T Nation

Dems Push Big Lie About War



[b]National Security & Defense

Democrats Push Big Lie About War
by Allan H. Ryskind[/b]

President Bush lied us into war and the revelations produced by the Scooter Libby indictment only confirm this terrible scandal.

That?s the essence of the vicious slur Democrats are hurling at the GOP these days, with Minority Leader Harry Reid (D.-Nev.) shutting down the U.S. Senate to dramatize the charge.

The White House, as the Democrats would now have it, had virtually no evidence that there were weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq, but the President, Dick Cheney and their gang were so intent on removing Saddam from power they invented facts. And when critics such as Joe Wilson spoke truth to power, the ?Scooters? in the administration slimed their reputations.

[b]Unpatriotic Mud-Slinging[/b]

The episode involving Libby and Wilson, summed up Reid, ?is about how the Bush White House manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to bolster its case for the war in Iraq and to discredit anyone who dared to challenge the President.?

This is unpatriotic mud-slinging, with a touch of Black Helicopter looniness tossed in.To believe that the White House concocted a fable about WMD in Iraq, you would have to believe in a massive conspiracy involving not only the Bush people, but both Bill Clinton?s and George Bush?s CIA director, George Tenet; Bush?s first term secretary of state, Colin Powell; Clinton?s secretary of state, Madeleine Albright; Clinton?s key NSC Persian Gulf adviser, Kenneth Pollack; and numerous WMD experts at the United Nations.

How many people, for instance, know that Wilson himself, the Democrats? big stick to beat up on Bush, believed that when the war began Saddam had weapons of mass destruction?

Here is what he wrote in his now infamous July 6, 2003, column in the New York Times, attempting to disprove, unsuccessfully, that the Bush Administration was wrong when it insisted Iraq had been seeking nuclear materials in Niger:

?I was convinced before the war that the threat of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein required a vigorous and sustained international response to disarm him. Iraq possessed and had used chemical weapons; it had an active biological weapons program and quite possibly a nuclear research program?all of which were in violation of U.N. resolutions.?

What Wilson said in this column, of course, contained the core rationale the administration gave as to why this country went to war. Was Wilson in on the White House conspiracy, too?

Even though Wilson argued that his oral report to the CIA refuted Bush?s claim that Iraq had sought uranium in Niger?the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence forcefully asserted quite the opposite?he did believe what virtually the whole world believed: that Saddam Hussein had plenty of WMD and was energetically attempting to acquire more.

Madeleine Albright, appearing on the Sept. 21, 2003, edition of NBC?s ?Meet the Press,? had been certain that Saddam had stockpiled those terrible weapons. She admitted she was very ?surprised? that they hadn?t yet been discovered, adding: ?But what worries me most now,? is ?where is it [WMD], and could it be in the hands of terrorists??

From 1995 to 1996 and from 1999 to 2001, Kenneth M. Pollack served as director for Gulf affairs at the National Security Council, where he was the principal working-level official responsible for implementation of Clinton?s policy toward Iraq.

Prior to serving Clinton, he spent seven years in the CIA as a Persian Gulf military analyst.

Was Clinton?s seasoned expert on the Gulf also in on the Bush plan to fabricate evidence? The conspiracy buffs may think so, for in 2002, when Bush was in office and worrying about what to do about Saddam, Pollack wrote a book titled The Threatening Storm. The subtitle was more provocative: The Case for Invading Iraq.

After analyzing all the WMD evidence at his command, and Saddam Hussein?s career as an aggressor, a mass murderer and a political thug who could not be trusted to keep his word, Pollack concluded: ?Unfortunately, the only prudent and realistic course of action left to the United States is to mount a full-scale invasion of Iraq to smash the Iraqi armed forces.?

When the WMD weren?t found, Pollack wrote an article for the Atlantic Monthly for its first issue in 2004.

He was critical of the Bush Administration?s handling of the war, but he made several informative observations in his critique. Among them:

?The U.S. intelligence community?s belief that Saddam was aggressively pursuing weapons of mass destruction pre-dated Bush?s inauguration and therefore cannot be attributed to political pressure.?
?In October of 2002, the National Intelligence Council, the highest analytical body in the U.S. intelligence community, issued a classified National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq?s WMD representing the consensus of the intelligence community. Although after the war some complained that the NIE had been a rush job and that the NIE should have been more careful in its choice of language, in fact, the report accurately reflected what intelligence analysts had been telling Clinton Administration officials like me for years in verbal briefings.?
?Manufactured? Intellligence

A declassified version of the 2002 NIE was released to the public in July 2003. Among its findings:

?Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions.?
?Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions. . . .?
?Since inspections ended in 1998, Iraq has maintained its chemical weapons effort, energized its missile program and invested more heavily in biological weapons; most analysts assess [that] Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.?
Pollack, citing this crucial report, then said: [b]?U.S. government analysts were not alone in these views.[/b] In the late spring of 2002, I participated in a Washington meeting about Iraq WMD. Those present included nearly 20 former inspectors from the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), the force established in 1991 to oversee the elimination of WMD in Iraq.

?One of the senior people put a question to the group. Did anyone in the room doubt that Iraq was currently operating a secret centrifuge plant? No one did. Three people added that they believed Iraq was also operating a secret calutron plant (a facility for separating uranium isotopes.)

?Other nations? intelligence services were similarly aligned with U.S. views. Somewhat remarkably, given how adamantly Germany would oppose the war, the German Federal Intelligence Service held the bleakest view of all, arguing that Iraq might be able to build a nuclear weapon within three years [without outside fissile material]. Israel, Russia, Britain, China and even France held positions similar to that of the United States.?

Pollack?s account alone puts the lie to the charge that Bush took us to war on ?manufactured? intelligence.

And does anyone seriously believe that Bush?s then-Secretary of State Colin Powell was deliberately deceiving the American people when he made his spectacularly convincing speech against Saddam before the United Nations on Feb. 5, 2003, just weeks prior to the war?

Powell?s major accusation, that Iraq was awash in WMD, came from CIA Director George Tenet, who had also served as Bill Clinton?s CIA director in the last four years of the Clinton presidency.

George Bush had been assured by Tenet that there was ?slam dunk? evidence against Saddam, so the secretary of State descended upon the CIA in Mclean, Va., spending four difficult days sifting through the intelligence, sometimes with his deputy, Richard Armitage.

After the final rehearsal in Washington, Tenet, according to Bob Woodward?s most thorough report, ?announced that he thought their case was ironclad and he believed that they had vetted each sentence.?

Powell then informed Tenet that the CIA director would have to sit behind him at the UN, a visible sign that he was backing the secretary of State?s findings.

Powell?s presentation on Feb. 5, 2003, was a tour de force, with even ultra-liberal Washington Post columnist Mary McGrory succumbing. ?I can only say,? she wrote, ?that he persuaded me, and I was as tough as France to convince.?

History will determine whether the Bush Administration did the right thing in invading Iraq and we may yet discover definitively why so many experts appeared to have misjudged the WMD threat. [b]But we can conclude that the President took us to war based on convincing, uncooked data compiled by intelligence analysts in both the Clinton and Bush Administrations.[/b]

Those who say Bush ?lied us into war? based on ?manufactured? intelligence are either ignorant or malicious. Either way, they are dangerously undermining whatever chance we still have of rescuing Iraq from chaos and catastrophe.


US politics is an odd beast. I miss Ike.


I agree.

Bush is superman.

But the truth is his kryptonite.

How pathetic is it that you refuse to see the simple truth. Did you even bother to read what Powell said recently about his "performance" in the U.N?


I think it is partisan hack liberals such as yourself that have a problem seeing truth. The TRUTH is you can accuse Bush of lying all you want, but he isn't going anywhere for the next 3 years. The TRUTH is the left-wing will create a story from forged documents in an effort to discredit the President, but that is somehow morally superior.

If there was a crime committed - either do something about it, or shut the hell up already. Once again, you are showing how incredibly pathetic you can be when you have nothing to say.


were did you come up with big flamer?Doese it fit?

Just asking,





All of these leftists that scream, "Bush lied, Bush lied" have yet to be able to produce one single shred of evidence that he lied about foreknowledge concerning the existence of WMD's in Iraq. While it has been proven that the left's demi-gods i.e. Joe Wilson, lied about what they saw while they were in Niger. Look no further than this article:

Leftist have their heads so far up their asses they don't ever hear the truth. Don't think CNN or the New York Times covered this story. Also, the US military recently recovered a sizeable amount of weapons grade plutonium from Iraq, but they weren't trying to make WMD's, that stuff was for hospital usage. Do you pinko's ever get tired of being dead wrong on everything?


Yeah, the "pinkos" (and, you don't need an apostrophe, brain surgeon) at CNN and the NY Times just ignored a story that the Pulitzer-winners over at Faux News got right.

Wonder if it was one of their talking points?


Are you fucking retarded? Look back at the original post, there was no apostrophe. Wash the cum out of your eyes. Bro, your arguments suck ass, you don't even address the actual topic, you just denigrate the reportage. Oh, by the way, CNN, NY Times did ignore the story, there was a big article about it on National Review Online. I can't believe how horribly formulated your arguments are, go back to school Schmendrick.


They all lie to advance their political agendas. Whether it be the republicans or the democrats, it's the nature of the political process in this country. I don't believe anything from either side. I don't think Bush is smart enough to be responsible for everything that he is being blamed for. I think Cheney and Rove are far more evil. But at the same time many of the democrats that are screaming now voted for the war because that is the way the polls were leaning - not because it was a noble cause (Kerry comes to mind). They are just as responsible. Because of these political agendas, on both sides of the aisle, we have cost 2000 men and women their lives, inspired more terrorist acts and have forever damaged our country's reputation among the rest of the nations on this planet.

And you guys are going to howl at this, but I think that last honorable president we had was Jimmy Carter. But the system chewed him up and spit him out. Politics is no place for an honest individual. It's like being a natural bodybuilder and trying to get into the pro's. You either have to turn to the dark side in order to have a chance at winning or stick to your principals and be content with losing.


I must say, the stupidity of the people on this board continues to blow my mind. Jimmy Carter, are you fucking kidding? He was the worst president this country has ever has, he made some of the absolute worst decisions ever. He is just a few steps away from giving Fidel Castro a blowjob. How he ever got elected is beyond me, what a sad chapter in American history.


bigflamer=large fireman.

No, I'm not one one of those funny boys :wink:


Did you even read the article you fucking idiot?

The left couldn't recognize the truth if it was taking a shit on their dumb heads.

With retards like you voting in '08, I smell another decisive conservative victory.

Yea baby!!!!!!


Big and Cali,

Not surprisingly, I agree with your assertions.

It burns my ass to think that the democrats have decided to go against a war they voted for WHEN OUR TROOPS ARE IN HARMS WAY!!! No one in their right mind can argue that the majority of the planet thought saddam had an enormous amount of illicit WMD.

You will find that the dems will not argue with your article. They usually don't even read beyond the headlines.

That makes them much easier to decieve. The dem policy makers are counting on it.

To a dem, "Bush lied, Polyanna died" is much sexier than, "Even though there was plenty of WMD related research/funding/illicit activities occuring, we didn't find a supermarket full of WMD with clear dates and designs on it."

Please remember the attention span of your audience when you are arguing with them.

I say to the democrats: Piss, moan, wring your hands about tactics, but TURNING AGAINST A WAR YOU VOTED FOR IS A DAMN DISGRACE!!!

In an ideal world, the dems would be standing publically behind the War Effort.

Saying "I support the troops" while bad mouthing the cause YOU VOTED FOR, helps NO ONE!!!

I have NO PROBLEM with Repubs/dems grilling Rumsfeld/Top Brass about improving performance. I have no problem making constructive criticisms.

But the bullshit, "Bush lied, blah blah blah, Halliburton controls the Universe" crap helps no one.



Left-wing hacks like wreckless and harryass6969 don't read anything. They react. They use the same tactic in every political thread they post in.

No - but twist it so that Bush is the bad guy, and they will swallow it like a ten dollar whore.

Why wait till '08? The Senate will be filibuster proof in '06, not because of the 'nuclear option', but because they will lose more seats in the election.


Sir, I am not stupid. But I am old enough to remember his presidency; I voted for him. I did not say he was a "good president", I said he was an honorable one. Unfortunately, this made him easily manipulated and ripe for dirty tricks. I remember the hostages in Iran and how the entire outcome was orchestrated to win the Presidency for Reagan. As I said, he was chewn up and spit out by Washington politics. In this day and age I'm not sure what the definition of a "good president" is. They are only figure heads and don't really make policy anyway, the machine behind them does, whether it is republican or democratic. Honorable men don't seek the position anymore.
Nixon - now that's a sad chapter. May he rot in hell.


Nothing to hide then:

Cheney, Libby Blocked Papers to Senate Intelligence Panel
The National Journal
October 27, 2005
Vice President Cheney and his chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, overruling advice from some White House political staffers and lawyers, decided to withhold crucial documents from the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2004 when the panel was investigating the use of pre-war intelligence that erroneously concluded Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, according to Bush administration and congressional sources.

Both Republicans and Democrats on the committee say that their investigation was hampered by the refusal of the White House to turn over key documents, although Republicans said the documents were not as central to the investigation.

US tore out 8000 pages of Iraq dossier
Dec 22, 2002
THE United States edited out more than 8000 crucial pages of Iraq's 11,800-page dossier on weapons, before passing on a sanitised version to the 10 non-permanent members of the United Nations security council.

A UN source in New York said: 'The questions being asked are valid. What did the US take out? And if weapons inspectors are supposed to be checking against the dossier's content, how can any future claim be verified. In effect the US is saying trust us, and there are many who just will not.'

CIA Questioned Documents Linking Iraq, Uranium Ore
Washington Post
March 22, 2003
CIA officials now say they communicated significant doubts to the administration about the evidence backing up charges that Iraq tried to purchase uranium from Africa for nuclear weapons, charges that found their way into President Bush's State of the Union address, a State Department "fact sheet" and public remarks by numerous senior officials.

"The policy guys make decisions about things like this," said one official, referring to the uranium evidence. When the State Department "fact sheet" was issued, the official said, "people winced and thought, 'Why are you repeating this trash?' "

Some CIA analysts felt pressure from Cheney over Iraq
Washington Post
June 5, 2003
Government sources said CIA analysts were not the only ones who felt pressure from their superiors to support public statements by Bush, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and others about the threat posed by Hussein.

Former and current intelligence officials said they felt a continual drumbeat, not only from Cheney and Libby, but also from Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz, Feith, and less so from CIA Director George J. Tenet, to find information or write reports in a way that would help the administration make the case that going into Iraq was urgent.

Inspectors Call U.S. Tips 'Garbage'
Feb. 20, 2003 [month before war]
In fact, the U.S. claim that Iraq is developing missiles that could hit its neighbors - or U.S. troops in the region, or even Israel - is just one of the claims coming from Washington that inspectors here are finding increasingly unbelievable. The inspectors have become so frustrated trying to chase down unspecific or ambiguous U.S. leads that they've begun to express that anger privately in no uncertain terms.

U.N. sources have told CBS News that American tips have lead to one dead end after another.

Example: satellite photographs purporting to show new research buildings at Iraqi nuclear sites. When the U.N. went into the new buildings they found "nothing."

Example: Saddam's presidential palaces, where the inspectors went with specific coordinates supplied by the U.S. on where to look for incriminating evidence. Again, they found "nothing."

Example: Interviews with scientists about the aluminum tubes the U.S. says Iraq has imported for enriching uranium, but which the Iraqis say are for making rockets. Given the size and specification of the tubes, the U.N. calls the "Iraqi alibi air tight."

So frustrated have the inspectors become that one source has referred to the U.S. intelligence they've been getting as "garbage after garbage after garbage." In fact, Phillips says the source used another cruder word.

Bush to pick panel for WMD inquiry
February 3, 2004
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush said Monday he would appoint a presidential commission to review U.S. intelligence on the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

It's over Johnny...OVER!


"The other terror that scares us from self-trust is our consistency; a reverence for our past act or word, because the eyes of others have no other data for computing our orbit than our past acts, and we are loath to disappoint them.

But why should you keep your head over your shoulder? Why drag about this corpse of your memory, lest you contradict somewhat you have stated in this or that public place? Suppose you should contradict yourself; what then? It seems to be a rule of wisdom never to rely on your memory alone, scarcely even in acts of pure memory, but to bring the past for judgment into the thousand-eyed present, and live ever in a new day. In your metaphysics you have denied personality to the Deity: yet when the devout motions of the soul come, yield to them heart and life, though they should clothe God with shape and color. Leave your theory, as Joseph his coat in the hand of the harlot, and flee." -Emerson

God forbid anyone admit a mistake, right Jeff? God knows Republicans don't.


Denigrate the reportage? wow, you almost sounded like an intelligent person there, good work.

And the idea of not "denigrating the reportage" (whatever the fuck reportage means...I think you mean 'reporting') is amusing coming from the man who people who coined the phrase MSM.


Were they central to the investigation? Should the White House turn over every document requested in every partisan investigstion of a current administration?

We've certainly seen from past democrat administrations that The white house can hide alot of documents under the white house umbrella.


Seriously, a UN source?

Now that's funny.

Sounds to me like there was more evidence pointing towards what EVERYBODY had accepted as probable truth, than otherwise.

Does the Senate intelligence commitee have the same intelligence as the POTUS?


I think that going into Iraq was urgent, and for many more reasons than WMD's.

UN sources told CBS!!!! Now that's damn funny!

Were these the same inspectors that were sleeping in rooms that were tapped with listening devices?

And weren't France, Russia, and Germany all on the take with Iraq?

And aren't they permanent members of the UN security council?


Again with the UN?

The same human intelligence capabillities thhat Clinton slashed, burned, and cut?

That's right Johnny, it certainly does look to be over for the democratic party.