Of course some dissenting views on intelligence will be proven right or wrong.

But if you’re going to analogize with “Where was the Japanese fleet on Dec 6″, then for “level of wrongness” Bush & Co. were operating under the equivalent of “We know **exactly** where their fleet is, it’s a thousand miles from Pearl, and they don’t even have carriers!”, and offering some photos of fishing boats in Suruga Bay as ironclad proof.

And as pointed out over on Making Light (http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/010309.html#010309),
Rockefeller’s committee only examined five of Bush’s speeches, not the total body of the administration’s statements on these issues, some of which were pretty specific, far beyond what could have been considered reliable intelligence.

I agree with Kathy, Fred Hiatt did not accurately quote the SSCI findings. Clearly, he is spinning the conclusions to support the title of his article “‘Bush Lied?”. David writes the supporting arguments for Hiatt and Bush. We can go back and forth on many points on the pre and post Iraq war intelligence and come to the conclusion which best fits us.

Like Kathy, I believe Bush/Cheney knowingly lied the US into the disaster in Iraq. Can we prove it?…no. The SSCI, ISG and NIE reports and other documents are open to interpretations even though they are presented as facts. HOWEVER, what can we say about Bush/Cheney and this administration on the decision to go to war?

They are extremely poor decision makers! When you read the recent SSCI report and compare it to the hastily put together 2002 NIE, you come away astounded. The leader of the free world, the most powerful man in the world, the president of the world’s only super power did not make the right decision to go to this war. He could not have been sure of himself, because he did NOT question the dissenting views. The CEO of our country must make careful and informed decisions, especially when they concern life and death. Bush did not, and you only need reference pages 24 and 84 of the October 2002 NIE. These pages reference the State Departments Bureau of Intellegence and Research (INR) alternative views that available intelligence did “not add up to a compelling case for reconstitution” of nuclear weapons and that the “claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are, in INR’s assessment, highly dubious.”

I will expect my president to question a report that contains these cautions. Bush blew it! Now, the talking point for David will be that Bush received a summary of the NIE. Be realistic, if he only read the summary, he was NOT doing his job as going to war must be the most important decision he, or any president will would ever make. HE SHOULD HAVE READ THE ENTIRE 2002 NIE, should have read the INR footnotes, and asked for clarification before his decision. That is why I believe he and his neo-conservative staff had already decided on this mistake.

Poor and bad decisions have consequences. Bush is smiling his way into retirement and the speaking circuit with little consequence for his horrible decisions. Censure? Impeachment?

Kathy is right, he did lie and when you read the NIE and SSCI reports, the more absurd Hiatt comments become! Now on to reading Kucinich’s 35 Articles of Impeachment of George Bush.

Don

Is your point that Bush and his senior staff did not know they were doing this? If so, then you are suggesting Bush and his senior staff are either profoundly stupid or completely incompetent.

When someone is more sure of himself than he should have been *because conflicting, inconsistent, and contradictory information and viewpoints were all around him,* and he chose to ignore them, that is called lying.

And I have not even touched on the dissenting views outside of the administration, among various experts and knowledgeable observers. Scott Ritter, for example, and he is but one of many.

And while the rest of the report (including both the parts you add and, I should note, those Hiatt clearly references elsewhere in his article) are critical of the president, nothing he omitted or you added contradicts the point he is making, which is that the report does not support the idea that Bush lied–said things he believed were untrue. If you disagree, please quote the where the report demonstrates otherwise.

On the contrary, as Hiatt notes, the record suggests that Rockefeller himself made statements that not only “did not convey the substantial disagreements that existed in the intelligence community,” he specifically stated we should not wait around to gather more. Read the Rockefeller quote again: “To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can.”

Finally, even if your contention that the president “saw only what he wanted to see” is accurate, that appears to be a widespread affliction. Not only do Republicans assert that “they were cut out of the report’s preparation, allowing for a great deal of skewing and partisanship”–a serious charge, if true–but the fact that you fail to refute yet refuse to acknowledge Hiatt’s basic point suggests you are doing the exact same thing.

Look, I sympathize, I really do. It’s hard to let go of cherished notions when they prove to be mistaken, especially when they have been passionately declared in public. I suspect you’re secure enough to do it, though, and you readers will respect you for you intellectually honesty. So admit it. You think the president was more sure of himself than he should have been, and was wrong, but he didn’t lie, did he?

Notably the claim that Saddam might give WMDs to terrorists was directly contradicted by the intel.
This being the case for why Iraq was at all mentioned in any context in relation to the war on terrorism.