Rewriting History

The Bush campaign, er, I mean, Administration has decided it wants to fight back on charges that it misled America about Iraq's WMDs, and its nuclear program in particular, in order to drum up public support for the war. Its chosen method to fight back: mislead some more.

First of all, Atrios addresses one of the arguments quite succinctly:

I think that the recently statements of Stephen Hadley are really all we need to put the final nail in the coffin of the Bush adminsitration's credibility on anything. These people are just quite literally loathsome.

Hadley argues that Democrats had the same intelligence because "parts of"
the NIE "had been made public."

Right, and the parts of the NIE which weren't made public were the parts
which suggested that the parts which were made public were full of shit.

Any talking head who overlooks this fact to try to claim that "democrats
had the same intelligence as Republicans" is just completely full of shit. They
only the had the bits that made their case, not the bits which took away from
it. And people question my patriotism?

Then the Washington Post nicely addresses several of the other recent untruths spouted by the Administration:

President Bush and his national security adviser have answered critics of
the Iraq war in recent days with a two-pronged argument: that Congress saw the
same intelligence the administration did before the war, and that independent
commissions have determined that the administration did not misrepresent the
intelligence.

Neither assertion is wholly accurate.

The administration's overarching point is true: Intelligence agencies
overwhelmingly believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and very few members of Congress from either party were skeptical about this belief before the war began in 2003. Indeed, top lawmakers in both parties were
emphatic and certain in their public statements.

But Bush and his aides had access to much more voluminous intelligence
information than did lawmakers, who were dependent on the administration to
provide the material. And the commissions cited by officials, though concluding
that the administration did not pressure intelligence analysts to change their
conclusions, were not authorized to determine whether the administration
exaggerated or distorted those conclusions.

National security adviser Stephen J. Hadley, briefing reporters Thursday,
countered "the notion that somehow this administration manipulated the
intelligence." He said that "those people who have looked at that issue, some
committees on the Hill in Congress, and also the Silberman-Robb Commission, have
concluded it did not happen."

But the only committee investigating the matter in Congress, the Senate
Select Committee on Intelligence, has not yet done its inquiry into whether
officials mischaracterized intelligence by omitting caveats and dissenting
opinions. And Judge Laurence H. Silberman, chairman of Bush's commission on
weapons of mass destruction, said in releasing his report on March 31, 2005:
"Our executive order did not direct us to deal with the use of intelligence by
policymakers, and all of us were agreed that that was not part of our
inquiry."

Bush, in Pennsylvania yesterday, was more precise, but he still implied
that it had been proved that the administration did not manipulate intelligence,
saying that those who suggest the administration "manipulated the intelligence"
are "fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of
political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments."

In the same speech, Bush asserted that "more than 100 Democrats in the
House and the Senate, who had access to the same intelligence, voted to support
removing Saddam Hussein from power." Giving a preview of Bush's speech, Hadley
had said that "we all looked at the same intelligence."

But Bush does not share his most sensitive intelligence, such as the
President's Daily Brief, with lawmakers. Also, the National Intelligence
Estimate summarizing the intelligence community's views about the threat from
Iraq was given to Congress just days before the vote to authorize the use of
force in that country.

In addition, there were doubts within the intelligence community not
included in the NIE. And even the doubts expressed in the NIE could not be used
publicly by members of Congress because the classified information had not been
cleared for release. For example, the NIE view that Hussein would not use
weapons of mass destruction against the United States or turn them over to
terrorists unless backed into a corner was cleared for public use only a day
before the Senate vote.

And Josh Marshall addresses the final point, which is to combat the argument that Clinton as far back as 1998 was claiming that Saddam had WMDs. The clear response: Clinton NEVER said that Saddam had a nuclear capability, nor did he deceitfully claim that Iraq had ties to Al Qaeda, both of which the Administration did in order to seal the deal in early 2003. Marshall goes through the main lies that the Administration passed on in order to achieve their goal of war with Iraq:

1. Longstanding effort to convince the American people that Iraq maintained
ties to al Qaida and may have played a role in 9/11. This was always just a
plain old lie. (And if you want to see where the real fights with the
Intelligence Community came up, it was always on the terror tie angle and much
less on WMD.) The president and his chief advisors tried to leverage Americans'
horror over 9/11 to gain support for attacking Iraq. Simple: lying to the public
the president was sworn to protect.

2. Repeated efforts to jam purported evidence about an Iraqi nuclear
weapons program (the Niger canard) into major presidential speeches despite the
fact the CIA believed the claim was not credible and tried to prevent the
president from doing so. What's the explanation for that? At best a reckless
disregard for the truth in making the case war to the American public.

3. Consistent and longstanding effort to elide the distinction between
chem-bio-weapons (which are terrible but no immediate threat to American
security) and nuclear weapons (which are). For better or worse, there was a
strong consensus within the foreign policy establishmnet that Iraq continued to
stockpile WMDs. Nor was it an improbable assumption since Saddam had stockpiled
and used such weapons before and, by 2002, had been free of on-site weapons
inspections for almost four years. But what most observers meant by this was
chemical and possibly biological weapons, not nuclear weapons. Big difference!
The White House knew that this wasn't enough to get the country into war, so
they pushed the threat of a nuclear-armed Saddam for which there was much, much
less evidence.

Yes, Democrats thought Saddam had WMDs in 2002 and 2003, and some even might have thought that Saddam was building a nuclear program. But that was primarily because the intelligence that the Administration shared with Congress reached those conclusions. What WAS NOT shared with Congress was intelligence that suggested the opposite, and there was apparently a lot of that. The lies about Saddam's ties to al Qaeda were never really designed to get Congress on board: those were aimed at a worried American public, knowing that that lie, combined with a fear of a nuclear weapon would ensure that the neocons dream for years would finally be realized.

At some point perhaps Colin Powell will come clean. Until then it's up to the right wing media and conservative bloggers to continue the stream of lies. Shame on all of them.
- posted by Joshua @ 10:51 PM (0) comments

 
Rove Not Out Of Jeopardy in Any Way, Shape or Form

Interesting new article by Murray Waas, who's been leading the charge on this story for months now, has been posted on the National Journal's website. Here's the most important passage:

Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald delayed a decision on whether to seek
criminal charges against Karl Rove in large part because he wants to determine
whether Lewis (Scooter) Libby, the former chief of staff to Vice President
Cheney, can provide information on Rove's role in the CIA leak case, according
to attorneys involved in the investigation.

Even if Fitzgerald concludes in the near future that he does not have
sufficient evidence to charge Rove, the special prosecutor would not rule out
bringing charges at a later date and would not finish his inquiry on Rove until
he hears whatever information Libby might provide -- either incriminating or
exculpatory -- on Rove's role, the sources said.

On the last day of its two-year term, the federal grand jury in the leak
case indicted Libby on five counts of making false statements, perjury, and
obstruction of justice as part of an alleged effort to conceal his own role, and
perhaps that of other Bush administration officials, in publicly disclosing the
identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame.

Fitzgerald did not seek an indictment of Rove, opting to present any
potential new evidence on the White House deputy chief of staff to a new grand
jury. In recent days, Fitzgerald has reinterviewed several witnesses with
knowledge of Rove's role in the Plame leak and talked with attorneys of other
potential witnesses.

The ongoing investigation means that Rove's legal status is likely to
remain up in the air until the final disposition of Libby's case. That could be
two years from now, or even longer. Rove's predicament contradicts recent news
accounts indicating that Fitzgerald will conclude his probe of Rove in the near
future.

So there may be more Fitzmas miracles...
- posted by Joshua @ 1:33 PM (0) comments

 
Warner in '08?

Probably the biggest winner in yesterday's elections was Mark Warner, the outgoing governor of Virginia and he is now being talked up for either spot on the Democratic ticket in 2008. Yet to head the ticket, he'd have to get past Hillary.

My history with Warner is insightful in this regard. In 1996, I was Vice President of the UVA Law Democrats. We had to decide what our involvement was going to be in the 1996 elections in Virginia. We ultimately decided that we would pick one race and really focus on it.

That year, Mark Warner, a relatively unknown businessman from Alexandria, was challenging GOP stalwart John Warner in the Senate race that year. One of the other executive members of the Law Democrats kept insisting that we should get more involved in supporting Warner's campaign. My view of Warner was that his only chance of winning was to pull off a Eddie Murphy-type-Jeff-Johnson-"The Distinguished Gentleman" name recognition snafu and somehow get elected by accident.

Instead, we decided to champion Virgil Goode, a UVA Law grad, who was running for an open House seat.

Well, election night came and I'll be damned if Mark Warner didn't almost beat John Warner. I was completely wrong about him. And five years later he was elected governor, and will leave office with record popularity.

And Virgil Goode?

Yes, he won in 1996. But he switched parties after the impeachment vote and is currently a Republican member of the House of Representatives.

So I've learned not to underestimate Mark Warner.
- posted by Joshua @ 3:10 PM (0) comments

 
Victory!

"It's an off-year election."

"It doesn't mean anything."

"It has no relevance to the congressional elections."

"It was decided on local issues."

"So what if the President won the state last year."

Sound familar? All of these things were said after the resounding Republican victories in 1993. And we all know what happened in 1994.

Hopefully, last night can be the beginning of something good too.
- posted by Joshua @ 10:05 AM (0) comments

 
Finally!

I've been posting for weeks that Democrats need to press the White House to pledge not pardon anyone implicated in the Plame leak investigation, and finally Reid and the Senate Democratic leadership has gotten around to it:

The indictment of I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's Chief of
Staff, marks the first time in 131 years that a senior White House official has
been charged with a crime while still serving in the White House. The charges,
while not yet proven, are extraordinarily serious and deeply disturbing.

Although it is too early to judge Mr. Libby guilty or innocent of these
particular charges, it is not too early for you to reassure the American people
that you understand the enormous gravity of the allegations. To this end, we
urge you to pledge that if Mr. Libby or anyone else is found guilty vof a crime
in connection with Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation, you will not exercise
your authority to issue a Presidential pardon.

It is crucial that you make clear in advance that, if convicted, Mr. Libby
will not be able to rely on his close relationship with you or Vice President
Cheney to obtain the kind of extraordinarily special treatment unavailable to
ordinary Americans. In addition you should do nothing to undermine Mr.
Fitzgerald?s investigation or diminish accountability in your White House. A
pardon in these circumstances would signal that this White House considers
itself above the law.

We also urge you to state publicly whether anyone in the White
House -- including White House counsel Harriet Miers or Vice President
Cheney -- has already discussed the possibility of a pardon with Mr. Libby.
Particularly given that the American people are still in the dark about what
precisely transpired in the White House with respect to the CIA leak, it would
be highly inappropriate if there were such discussions going on behind the
scenes.

Swift public action on your part will make clear that you take seriously
perjury and obstruction of justice at the highest levels of our government and
that you meant what you said about bringing "honor and dignity" to the White
House. We eagerly await your response and hope that you will announce your
intentions promptly.

Sounds like about right for me. But I'm sure they "won't comment on the ongoing investigation."
- posted by Joshua @ 4:48 PM (9) comments

 
Throwing Sand In Face of the Umpire

Speculation about the fate of Karl Rove has centered around his failure to initially disclose his conversation with Matthew Cooper about Plame and whether his subsequent correction of that testimony a year later is enough to get him off the hook.

But it looks like Karl Rove did the same thing Libby did, way back in October 2003, as it related to his initial call with Robert Novak:

But Fitzgerald hasn’t resolved another important element in the case: what
appears to be misleading statements Rove made to FBI investigators on Oct. 8,
2003, less than two weeks after the Justice Department announced that it had
launched a criminal probe into Plame’s outing, the attorneys said.

Those close to the case say that Rove was caught up in a game of
semantics when he was questioned by FBI investigators, insisting to federal
agents that he was not the individual who had leaked Plame-Wilson’s identity to
conservative columnist Robert Novak. Novak was the first to make public her name
and CIA status in a July 14, 2003 column.

Rove told investigators that he merely passed along information about
Plame-Wilson to other journalists and White House officials after it had already
appeared in Novak’s column, the attorneys said. He maintained, they added, that
it was entirely within his right to do so being that Plame-Wilson’s husband,
former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, was publicly criticizing the Bush
Administration and had claimed in a New York Times op-ed that it had “twisted”
prewar intelligence to build public support for a preemptive military strike
against Iraq.

According to lawyers, Rove did not tell FBI investigators in 2003 that he
had spoken with Novak prior to his column being published and had been one of
the two “senior administration officials” cited in Novak’s column as having
confirmed Plame’s identity and CIA employment.

So it appears that, just like Libby initially failed to reveal that he told reporters about Plame, Rove failed to reveal that he had spoken to Novak about this issue -- an entirely implausible bit of testimony, given the fact that Novak's column was the basis for this whole to-do and a conversation with Novak around July of 2003 would have some added significance after this story broke. Undoubtedly, when the whole shit-storm blew up, Rove must have remembered that he had spoken with Novak. There's simply no way that Rove could legitimately claim he "forgot" about this piece of information.

Oh, and then there's this piece of information, from Libby's indictment, about "Official A", aka Rove:

21. On or about July 10 or July 11, 2003, LIBBY spoke to a senior official
in the White House ("Official A") who advised LIBBY of a conversation Official A
had earlier that week with columnist Robert Novak in which Wilson's wife was
discussed as a CIA employee involved in Wilson's trip. LIBBY was advised
by Official A that Novak would be writing a story about Wilson's wife.

This seems to me to be the piece of information that kills Rove and his "I forgot" defense. Presumably, that defense, like his defense concerning the Cooper conversation, rests on a "I didn't think it was important or significant enough so I just forgot about it"-type justification. Yet he told Libby about it right after it happened, but then "forgot" to tell federal investigators.

Sounds like Turd Blossom could be in trouble. He's scheduled to keynote the Federalist Society black-tie event on November 10. Hope they've got a back-up speaker.
- posted by Joshua @ 7:10 PM (0) comments