Intelligence, schmintelligence

December 14, 2005

Several alert readers have brought my attention to this report on Bush’s speech on Iraq this morning, but I’m not sure that it really breaks new ground.

Bush also accepted responsibility for invading Iraq based on faulty intelligence.

“It is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. As president I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq,” Bush said. “And I’m also responsible for fixing what went wrong by reforming our intelligence capabilities. And we’re doing just that.”

This isn’t exactly a concession that we went to war under false pretenses; Bush has acknowledged the problems with pre-war intelligence many times before. It’s always a treat to hear the president use the “I am responsible” phrase, but the comments appear to be little more than the same buck-passing the White House has always embraced.

Indeed, the bigger issue is not that Bush has publicly conceded that “much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong,” but rather that he doesn’t much care whether it was right or not. From Monday’s speech:

“[K]nowing what I know today, I’d make the decision again. Removing Saddam Hussein makes this world a better place and America a safer country.”

This isn’t exactly a radical shift either, but it’s nevertheless telling, particularly in light of this morning’s remarks. Bush effectively admitted that whether the intelligence about the Iraqi “threat” was correct is largely irrelevant. He said it himself: if he knew at the time that there were no WMDs, no nuclear program, no unmanned drones, etc., he’d still “make the decision again.” There’s no other way to interpret this, other than to conclude the president doesn’t much care whether the intelligence was faulty or reliable.

When he accepts responsibility for that, then it’ll be newsworthy.

December 14, 2005 at 12:55 pm

That’s all true, but “I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq” is important. I don’t want to blame the CIA, I want to blame Bush and he’s saying that’s ok.

Admitting that you went to war by mistake, and that you wouldn’t do it again if you had it to do over, is really not an option for this (or any) administration. It’d be a tacit admission that 30K iraqi civilians and 2100 american troops died unnecessarily. It would destroy any remaining credibility the President might have left. And it’d be grounds for calling for the President’s resignation.

So they’re stuck. They can’t admit the obvious (that it was a blunder and a clusterfuck). But everyone knows it is, and Dems ought to keep pointing it out as often as possible.

Of course, it’s one thing to accept responsibility. It’s says something completely different when, while accepting responsibility, one need not fear any actual consequences.

So basically Bush just admitted that he would have lied us into war if he could have. Now we just need him to testify under oath that he DID.

Nonetheless, while we can all parse his words and find the duplicity, the subtle “I’m sorry someone else screwed up and left me in a mess” aspect to it all, and get a sad chuckle, I would bet good money that his poll numbers go up because he did this. And a certain segment of the population will now be less tolerant of Dems criticizing W on pre-war issues – I can almost hear it now – “he said he was responsible, what more do you want? You should let it go now.”

NOTE, before the flames start, I am neither defending Bush nor saying I think his numbers should go up or that we should let it go. I am merely making a prediction about american political behavior that, regrettably, I am pretty confident about.

If that is his logic, why did we bother with any of the intelligence gathering at all?

He says “knowing what I know today” – first of all, what exactly is that? It’s clear he doesnt see that the world is NOT a better place – more people are unhappy with this war than are happy with it, more Iraqis are dead, and more will die, and America and the rest of the world are clearly not more safe. I dont think many people in the US are happy with where truth, liberty and justice are heading in their own country. Outside of America, there are more terrorists carrying out more successful attacks, largely because of our foolish adventure in Iraq. While we have been spared so far in the US, it is clear from the 9/11 report card that we have made practically no progress becoming safer here – we’ve just been lucky that they havent decided to hit us again. That luck will run out eventually. So clearly, the other “intelligence” on this was also wrong – the result of Saddam’s removal would not and has not lead to a safer place. Incompetence on this administration’s handling of the misadventure has only made that worse.

If all of the important intelligence was wrong, what information would lead him to decide that the decision should have been made to go to war? Basically he is saying that all the intel was completely unnecessary and it didnt matter what they said. This really gets at the truth – that they had already decided to take out Saddam way before any of the political theatre took place around the decision. The intel and all that was pure PR.

I’d like to hear how he would have sold the war if he DIDNT twist the intel. What would he have said? Since practically none of his assertions/reasons for the war were true, what would have made the case? God told me to do it??? It’s really insane that he can make a comment like that and noone calls him on it. Where is the evidence that the world is safer and better?

I have said it before, and I will say it again, goint to war in Iraq had much more to do with daddy issues than oil, WMD, or Saddam. So I can see why he says he would make the same dicision again.

“It is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong”

The other issue here is that this is the Bush defense we all knew was coming – “we didn’t cook the intell, it was just flawed and the process was a mess”. The response should be that they skewed the intell to their position and intentionally ignored the intelligence agencies that did not believe the intell.

So the President admits there were no WMDs, no weapons program, no ties to Al Qaeda, no imminent threat to the United States. Before the U.S. invasion, Iraq was like any other bankrupt, corrupt third world country who’s ambition to strike the U.S. exceeds its means.

Which leaves the question: Honestly, why are we in Iraq?

I caouldn’t agree more with your analysis. To Bush, the word “responsible” means never having to say you’re sorry. Its a weasel move right out of the sociopath playbook.

But I may be even more angry at Joe Biden for backing Bush on the Charlie Rose show last night. He basically blamed it all on bad advice from Rummie and Cheney and said if Bush ditched them he could still be a great President. He also said he liked Bush.

Here’s my post on this: Bush, Biden and Weasel Words

Sorry, I can’t just do a trackback coz I’ve forgotten my Haloscan login LOL

Regards, Cernig @ Newshog

I caouldn’t agree more with your analysis. To Bush, the word “responsible” means never having to say you’re sorry. Its a weasel move right out of the sociopath playbook.

Here’s my post on this: Bush, Biden and Weasel Words

Sorry, I can’t just do a trackback coz I’ve forgotten my Haloscan login LOL

Regards, Cernig @ Newshog

Retaliatory response to terrorism when ( at least) 30.000 civilians ( red cross report) are obliterate from the face of this planet, look like to me as more terrorism than terrorism itself.

The good part from mister Bush speach is that we discover now a new segment in filosofy : that two wrong ( wmd & terrorism in Irak) can make one right !!

Congratulations mister Bush!!

When I see Roboshrub nailing himself to the cross in the sordid affair but in the same breath blaming faulty intel for his faux war, I hear the foundation being laid for more secret shenanigans and data base building.

In Shrubworld, if they can convince enough folks that bad/careless/misleading intelligence caused us this grief then we’ll need the Patriot Act to be strengthened and names to be gathered and free rein to be given to the security agencies that will save us from further insults to the Homeland. We will never be safe enough and therefore we will never be watched or scrutinized enough. It’s for our own good and those who would fight such actions by the government obviously don’t have the country’s best interest at heart. Might even be terrorists. Could be anybody. They grew the lemons. Might as well make lemonade.

Comments are closed.