pudge's Journal: Look! Look! Evidence of Something!

Look at all the crazy responses to this article about how Iraq's foreign minister told the U.S., before the invasion, that Iraq had no WMD.

The proper response to this revelation is: Why should Bush have believed this information? And how do we even properly evaluate that question?

Instead, the responses are: Ha! We knew it all along! This is the stuff of legends!

But, it's not. We already knew Bush had conflicting information. This is not news. This does not tell us whether this information had more credibility than the other information Bush had.

So, in 2002, Tenet told Bush the Iraqi foreign minister said Iraq had no WMD. But, in 2003, Tenet told Bush the WMD case was a "slam dunk." What would you have believed, if you were in Bush's shoes? And be honest. I personally did not believe the WMD evidence, so it's not like I am saying there's only one answer, and that Bush offered the right one.

If Bush had gone the other way around, and believed the foreign minister and not Tenet's conclusions, and we did not invade, and later it was found Iraq did have WMD, and used them against Israel or our troops in Saudi Arabia, the slogan today of the Democratic party would be "slam dunk!," implying that Bush ignored warnings from the CIA. And when Tenet resigned after many years of service, the Democrats would be telling us he was forced out because he was right and Bush was wrong.

And you all know that's true, so don't even bother denying it.

I am not trying to pass the buck to Tenet. Bush made the decision to invade, he believed the intelligence, and the intelligence, by most indications, was wrong. That is his responsibility. But to imply from this that Bush lied, that he knew there were no WMD, is nonsense. A clear view of all the facts shows that Bush had doubts, but that he went with what the preponderence of the evidence, and his primary advisors and closest allies, presented to him.

Thoughts on the Downing Street memo?

[nizo]

Downing Street memo [wikipedia.org]; fact or fiction? My understanding is these minutes seem to imply that Bush actively deceived the American public; what is your take on the Downing Street memo?

Re:Thoughts on the Downing Street memo?

[pudge]

Downing Street memo; fact or fiction?

I have no reason to think it is fictitious. The question is not whether it is true, the question is what it actually says.

My understanding is these minutes seem to imply that Bush actively deceived the American public; what is your take on the Downing Street memo?

It does seem to some to do that. But as it doesn't actually say anything that shows Bush deceived anyone, it does not seem to do that to me.

The logical mistake most people make in reading the "DSM" is that the

A clear view?

[cascadefx]

I am not trying to pass the buck to Tenet. Bush made the decision to invade, he believed the intelligence, and the intelligence, by most indications, was wrong. That is his responsibility. But to imply from this that Bush lied, that he knew there were no WMD, is nonsense. A clear view of all the facts shows that Bush had doubts, but that he went with what the preponderence of the evidence, and his primary advisors and closest allies, presented to him.

A clear view? I think you are interpreting. I can int

Re:A clear view?

[pudge]

A clear view?

Yes.

I think you are interpreting.

Of course.

I can interpret too. A clear view of the facts shows that Bush wanted war and needed a justification.

I am not talking about going to war, I am talking about accepting the WMD case as valid. You can (as many people did) accept the WMD case and still not view it as justfication for war, and you can (as I did) reject the WMD case and still favor the war. I am only talking about the WMD case: accepting it as valid, or not.

What he got was shaky, but he we

Re:A clear view?

[Timex]

I think you are interpreting. I can interpret too. A clear view of the facts shows that Bush wanted war and needed a justification. What he got was shaky, but he went with it anyway feeling that he could make the case with ample input from his primary advisors and closest allies.

You're not the only one that can interpret: The Democrats are so desperate to make Bush out to be Evil Incarnate that they'll twist every little thing they can find. The problem they face is that no matter how hard they twist the

Here's how Reuters reported it:

[Presarian]

WASHINGTON (Reuters [nytimes.com]) - The CIA had evidence Iraq possessed no weapons of mass destruction six months before the 2003 U.S.-led invasion but was ignored by a White House intent on ousting Saddam Hussein, a former senior CIA official said according to CBS.

Tyler Drumheller, who headed CIA covert operations in Europe during the run-up to the Iraq war, said intelligence opposing administration claims of a WMD threat came from a top Iraqi official who provided the U.S. spy agency with other credible information.

Re:Here's how Reuters reported it:

[pudge]

It's not clear the source you linked two makes the same claims that: (A) The Iraqi official was a reliable CIA source, not just a diplomatic liason, and (B) the White House said go away, we don't want to hear it.

Both claims were in the CBS story.

Those are significant facts.

The first is not significant, as we got lots of credible information from lots of credible sources, much of which turned out to be wrong, including some of the information from THIS source, who claimed Hussein still had stockpiles of chem