Last night, Dick Cheney also said this:
American soldiers and Marines serving in Iraq go out every day into some of the most dangerous and unpredictable conditions. Meanwhile, back in the United States, a few politicians are suggesting these brave Americans were sent into battle for a deliberate falsehood. This is revisionism of the most corrupt and shameless variety. It has no place anywhere in American politics, much less in the United States Senate.
Again, see chapter 8 of All the President's Spin for more on the falsehoods that were used to make the case for war. And under "revisionism of the most corrupt and shameless variety," of course, one might file the administration's post-war campaign to spin its pre-war claims and twist the evidence about what was found in Iraq, which we lay out in great detail in chapter 9 of ATPS.
Let's consider one man's post-war campaign of revisionism and deception: Dick Cheney. In April 2003, trailers were found that could have been used to produce biological weapons. However, most intelligence experts within the US government disagreed. Nonetheless, Cheney touted them as evidence of Saddam's weapons programs. CIA director George Tenet was forced to privately correct Cheney (p. 194). After claiming that Saddam had weapons programs before the war, Cheney and others switched to claiming Saddam had "WMD capability" (p. 196). Cheney also selectively quoted David Kay's report on Iraqi weapons programs, twisting its conclusions (p. 200), and misleadingly cited Saddam's possession of uranium, which was a waste product that could not be used in nuclear weapons without refinement (p. 206-207). In October 2003, he hyped the fact that there were "active terror camps in Iraq" before the war, neglecting to mention that the camps in question -- those of the al Qaeda offshoot Ansar ar-Islam -- were located in an area of northern Iraq that Saddam had not controlled since the Gulf War (p. 209-210). And Cheney frequently linked 9/11 and Iraq rhetorically, while continuing to float unproven suggestions of an Iraq-9/11 link as late as January 2004 (p. 215-216, 211-212).
Last night, Cheney also floated the notion that criticizing President Bush in terms he finds "untruthful" hurts the troops:
One might also argue that untruthful charges against the Commander-in-Chief have an insidious effect on the war effort itself. I'm unwilling to say that, only because I know the character of the United States Armed Forces -- men and women who are fighting the war on terror in Iraq, Afghanistan, and many other fronts.
This is yet another suggestion that dissent is somehow unpatriotic.
he's pathological. he looks america in the eye and says, "the sky is green. to question me is reprehensible revisionism."
he's the most up-is-down bald-faced liar of them all.
Posted by: jami | November 22, 2005 at 12:25 PM
You made the assertion that "However, most intelligence experts within the US government disagreed" about the intelligence leading to the current Iraq intervention without referencing the source. Would you please disclose the source of this information.
Additionally would you please disclose whether or not the sources that you did disclose are peer-reviewed. Otherwise I would have to believe that the content you provided is merely a regurgitation of a political perspective that you happen to prescribe to without basis to a real analysis of the this situation.
What I am trying to ask you---- is this fact or just your opinion? I am not disclosing whether or not I am conservative, liberal,or even the "third way", I just want to keep this discusion real- that is true...
Sincerely,
Hank
Posted by: Hank R. Gehron | November 23, 2005 at 11:15 PM
Hank - All these claims are fully documented in our book. Hope you'll pick it up.
Posted by: Brendan Nyhan | November 24, 2005 at 10:03 AM
Hank, I believe that the National Intelligence Estimate that was compiled before the runup to the war documented the WMD and terrorist connection issue pretty well. Sadly, the President didn't even request it himself, and it was compiled only after the Senate requested it.
Posted by: Drizzt Do'Urden | November 24, 2005 at 08:05 PM
Hank, furthermore, most of the assertions on the part of the administration are themselves without any substance or material backup. Mostly, they relied on allegations and insinuations that played on post-9/11 fears and implausible worst-case scenarios.
Posted by: Drizzt Do'Urden | November 24, 2005 at 08:08 PM
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"Iraqi's a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton's Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
There're lots more quotes like that where those came from. The truth is that EVERYONE, including the Brits, French, & Germans, including EVEN SOME (MOST?) OF SADDAM'S OWN GENERALS, thought he had substantial WMD capability.
In fact, though we found some WMDs, we didn't find nearly as many as we expected. To this day, we don't know where the rest went. (Syria?) That represents a major intelligence failure, but it does NOT represent dishonesty by President Bush or VP Cheney.
We DO know that Libya's nuclear weapon's program is now in crates in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, because of our invasion of Iraq. That, even by itself, would certainly be worth the sacrifices that our soldiers have made.
-Dave Burton
dave at burtonsys dot com but please no spam
Posted by: Dave Burton | December 03, 2005 at 08:10 AM