On May 29, 2003, 50 days after the fall of Baghdad, President Bush proclaimed a fresh victory for his administration in Iraq: Two small trailers captured by U.S. and Kurdish troops had turned out to be long-sought mobile “biological laboratories.” He declared, “We have found the weapons of mass destruction.”
When Bush made the above comment I found it annoying. It seemed like a flippant response. We didn’t invade Iraq because of two trailers, regardless of whether they could be used to make some kind of biological weapon. We went to war with Iraq, supposedly, so that a mushroom cloud would not suddenly appear in an American city. But, Bush’s remark was not only flippant, it was not only wrong…it was knowingly wrong. It was a lie.
A secret fact-finding mission to Iraq — not made public until now — had already concluded that the trailers had nothing to do with biological weapons. Leaders of the Pentagon-sponsored mission transmitted their unanimous findings to Washington in a field report on May 27, 2003, two days before the president’s statement.
The three-page field report and a 122-page final report three weeks later were stamped “secret” and shelved. Meanwhile, for nearly a year, administration and intelligence officials continued to publicly assert that the trailers were weapons factories.
For nearly a year…the administration stuck to their story. How long did it take the team of experts to debunk their story?
“Within the first four hours,” said one team member, who like the others spoke on the condition he not be named, “it was clear to everyone that these were not biological labs.”
And how did the government react?
News of the team’s early impressions leaped across the Atlantic well ahead of the technical report. Over the next two days, a stream of anxious e-mails and phone calls from Washington pressed for details and clarifications.
The reason for the nervousness was soon obvious: In Washington, a CIA analyst had written a draft white paper on the trailers, an official assessment that would also reflect the views of the DIA. The white paper described the trailers as “the strongest evidence to date that Iraq was hiding a biological warfare program.” It also explicitly rejected an explanation by Iraqi officials, described in a New York Times article a few days earlier, that the trailers might be mobile units for producing hydrogen.
But the technical team’s preliminary report, written in a tent in Baghdad and approved by each team member, reached a conclusion opposite from that of the white paper.
Oops. So, what to do? Publish the white paper anyway.
The technical team’s preliminary report was transmitted in the early hours of May 27, just before its members began boarding planes to return home. Within 24 hours, the CIA published its white paper, “Iraqi Mobile Biological Warfare Agent Production Plants,” on its Web site.
And those pesky scientists that went all the way to Iraq to do some…science?
In the end, the final report — 19 pages plus a 103-page appendix — remained unequivocal in declaring the trailers unsuitable for weapons production.
“It was very assertive,” said one weapons expert familiar with the report’s contents.
Then, their mission completed, the team members returned to their jobs and watched as their work appeared to vanish.
“I went home and fully expected that our findings would be publicly stated,” one member recalled. “It never happened. And I just had to live with it.”
Facts are liberally biased.
And the facts on this issue were the “sexing up” of intelligence: “Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.” IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER’S MEETING, 23 JULY 2002
A couple of days ago, when Bush says of the selective leaking of the NIE, he “wanted people to see the truth,” his claim went widely unchallenged. Intelligence leaked to with Bush’s approval did not accurately show the intelligence available.
Bush uses intelligence for political gain: Sign Senator Tom Harkin’s censure petition: http://tomharkin.com/petition/default.asp
What isn’t a lie with these people? My default setting anymore is that if BushCo says it, it must be false until proven otherwise.
I made that exact statement to someone last night.
perhaps a somewhat more … nuanced position?
When I hear anything from the Shrubberies, my initial response is “Why do they want us to believe this, and how will we be hurt by it?”
When dealing with Bushco, the question of whether a statement is “true” in accordance with facts on the ground or actual reality is simply irrelevant. The only issue is whether a statement is phrased and developed in a way that meets the political needs of the moment while allowing it to be disclaimed or weaseled later as the situation collapses.
“True” and “False” are simply noise words to the Shrubberies; they do not convey any shred of actual meaning, much less any moral or persuasive value. The only thing reasonably certain is that when Bushco speaks, those of us not among “the base” will be screwed, probably quite badly. If, rather than concerning ourselves with irrelevancies of fact, we concentrate on figuring out where it’s going to come from THIS time, we can sometimes figure out how to make it hurt a little less.. though more and more that becomes a futile proposition in a feudal era.
For a satire piece that I wrote on the same WAPO story at UNCONFIRMED SOURCES
and he should be sent to Devil’s Island to eat bugs off the floor of his cell like in “Papillon”. But the members of this “technical team” and all the retired generals who are now speaking out have blood on their hands too.
No, they didn’t “have to live with it”. They could’ve publicly declared at the time that Bush was lying. I have no sympathy for their after-the-fact protestations about being used.
not so simple. They could not disclose classified information without breaking the law. Before you demand someone be willing to go to jail, you must consider whether you would do so in their place. Maybe you would. But this was an after the fact issue. Going to jail wasn’t going to get us out of Iraq or prevent the war. Your standard is pretty tough. No sympathy? I have a lot of sympathy.
Emphasis mine.
Am I missing something? Are they not breaking the law now?
yes. they are. and they are taking a risk. Maybe they hope that their story is now part of a much bigger pattern and will be believed without them having to expose their identity. And perhaps they are correct in their hope that the administration no longer had the credibility to compel the reporter to come forward and identify their sources.
Saying that this is just “rehashing” an old story. So far, not being challenged, as usual.
Off topic:
Reading through several blogs this morning I was struck by something: there is a consistent, but incredibly misleading impression being given by many blogs that there is some sort of dramatic shift towards the Democrats going on. Nothing could be further from the truth — and until we start facing reality we will not be able to make the changes necessary to win back the Congress.
Are people more likely to call themselves Democrats today? Well, yes, in that there is a very small shift occurring. But from an historic stand point, Democrats are in very bad shape, indeed.
For instance, in 1977, a couple of years after Watergate, only 21% of those surveyed by the Harris Poll identified themselves as Republicans — 48% said they considered themselves Democrats. It has been downhill ever since.
In 1984, the year Reagan won a second term, the breakdown was 27% Republican, 40% Democrat.
The last Harris Poll has the split at 30% to 36%. –up three points for the Democrats, but obviously way down from their highs.
(Interestingly, the Washington Post stopped conducting their poll in 2003 when Republicans finally matched the Democrats in party affiliation –something that had never occurred in their poll up to that time.)
So why the euphoria over the “rise of Democrats”. Because the polls being mentioned do not ask people what their party affiliation is so much as it asks “who do you trust”?
No wonder then that Democrats are scratching their heads when they see that their candidates are still losing to Republicans in races within districts that have traditionally gone to the Republicans. Yesterday, for instance, Busby polled around 43% in her race for CA-50, well ahead of her opponents, but not more than the 50% she needed to win the race outright. Even worse, it was not even as much as John Kerry polled within the district in 2004. What gives?
The fact is that as long as Democrats continue to bash Bush without uniting behind an alternative agenda, the Democrats will successfully eat into Bush’s popularity without changing peoples’ party affiliation. In other words, Republicans may be beginning to voice doubts about Bush, and even the Republican held Congress, but they are not being persuaded that their fundamental interest lie within the Democratic Party.
In 50-50 districts or states, the Democratic strategy may lead to some victories in November, but it will not help sweep Democrats to power in more contested districts. As a result, look for Democrats to take two steps forward, but one step back in November — that is, the Democrats may well lose some seats (like IL-8) that they current hold.
(I know my belief that the Democrats have to present a real “alternative” to the Republicans is highly unpopular with Markos and Armando at DailyKos, but what evidence are we seeing that the current strategy is working? Are we not, in fact, seeing the opposite effect: weak poll numbers for Bush, but continued victories by the Republicans?)
Bush Hides Lies By “Secret” Classification. So what else is new?
With a little help from Mr. Peabody and Sherman, let’s set the way back machine to February 5, 2003, destination United Nations Building, New York for Remarks to the United Nations Security Council from United States Secretary of State Colin L. Powell:
The Washington Post, in a front page story today, sets the wayback machine to May 29, 2003:
Politicizing the intelligence by using “Secret” classification:
Breaking the Law, from Bush’s own Executive Order 13292 from March 28, 2003, which was an amendment to Executive Order 12958 — Classified National Security Information: