Willful Ignorance

David Corn, Washington editor of The Nation, is the author of The Lies
of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception (Crown Publishers).

A year ago—March 17, 2003, to be exact—George W. Bush addressed the
nation and the world. He gave Saddam Hussein 48 hours to get out town or
face a U.S. military invasion. To defend the war to come, Bush declared,
"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt
that the Iraqi regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most
lethal weapons ever devised." There was nothing ambiguous he "leaves
no doubt". Of all the false assertions—or lies—that Bush told before the
war, this one was perhaps the most important, for Bush was informing
Americans, citizens elsewhere, members of the U.S. armed forces about to
be placed in harm’s way and Iraqis who also would pay the ultimate price
that his actions, as controversial as they might be, were based on
rock-solid, you-can-take-it-to-the-bank information. In essence, Bush
was saying we know what we are doing and we know it is absolutely
unavoidable.

That was not true. The issue is not merely that Bush apparently spoke
falsely when he said that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and that
Saddam Hussein was in cahoots with Al Qaeda. Good-faith mistakes based
on incomplete intelligence can happen. But that is not what occurred in
this instance. Before the war, Bush claimed he was proceeding with total
certainty based on intelligence that was 100 percent reliable and
utterly conclusive. He did not say that due to the available
intelligence he suspected Hussein possessed WMDs, that he worried Iraq
was seeking weapons of mass destruction, that he believed he could not
allow the possibility Hussein might develop and amass WMD stockpiles. He
maintained that the basis for this elective war—Hussein’s WMDs—was
undeniable.

But it is now undeniable that the intelligence was not as absolute as
Bush had claimed. Portions of the October 2002 National Intelligence
Estimate on Iraq—the summation of the intelligence community’s reporting
on Iraq—were declassified last year. Various government officials have
conducted post-invasion reviews of the prewar intelligence. And CIA
director George Tenet, trying to defend his agency in public speeches
and congressional testimony, has in recent weeks described the prewar
intelligence. All of this provides indisputable evidence that Bush
misled the public as to the intelligence on Iraq’s WMDs.

Let’s look at what the experts have said. Last fall David Kay, when he
was still the chief WMD hunter, testified that the prewar intelligence
on Iraq’s WMD program "was always bounded by large uncertainties and had
to be heavily caveated." Days earlier, Rep. Porter Goss, the Republican
chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, and Rep. Jane Harman, the
senior Democrat on the committee, noted that their committee’s
examination of the prewar intelligence on Iraq had uncovered
"significant deficiencies." Goss and Harman concluded that the
intelligence community had based its prewar assessments of Iraq's WMDs
and Saddam Hussein's connections to terrorists on outdated,
"circumstantial," and "fragmentary" information with "too many
uncertainties." The two legislators pointed to a "lack of specific
intelligence on regime plans and intentions, WMD, and Iraq's support to
terrorist groups... from 1998 through 2003." Sen. Pat Roberts, the
Republican chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, later seconded
these sentiments. He told The Washington Post that his committee had
discovered that the intelligence had been "sloppy" and inconclusive and
that it did not definitively show that Iraq possessed WMDs or that
Hussein had maintained close connections to Al Qaeda.

How did Bush reply to these indictments of the prewar
intelligence—udgments rendered mainly by pro-war Republicans? He
insisted repeatedly that he had based his decision to go to war on
"good, solid intelligence." Yet the intelligence was hardly "good" or
"solid" according to the folks who actually looked at the stuff. Last
summer, the White House acknowledged that Bush never even bothered to
read the entire NIE on Iraq before resolving to go to war. It was 90
pages long.

And a review of material that is now public shows that the
intelligence—solid or not—did not back up many of Bush’s assertions.
Here is a highly abbreviated run-through:

* Biological weapons
In a speech on Oct. 7, 2002, Bush said Iraq possessed a "massive
stockpile of biological weapons." The NIE had concluded—wrongly, it now
seems—that Iraq had an extensive bioweapons development program. But its
conclusions had not mentioned the existence of any gigantic stockpile.
And weeks ago, Tenet noted "We said we had no specific information on
the types or quantities of [biological] weapons, agent, or stockpiles at
Baghdad’s disposal."

* Chemical weapons
In his high-profile presentation to the U.N. Security Council in
February 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell said that it was the
administration’s "conservative estimate" that Iraq possessed 100 to 500
tons of chemical weapons. His remark made it seem that Iraq might have
much more of this deadly stuff. Yet the NIE had reported that the
intelligence community "had little specific information on Iraq’s CW
stockpile." Still, its analysts assumed Hussein "probably" had stocked
100 tons and "possibly" had stored as much as 500 tons of chemical
weapons. In other words, they were not sure. Moreover, the Defense
Intelligence Agency, the intelligence service of the Pentagon, had at
this time produced a report that said, "there is no reliable information
on whether Iraq is producing or stockpiling chemical weapons."

* Nuclear weapons
Bush and his aides consistently maintained that Hussein had
revived his nuclear weapons program. In December 2002, Bush even said,
We don’t know whether or not [Hussein] has a nuclear weapon"—a comment
suggesting he might have one. Yet Tenet noted last month that before the
war, "We said Saddam Hussein did not have a nuclear weapon." Indeed, the
NIE said that Iraq could have nuclear weapons by the end of the decade
but only "if left unchecked." (At the time of the war, inspections and
sanctions were keeping Hussein quite checked.) And the NIE reported that
State Department intelligence analysts believed there was no "persuasive
evidence that Baghdad had launched a coherent effort to reconstitute its
nuclear weapons program."

* Unmanned aerial vehicles
In that October 2002 speech, Bush raised a frightening prospect. "We’ve
also discovered through intelligence," he said, "that Iraq has a growing
fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to
disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We’re
concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs for missions
targeting the United States." But the NIE said that the intelligence
suggested that Iraq had an UAV "development program"—that is, not a
"growing fleet." And this conclusion—like others—was a matter of
internal debate. The NIE noted that U.S. Air Force intelligence
analysts—the analysts with the most experience in the UAV field—had
concluded that Iraq’s UAV were not being developed to deliver WMDs but
to conduct reconnaissance missions.

The bottom line is clear: there was plenty of uncertainty—not "no
doubt"—in the prewar intelligence. And now some members of Bush’s
national security team are covering their rear flanks by pointing to
that incertitude and noting, well, of course, everybody knows that
intelligence is full of iffy information. A few days ago, CNN’s Wolf
Blitzer asked Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, "Was there bad
intelligence on WMD going into the war." Rumsfeld answered, "Certainly
intelligence is always imperfect. It is in any war. It is in any given
moment of the day or night." Then why did Bush assert the intelligence
left "no doubt"? (In September 2002, Rumsfeld said, "There’s no debate
in the world as to whether they have those weapons... We all know that.
A trained ape knows that." Was this trained ape relying on "always
imperfect" intelligence?)

Only a person willfully ignorant of the facts could have said before the
war that the intelligence contained "no doubt." And Bush and his posse
continue to insist their melodramatic prewar statements were justified
by the intelligence in hand. Blitzer showed Rumsfeld a video clip of
Rumsfeld telling Congress in September 2002 that Hussein had "amassed
large, clandestine stockpiles" of chemical and biological weapons. In
response, Rumsfeld told Blitzer that his testimony had been supported by
"the assessments of the intelligence community." But as noted above, the
intelligence community had not uncovered evidence that Iraq was
maintaining enormous secret stockpiles of WMDs.

The prewar intelligence was lousy—hardly slam-dunk material. But Bush
made matters worse. He falsely characterized the intelligence, and he
and his aides misused it to win support for their war. Bush has
appointed a commission to study what happened with the prewar WMD
intelligence. As the White House marks the first anniversary of the
invasion of Iraq with a variety of events this week, this commission has
yet to meet. And so far there is no indication that the
commissioners—each handpicked by the White House—will examine how the
Bush administration handled the intelligence. Perhaps they don’t believe
such an investigation is necessary, because on the question of whether
Bush abused the intelligence and blatantly misrepresented it, there
really can be no doubt.

On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 20:50:00 -0500, Jim wrote:

Willful Ignorance

David Corn, Washington editor of The Nation, is the author of The Lies
of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception (Crown Publishers).

Sounds like an unbiased, factual reporting kind of guy to me!

Do you actually read this stuff? Did you spend real money on Michael
Moore's latest books? You could get a lot of "cut and pastes" there!

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

What parts specifically don't you find to be Accurate?

John H wrote:
On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 20:50:00 -0500, Jim wrote:


Willful Ignorance

David Corn, Washington editor of The Nation, is the author of The Lies
of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception (Crown Publishers).


Sounds like an unbiased, factual reporting kind of guy to me!

Do you actually read this stuff? Did you spend real money on Michael
Moore's latest books? You could get a lot of "cut and pastes" there!

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 03:33:27 -0500, Jim wrote:

What parts specifically don't you find to be Accurate?

John H wrote:
On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 20:50:00 -0500, Jim wrote:


Willful Ignorance

David Corn, Washington editor of The Nation, is the author of The Lies
of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception (Crown Publishers).


Sounds like an unbiased, factual reporting kind of guy to me!

Do you actually read this stuff? Did you spend real money on Michael
Moore's latest books? You could get a lot of "cut and pastes" there!

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

Who the hell would read all that? I can guess. The same people who
would masturbate to Michael Moore's latest tripe.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

John H wrote:
On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 03:33:27 -0500, Jim wrote:


What parts specifically don't you find to be Accurate?

John H wrote:

On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 20:50:00 -0500, Jim wrote:



Willful Ignorance

David Corn, Washington editor of The Nation, is the author of The Lies
of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception (Crown Publishers).


Sounds like an unbiased, factual reporting kind of guy to me!

Do you actually read this stuff? Did you spend real money on Michael
Moore's latest books? You could get a lot of "cut and pastes" there!

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!


Who the hell would read all that? I can guess. The same people who
would masturbate to Michael Moore's latest tripe.

SO you see fit to condemn it simply based on the Author and title. "My
mind is made up, don't confuse me with facts"

"Jim" wrote in message
...


John H wrote:
On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 03:33:27 -0500, Jim wrote:


What parts specifically don't you find to be Accurate?

John H wrote:

On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 20:50:00 -0500, Jim wrote:



Willful Ignorance

David Corn, Washington editor of The Nation, is the author of The Lies
of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception (Crown
Publishers).


Sounds like an unbiased, factual reporting kind of guy to me!

Do you actually read this stuff? Did you spend real money on Michael
Moore's latest books? You could get a lot of "cut and pastes" there!

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!


Who the hell would read all that? I can guess. The same people who
would masturbate to Michael Moore's latest tripe.

SO you see fit to condemn it simply based on the Author and title. "My
mind is made up, don't confuse me with facts"

If Kerry and Clinton hadn't emasculated and gutted the intelligence agencies
then Bush would have had better intelligence ot go on.

Bert Robbins wrote:
"Jim" wrote in message
...


John H wrote:

On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 03:33:27 -0500, Jim wrote:



What parts specifically don't you find to be Accurate?

John H wrote:


On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 20:50:00 -0500, Jim wrote:




Willful Ignorance

David Corn, Washington editor of The Nation, is the author of The Lies
of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception (Crown

Publishers).


Sounds like an unbiased, factual reporting kind of guy to me!

Do you actually read this stuff? Did you spend real money on Michael
Moore's latest books? You could get a lot of "cut and pastes" there!

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

Who the hell would read all that? I can guess. The same people who
would masturbate to Michael Moore's latest tripe.

SO you see fit to condemn it simply based on the Author and title. "My
mind is made up, don't confuse me with facts"


If Kerry and Clinton hadn't emasculated and gutted the intelligence agencies
then Bush would have had better intelligence ot go on.


See Doug Canters earlier post re the 9/11 circus

John H wrote in message
...

Who the hell would read all that? I can guess. The same people who
would masturbate to Michael Moore's latest tripe.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!


This odd from someone who believes every word printed in 'Stars & Stripes'.
Lets see...who's most credible...a bunch of army PR flunkies or Michael
Moore????

Don White wrote:
John H wrote in message
...

Who the hell would read all that? I can guess. The same people who
would masturbate to Michael Moore's latest tripe.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!



This odd from someone who believes every word printed in 'Stars & Stripes'.
Lets see...who's most credible...a bunch of army PR flunkies or Michael
Moore????




John H has been awash in tripe his entire life.

Jim wrote in message ...
What parts specifically don't you find to be Accurate?

The part that David Corn wrote...



John H wrote:
On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 20:50:00 -0500, Jim wrote:


Willful Ignorance

David Corn, Washington editor of The Nation, is the author of The Lies
of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception (Crown Publishers).


Sounds like an unbiased, factual reporting kind of guy to me!

Do you actually read this stuff? Did you spend real money on Michael
Moore's latest books? You could get a lot of "cut and pastes" there!

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!