush said this (page 5 of the report):
The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists...Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.
On page 8 we can read this:
In April 2001, the CIA noted that Iraq's attempts to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other dual-use equipment suggested that a reconstitution effort might be underway.
And a few sentence later:
The Defense Intelligence Agency produced several similar assessments in 2002, noting in a May 2002 report that "Although there is no firm evidence of a current nuclear weapon design effort, we judge that continued procurement of dual-use nuclear-related items, key personnel assigned to nuclear weapon-capable sites, construction at nuclear facilities, and Saddam's interactions with the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission all indicate that Saddam has not abandoned the nuclear weapon program.
What follows immediately is the part that was left out of Hiatt's spin:
The Department of Energy (DOE) disagreed with the CIA's conclusions regarding the aluminum tubes, and assessed that it was more likely that the tubes were intended for a different use, such as a conventional rocket program. Based on other evidence, including Saddam's meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, and possible attempts to procure uranium from Niger, the DOE assessed in July 2002 that Saddam Hussein might be attempting to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program, but suggested that the evidence was not conclusive.

And then thre's this:
The Department of State's Bureay of Intelligence and Research (State/INR) disagreed with the CIA that Iraq had restarted a nuclear weapons program, and concurred with the DOE that the aluminum tubes were probably intended for other purposes.
And so on. Here's the rest of the Conclusion I paragraph:
Prior to October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, some intelligence agencies assessed that the Iraqi government was reconstituting a nuclear weapons program, while others disagreed or expressed doubts about the evidence. The Estimate itself expressed the majority view that the program was being reconstituted, but included clear dissenting views from the State Department's Bureay of Intelligence and Research, which argued that aluminum tubes sought by Iraq were probably not intended for a nuclear program.
What Hiatt spins out of his discourse is the fact that the administration failed to mention any dissent from the story they wanted to make sure we all believed. Even if there was evidence supporting what they said, the fact that they hid the evidence that didn't is enough for us to say, without any doubt: THEY LIED.

And people died.

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

John K. says: But he was committing genocide. And if the left thinks genocide is good enough to go to war for in Kosovo and their desire to commit in Darfur, then it was good enough for Iraq. Besides we are winning huge. NBC even did a positive report on Iraq tonight. And that is because there is no negative news coming out of Iraq. Except for liberal and al queda ass being kicked.

C.H. said...

What's this? Not enough negative news to report today? Pretty pathetic day for you people if you feel the need to resort back to the old line of "Bush lied, people died" and rehash the same irrelevant "pre-war intelligence again".

Can't we focus on what actually matters? Like the fact that the Iraqi Security forces are taking control and are giving Sadr and AQI a sound thumping in Baghdad, Mosul, and Basra?

If you can acknowledge that, then at least you are acknowledging that the progress being made by the Iraqi people is above politics.

Anonymous said...

Do I understand you correctly, C.H.? If I do, it is your position that lying to the American public, killing thousands of Americans, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis, and displacing millions -- doing all of this under false pretenses is not worth an investigation.

I would have to disagree with you -- and about 75% of Americans would join me -- when you say that what matters is that conditions are now only 100 times worse for the average Iraqi than they were before this administration invaded a country with no WMDs and no threat to us.

Please help me understand how you came to these conclusions. Also help me understand how invading a non-threatening country for no good reason is somehow "above politics."

Anonymous said...

John K. says: Bush didn't lie. Same intel as Clinton used. Saddam was a threatening country. He paid terrorists $25,000 to blow themselves up along with some jews. Saddam also fired on our planes in violation of the UN agreement he had made after Desert Storm. But then Darfur does not threaten the US. Has no nuclear weapons etc, and the left wants us to invade the Sudan. Go figure LMAO By the way, we are winning in Iraq. They have a bank and a stock market and open markets.

Anonymous said...

That was not the question, John. The question was whether we should investigate plausible accusations about lying. C.H. seems to me to be saying we should condone our Commander in Chief sending American troops to die in support of a lie, and never determine whether he was lying or not.

Are you agreeing with that?

Anonymous said...

John K. says: I have the facts of the case and recorded votes to back me up. Remember, Sen. Clinton never read the NIE. Saddam committed genocide. Hussein fired on US airplanes patrolling the no fly zone in compliance with the UN accords. And a list of others. What is there to investigate? Oh yah, Republicans are running the show. If Bill Clinton was running the show in Iraq we would be giving him a medal.

Anonymous said...

John K.

Since when have you had ANY facts?

Have you read the Senate Report? it's obvious that your friends on the right (including Bush) have been lying to the American people for years.

What they said was true was NOT backed up by the facts as they knew them back then. They were trying to pass off as true something that they weren't sure of.

The FACT that the intelligence community wasn't in agreement makes liars out of them when they said that "everyone knew they had wmd."

John K says he has the facts. Ha! In what universe? Certainly not this one.

Anonymous said...

Do you prefer to avoid my question once again, John? Let me repeat it:

If there is a credible chance that the Commander in Chief lied 4,000 American soldiers into their graves, do you object to investigating the charges?