http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/5830363.html
Fred Hiatt: Did Bush lie? Sorry, but it's just not that simple
By FRED HIATT
Search the Internet for "Bush Lied" products, and you will find sites
that offer more than a thousand designs. The basic "Bush Lied, People
Died" bumper sticker is only the beginning.
Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV, D-W.Va., chairman of the Select Committee
on Intelligence, set out to provide the official foundation for what
has become not only a thriving business but, more im****tant, an article
of faith among millions of Americans. And in releasing a committee
re****t last Thursday, he claimed to have accomplished his mission,
though he did not use the L-word.
"In making the case for war, the administration repeatedly presented
intelligence as fact when it was unsubstantiated, contradicted or even
nonexistent," he said.
There's no question that the administration, and particularly Vice
President Dick Cheney, spoke with too much certainty at times and
failed to anticipate or prepare the American people for the enormous
undertaking in Iraq.
But dive into Rockefeller's re****t, in search of where exactly
President Bush lied about what his intelligence agencies were telling
him about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and you may be surprised
by what you find.
On Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements "were
generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates."
On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile
laboratories? The president's statements "were substantiated by
intelligence information."
On chemical weapons, then? "Substantiated by intelligence information."
On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the
intelligence committee re****t)? "Generally substantiated by
intelligence information." Delivery vehicles such as ballistic
missiles? "Generally substantiated by available intelligence." Unmanned
aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? "Generally
substantiated by intelligence information."
As you read through the re****t, you begin to think maybe you've
mistakenly picked up the minority dissent. But, no, this is the
Rockefeller indictment. So, you think, the smoking gun must appear in
the section on Bush's claims about Saddam Hussein's alleged ties to
terrorism.
But statements regarding Iraq's sup****t for terrorist groups other than
al-Qaida "were substantiated by intelligence information." Statements
that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other
terrorists with ties to al-Qaida "were substantiated by the
intelligence *****sments," and statements regarding Iraq's contacts
with al-Qaida "were substantiated by intelligence information." The
re****t is left to complain about "implications" and statements that
"left the impression" that those contacts led to substantive Iraqi
cooperation.
In the re****t's final section, the committee takes issue with Bush's
statements about Saddam Hussein's intentions and what the future might
have held. But was that really a question of misrepresenting
intelligence, or was it a question of judgment that politicians are
expected to make?
After all, it was not Bush, but Rockefeller, who said in October 2002:
"There has been some debate over how 'imminent' a threat Iraq poses. I
do believe Iraq poses an imminent threat. I also believe after
September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. ... 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."
Rockefeller was reminded of that statement by the committee's vice
chairman, Sen. Christopher S. Bond, R-Mo., who with three other
Republican senators filed a minority dissent that includes many other
such statements from Democratic senators who had access to the
intelligence re****ts that Bush read. The dissenters assert that they
were cut out of the re****t's preparation, allowing for a great deal of
skewing and partisan****p, but that even so, "the re****ts essentially
validate what we have been saying all along: that policymakers'
statements were substantiated by the intelligence."
Why does it matter, at this late date? The Rockefeller re****t will not
cause a spike in "Bush Lied" mug sales, and the Bond dissent will not
lead anyone to scrape the "Bush Lied" bumper sticker off his or her
car.
But the phony "Bush lied" story line distracts from the biggest prewar
failure: the fact that so much of the intelligence upon which Bush and
Rockefeller and everyone else relied turned out to be tragically,
catastrophically wrong.
And it trivializes a double dilemma that President Bill Clinton faced
before Bush and that President Obama or McCain may well face after:
when to act on a threat in the inevitable absence of perfect
intelligence and how to mobilize popular sup****t for such action, if
deemed essential for national security, in a democracy that will
always, and rightly, be reluctant.
For the next president, it may be Iran's nuclear program, or al-Qaida
sanctuaries in Pakistan, or, more likely, some potential horror that
today no one even imagines. When that time comes, there will be plenty
of warnings to heed from the Iraq experience, without the need to
fictionalize more.
Hiatt is The Wa****ngton Post's editorial page editor.
|
