Today, the Senate Select Intelligence Committee released the final two sections of its pre-war intelligence report. As Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) said, the report concludes ?that the Administration made significant claims that were not supported by the intelligence.?
In today?s press briefing, White House Press Secretary Dana Perino was dismissive of the report, explaining that President Bush made false statements before the Iraq war simply because he was kept in the dark:
PERINO: That dissent amongst experts within the intelligence community at some level did not reach the president.
Watch it:
In reality, Bush kept himself in the dark. As the report notes, the intelligence reports did contradict the administration?s hawkish statements. In fact, the National Intelligence Estimate of 2002, which the White House used to make the case for war, also included a ‘clear dissenting views’ section:
The Estimate itself expressed the majority view that the program was being reconstituted, but included clear dissenting views from the State Department?s Buerau of Intelligence and Research, which argued that reconstitution was not underway, and the Department of Energy, which argued that aluminum tubes sought by Iraq were probably not intended for a nuclear weapon.
The revelations pour cold water on Bush?s rationale as to why he makes a good wartime leader. In 2007, he said that he is credible as commander in chief because he ?reads? the intelligence:
Q: Can you explain why you believe you?re still a credible messenger on the war?
BUSH: I?m credible because I read the intelligence, David.
‘All of the intelligence I looked at’ the Congress looked at, said the same thing,? Bush said in 2004. Unfortunately, it seems that Bush only selectively ?looked at? the intelligence
A new Senate report gives a fresh shot of adrenaline to the election-year debate over the Iraq war. President Bush and his top officials deliberately misrepresented secret intelligence to make the case to invade Iraq, according to the Senate Intelligence Committee.
The panel put a new spin on old charges, comparing claims made in five speeches by top Bush administration officials with intelligence reports. The committee says officials wrongly linked Saddam Hussein to the Sept. 11 attacks and al-Qaida; claimed Iraq would give terrorist groups chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, and said Iraq was developing drone aircraft to spread chemical or biological agents over the United States.
An examination of President Bush and Herbert Hoover, the president who helped steer the economy into the Great Depression, shows interesting similarities. By David Madland, Jacob Pawlak | June 5, 2008
It may seem premature to compare President George W. Bush to Herbert Hoover, the president who helped steer the economy into the Great Depression in 1929, and then presided over steady economic deterioration until the end of his term in 1933. After all, the current economic downturn under President Bush?s watch hasn?t even officially been declared a recession, while under Hoover the United States experienced four straight years of severe economic decline.
Yet close inspection of the economic track records and ideology of these two presidents reveals that they are quite similar. Both presided over a suddenly deteriorating economy yet resisted taking action to prevent further economic losses. Both believed the market would naturally self-correct, and that government intervention would be harmful. And both took limited government action once it became clear that it was needed?to help businesses, rather than working families?to weather the storm.
There are certainly areas, of course, where the comparison does not fit. And any comparison will inevitably reveal that in some cases President Bush?s record is much better and in others that Hoover?s legacy is tarnished by such comparisons. We?ll explore some of those policy differences and similarities, but first a straight-up comparison of broad economic trends under the two presidents is in order. Read the rest of this entry »
The White House response to former press secretary Scott McClellan’s damning new book would be much more convincing if it weren’t so familiar. The administration is following the same script it always uses when one of its own turns against it.
AMANDA TERKEL | June 3, 2008|
Since last Tuesday, senior members of the Bush administration have largely put aside their governing duties and become character assassins. Their target: Scott McClellan, previously a member of President Bush’s inner circle and, ironically, once a top character assassin himself.
In the world of “loyal Bushies,” McClellan’s crime is more unspeakable than pushing fake intelligence to lead a country into war or disclosing classified information, such as the identity of a U.S. intelligence agent. McClellan has dared to criticize his now-former friends. In his new memoir, he goes so far as to say that the Bush administration waged a “propaganda campaign” to deceive the American public into supporting the Iraq war. He also accuses Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, and Vice President Cheney of encouraging him to “repeat a lie” about their involvement in the Valerie Plame leak case. Read the rest of this entry »
