The most mysterious thing to me is why Bush didn’t address at least some of the most blatant lies without sounding like he was at times almost even affirming them. I’ve tried to come up with a rational for that, but can’t. The only thing I’ve read on it is a remark by Rove that he considered it an error not to have been more aggressive in countering the falsehoods. But even then he wasn’t all that specific about what they were.

Aside – one of Doug’s Lefty references slams Feith’s book as being worthless, and the author cites Kissinger and someone else as giving lousy revues, which if you read turn out to be very positive (unless you are a Lefty in a looking glass world). For some strange reason they think calling a book thorough, well referenced and objective is a bad thing. Go figure! Anyway, I decided to find out myself, so I ordered that and 2 other conservative books by authors I respect. If the Left hates it that much, it has to be worth reading.

These are three huge myths amongst the public with somewhere between 2/3 to 3/4 of the public believing the falsehoods. Obviously, the public could not have determined these opinions in a vacuum so they must have obtained them from the media they consume. And the media itself still believes that Bush told us that Iraq was connected to 9/11 and that there were ‘no WMDs found in Iraq’ although they’ve mostly stopped harping on the fictitious ‘no planning’ canard now that Rumsfeld is gone.

None of the ‘truth squads’ which the media has constructed to verify the campaign ads and statements for this election have noted that the statements by the two most liberal candidates frequently cite empirical falsehoods about Iraq and what Bush said and didn’t say about Iraq and our reasons for starting war.

In fact, most of the most aggravating allegations made about Bush, regarding Iraq, were actually claims made by the democrat candidates THEMSELVES prior to the war but are attributed to Bush, Cheney or Wolfowitz. Think of ‘Iraq is an imminent threat’ or ‘Iraq is reconstitution their nuclear weapons program’ which are statements beyond where Bush, Cheney, Rice or Powell would go but were uttered by John F. Kerry and Hillary Clinton the Senate floor as well as they assertion that they possessed ‘independent intelligence’ which proved that there were stockpiles of WMD in Iraq (the only thing we didn’t find was ’stockpiles’).

Doug Feith was the most knowledgeable person possible about all of the fighting in the WH at the time since he was in between DOD, State and the WH pre-war and fought to prevent the invasion from becoming an ‘occupation’ but watched the CIA push Bremer into gutting the Iraq Provisional Government, to avoid an possible Chalabi ascendency, and establish instead a caucasian monarchy in the form of Bremer. Feith is very smart guy and appears to have no political agenda. Which is a curiousity considering the agendas of the people who’ve taken part in this soap opera which is the Iraq War.

Sorry I didn’t have time to finish my comments about Doug’s post regarding referencing GlobalSecurity last night.

I try to avoid using unreliable sources, even when they post real material, unless I’m using them to prove my point with a “hostile witness” or such. Occasionally I mess up, but I do try to be consistent about that. Here’s an alternative neutral source of the same document.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/Iraq.html

It avoids the pitfall of getting criticized for using a source who’s interpretation of said document might usually be (a lot more than) a bit Left of one’s own, and getting comments like Doug’s, even though what you cited from them was fine. If I have to use something like that because I can’t get the material somewhere else, I try to issue a disclaimer to head off such criticism.

Just a thought.

Earth to Doug. Your references are far Left, and so share the agenda of attacking without proof. Now, I don’t want to be accused of attacking without proof, so here is a quicky from an ad on Raw Story targeing their audience. (Don’t forget to cheach your chong on the way out, dude.)

Also, Global Security pushes “Paleostinian” propaganda, MotherJones has been doped out since the 60’s, Wikepedia is unreliable, etc., etc. Screwballs, all.

If you want people on the Right to take you seriously, you have to use sources that base their articles on fact not fiction, on reason not fantasy.

W/r to Wordsmith’s post, re., the 60 minuites video; I can just hear Bubba now, if he were confronted like that… “Republican hit job, blah, blah, blah,” wagging his finger in their faces, screaming, looking more like a drunken thug than a retired president. In fact, Kroft himself seemed almost Clintonesque, barely restrained as though he were probing Feith for a weakness he could lunge at.

Notice that they didn’t ask Feith what he meant when he said that knowing what we know now the war was even more justified? Of course not. Why follow up on some lead that actually justifies the war? They may be @$$#*&’s, but they aren’t so stupid as to fall into the trap of talking about anything that’s actually relevant.

And, Feith wasn’t just making that up to try to look good. David Kay, head of weapons searches, made the same assertion,
“I think Baghdad was actually becoming more dangerous in the last two years than even we realized. Saddam was not controlling the society any longer. In the marketplace of terrorism and of WMD, Iraq well could have been that supplier if the war had not intervened.“
In other words, “Thank G-d we went, and didn’t delay any longer than we did!” And, the fact that everyone is downplaying that, and continuing to try to fit selected “facts” to their anti-Bush agenda rather than trying to understand all the facts within the dynamic process in which they were embedded, is a sign that wisdom is in very short supply where it is needed most: our leaderes and our media.

Bottom line, Feith, et. al., were acting in good faith, unlike the do-nothing obstructionists currently trying to stampede themselves and the country over the cliff.

http://intelligence.senate.gov/108301.pdf

My facts remain:
a bi-partisan investigation into reporting by Feith’s office shows that the final report his office presented was immediately followed by a CIA report that made all the claims from his office clear.

Minority reporting and belief aside, please show me something that contradicts my claim that the reporting from Feith’s office was followed days later by the CIA’s “Iraqi Support for Terrorism 2002″ report. BTW, the CIA then followed up in January 2003 w yet another report reiterating the 2002 one. It was called, “Iraq Support for Terrorism 2003.” Of course, if you go to the Sen Intel Com website, you can also see that after Feith’s office gave its last report in Sept 02, there were almost two dozen closed door hearings where the Sen Intel Com (and the House Intel Com) had leaders of all the intelligence agencies behind closed doors where concerns that were voiced after Presidential campaigns were started, could have been asked before the invasion started instead.

Nope, Feith’s just the scapegoat. If you wanna find the real intel manipulators, look to Paul Pillar, Sen Rockefeller, and Sen Levin.

btw, the link to that WashingtonIndependent oped…nice piece of propaganda. I followed their link to the piece that was supposed to dismiss Hayes, and found a PERFECT example of someone who half-read several reports looking only for political affirmation rather than facts, truth, etc.

“Every single inquiry into the Saddam/Al Qaeda link has revealed it to be untrue. First, in 2004, the 9/11 Commission’s definitive study found “no collaborative operational ties” between the two. (Hayes’ response was first to attack the commission, and then to claim that this was a legalistic way of saying that Saddam and Al Qaeda were actually in league.) Then, in 2006, the Senate intelligence committee rejected it. Then, in 2007, the Pentagon inspector general — albeit in a more circuitous way — rejected it. Now, in a report released last week, the U.S. military’s Joint Forces Command rejects it.”

Total half truths.
911 Commission said there was no evidence because there was almost no evidence gathered/sought, and after seeing the captured docs, the matter of regime ties was the ONLY thing the 911 Commission members asked to be re-examined.
Sen Intel Com report cited here said there was no evidence because (again) there was almost no evidence gathered/sought [how convenient that the article somehow missed that fact a second time].
Sen Intel Com second report dismissed reports of regime ties based on a single, interim DIA officer, but it couldn’t discount or dismiss the reports from the hundreds of captured regime members caught working w/AQ or the captured docs.
When a fraction of the captured docs were examined, they showed [in absolute polarity to the claims from the article] that the regime DID have in depth ties to AQ groups including hosting training camps and planning operations against western nations [again, in complete polarity to what the article says].

I could easily go on, but…my guess is that since you commented on GS rather than the facts I presented…you’re not even reading the links or the quoted facts from them; facts like the CIA presented/clarified any regime ties issues just days after Feith’s office gave its last report.

Sure, I’m not going to like Doug Feith’s book, but I’m an Islamofascist stooge or whatever. Steve Hayes of the Weekly Standard is just a garden-variety stooge. And he doesn’t like the book!

See, Feith slapped together a fantasy about al-Qaeda colluding with Saddam Hussein. It found its way into Steve’s trembling, sweaty, credulous hands, and the Standard published the lie. Only Feith doesn’t play the role he’s supposed to play: standing up for Steve, who walked the plank for Feith’s deceit. And Steve, caught out in the cold swells of a deep and vast ocean of bad faith, flails his arms wildly: [click the link for the surprise]

http://www.washingtonindependent.com/view/hayes-vs-feith

You don’t find it ironic, while pulling from Global Security, the founder and military policy wonk par excellence, John Pike, of G.S., is a critic of Bush’s military policy?

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Video_Recent_US_actions_could_signal_0112.html
http://www.motherjones.com/interview/2007/11/iraq-war-john-pike.html
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/04/06/weve_been_surging_for_years.php
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/09/fake-photos-helped-lead-us-to-invade-iraq/
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=john_pike
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/HowSenate_Intelligence_chairman_fixed_intelligence_and_diverted_blame_fromWhite_House__0811.html

And the senior fellow of G.S., Andrew Fois, is a liberal democrat and regular on Air America, and…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Fois

Not only are you still in a minority position on the subject matter, but now your “go to” source for your own resource library (G.S.) puts your thought in a rather humorous incongruity with theirs.

Again, it doesn’t mean you’re wrong or they’re right, but it’s an odd position to be in.

“(U) The same OUSDP staffers also presented their briefing to the Deputy National Security Advisor and the Vice President’s Chief of Staff on September 16, two days prior to the publication of the CIA assessment Iraqi Support for Terrorism.”

ie 9/16/02 Feith’s office gave it’s last presentation
http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/congress/2004_rpt/iraq-wmd-intell_chapter12-e.htm

“E. Iraqi Support for Terrorism, September 2002
(U) Iraqi Support for Terrorism was disseminated to 12 senior officials by the CIA Directorate of Intelligence on September 19, 2002″

ie 9/19/02 CIA publishes Iraqi Support for Terrorism [note, a closer look at the Sen Intel Com investigation's report shows that this report/pamphlet covered the same ground as Feith's office's]
http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/congress/2004_rpt/iraq-wmd-intell_chapter12-d.htm

See Doug, most of the reporting on Saddam’s ties to Al Queda, pre-war intel in general, and criticisms of the Bush Administration are politically driven. Even a so-called non-biased media has three hurdles:

1) individual outlets have marketing demographics/audiences that they need to ’spin’ or slant or feed be that to the L or R

2) media in general sees itself as a check/balance to power and that traditionally manifests itself in a wary eye to the biggest fish; towards the President rather than some Congressman from Podunk, Nebraska

3) very VERY few of the investigations into pre-war intel on Iraq (or post-war for that matter) have actually been read. It takes time to read them. Add up the 4 Sen Intel Com reports on pre-war Iraq intel, the Joint House/Sen 911 investigation, the 911 Commission report, the Duelfer Report, the Butler Report, and a few others from the UK and Australia….you’re talking 5000-10000 pages. People just don’t care enough to sit and read it, to really understand it. They’d rather have their agendas or preconceived notions affirmed than read an entire report (let alone ALL of them). As a result, few of these bi-partisan investigations ever really get read by the media or evenly interpreted.

The last one[report] from the Pentagon on ties between Saddam’s regime and terrorism based on captured docs was a great example. Media reporting categorically came out and said not just the opposite of what the report did, but the specific and complete opposite. Media said it affirmed there were no ties to AQ and Saddam would never work with Jihadis, but the actual report specifically gave several examples of the regime working with groups in the AQ network and specific examples of the regime working with radical Islamists.

Want to know what really happened, read the reports. Don’t believe Bush or Dems or CNN or Fox or The Daily Show. Read em yourself. Me, I find em fascinating.

If there is an “accepted” story, it’s probably over at Wikipedia: As they say, “As Google goes, so goes the nation”:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda

Of course, this doesn’t make you wrong, or myself correct. But like most things in this unfortunate Iraqi-connected conversation, it resides you to the margins, like so many other considerations regarding this war.

The interview w CBS was classic hit piece, but ends well. Feith is acutely correct: given what was known before the war, and what was found afterwards…the invasion of Iraq was the correct decision. Clearly the lesser of the two evils: invade or not invade.

“We certainly understood that these are the things that might happen. That’s why we wrote them down.”

Brilliant retort.

I’m also enjoying some of his book reviews:

It is a sick, sick world when the confidence and investment of an astute firm of publishers is justified by a work of unparallelled depravity. There is no denying the bizarre fertility of the author’s imagination: his brilliant dialogue, his cruel humour, his repellent inventiveness. The majority of the literate public, however, will be relieved that only reviewers are obliged to look at any of it.

http://crookedtimber.org/2008/04/11/faint-praise-and-damnations/

I, too, happen to remember when The DoD’s findings and their conclusion that his gathered prewar analysis “developed, produced, and then disseminated alternative intelligence assessments on the Iraq and al Qaida relationship, which included some conclusions that were inconsistent with the consensus of the Intelligence Community, to senior decision-makers.” Yet, while they were his actions were “inappropriate”, that’s where it ends:— What a career reward! A valiant claim to fame! …One that many of Bush’s public servants can be proud of having aspired to by avoiding the law.

Few will buy his book and less will finish it.