Washington Post Death Spiral Watch (Fred Hiatt Edition)

Why oh why can't we have a better press corps? Fred Hiatt tells a lot of lies himself as he cherrypicks the Rockefeller report. Duncan Black notes:: "the headline given... is 'Blaming Bush for Iraq Is Too Easy.' And that's true! I also blame Fred Hiatt!"

Fred Hiatt would prefer it if we didn't say that Bush and Cheney lied. He says that there is "no question" that Bush and Cheney "spoke with too much certainty" at times--but, he says, that's not lying:

'Bush Lied'? If Only It Were That Simple: 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 important, an article of faith.... [H]e 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 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 report... and you may be surprised by what you find.

On Iraq's nuclear weapons program?... "generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates." On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories?... "substantiated by intelligence information." On chemical weapons, then? "Substantiated by intelligence information." On weapons of mass destruction.... "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."...

[S]tatements regarding Iraq's support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information." Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda "were substantiated by the intelligence assessments," and statements regarding Iraq's contacts with al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information." The report is left to complain about "implications" and statements that "left the impression" that those contacts led to substantive Iraqi cooperation....

[T]he 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... when to act on a threat in the inevitable absence of perfect intelligence and how to mobilize popular support 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-Qaeda 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.

Here are six of Bush, Cheney, and now Hiatt's lies, via David Kurtz:

Talking Points Memo | Phase II:

• Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-Qa'ida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qa'ida with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence.
• Statements by the President and the Vice President indicating that Saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attacks against the United States were contradicted by available intelligence information.
• Statements by President Bush and Vice President Cheney regarding the postwar situation in Iraq, in terms of the political, security, and economic, did not reflect the concerns and uncertainties expressed in the intelligence products.
• Statements by the President and Vice President prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq's chemical weapons production capability and activities did not reflect the intelligence community's uncertainties....
• The Secretary of Defense's statement that the Iraqi government operated underground WMD facilities that were not vulnerable to conventional airstrikes... was not substantiated by available intelligence information.
• The Intelligence Community did not confirm that Muhammad Atta met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in 2001...

Four years, Washington Post. Four years.

Comments

[Ken Houghton]

The National Review has survived for several decades now. Why would you believe that telling NR-type l/i/e/s/ s/t/o/r/i/e/s/ certainties would be an impediment to the continued survival of the WaPo?

[howard]

in a way, we should thank fred hiatt for giving us such a regular insight into the poor ratiocinative abilities of america's right wingers. if the intel states, for example, that thus and such is the likeliest reality, and thus and such turns out not to be the case, the intel wasn't "wrong;" the person who chose to go to war over suppositions is the wrong one.

but what hiatt (and, for that matter, rockefeller and kurtz) are all skipping here is that we had UN inspectors on the ground providing actual intelligence: not only weren't the UN inspectors wrong, in any dimension, but hiatt and his fellow haters had no interest in hearing them.

[donsmith7777]

Howard and I are probably the only two people in America that know we kicked out the UN weapons inpsectors OUT OF IRAQ in our rush to war.

The UN inspectors were ON THE GROUND in Iraq, doing their jobs but the republitugs and the so-called "liberal media" have glossed over this fact for years now.

Please google this for the truth:

"U.S advises weapons inspectors to leave Iraq"

"I should note that in recent weeks, possibly as a result of increasing pressure by the international community, Iraq has been more forthcoming in its cooperation with the IAEA," said Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (3/17/2003)

[truth]

don't forget in democrat fantasy land Rockefellow stood up (truth to power) and denounced Bush and the war mongers thereby avoiding the over 4000 American KIAs. How can people be so blind, they are all the same and they are playing games with your little minds.

[jerry]

"For the next president, it may be Iran's nuclear program, or al-Qaeda 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."

What Hiatt is telling us is that with Iran, we will need to make extra sure we err on the side of action than on the side of caution. The real tragedy of Iraq will be if our complete and total blunder leads us to be hesitant. This is precisely why we cannot afford the luxury of listening to the people who were right, for it is they more than the pundits and politians and journalists who egged us on, who will lead us into the trap of hesitant, cautious examination in the face of evil. The only cure for this natural reticence is to trust the people who were wrong before, because they are the ones who have shown we can count on them to get America to act on time.

You can expect to see that in his op-eds as we run up to the election.

[Steve]

The administration's repeated claim that time was of the essence, and that we couldn't afford to wait 2-3 months to allow the U.N. weapon inspectors to complete their job, due to the imminent risk of mushroom clouds over our shores. Again, the existence of nuclear weapons contradicted intelligence.

[zeno2vonnegut]

The report was intended to be balanced, to distinguish between intelligence failure and and knowing deception by the president and his cohorts. So why does Hiatt only report those areas in which the early intelligence was flawed? No honest person would.

The Washington Post accurately and ironically summarizes Hiatt: "That phony storyline distracts from the real prewar failure." The execrable Hiatt, Brooks, Feith, Kristol, Perle et al repeat "everyone thought Saddam had WMD" at every opportunity. This may have been true minus some exaggeration at some point, but as howard and donsmith7777 point out, it was known with high certainty before Dick and George's excellent adventure that there were neither Iraqi WMD's nor WMD programs. Fred waves his "substantiation" cape to distract attention from the inexcusable folly of an attack that would kill nearly a million people at a cost of over a trillion dollars, which would make America weaker, poorer, more vulnerable, and more corrupt, and for which the justification sold to the people had been completely disproved by the UN inspectors.

[zeno2vonnegut]

@Vail Beach

The US intelligence should have been better, but Bush pushed the button that killed so many, not the CIA. Moreover, the UN intelligence was known and published before the opening fireworks show. I knew, Bush knew, and you should have known that the WMD justification was bogus. Quit ignoring history.

[signsanssignified]

The last word on all this is The War Card, a comprehensive database of all the Bush-Cheney non-administration's lies used to get us into Iraq. It's available here:

http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/

[George Darroch]

Indeed. What strikes me - it's like being hit in the face, over and over - is how almost everybody, before, during, and after the invasion, and now, refuses to even talk about the UN weapons inspectors. They could find no evidence whatsoever, despite years of unfettered access. The United States, and it's propaganda division (NYT, WaPo, CNN, et al.) just waved these away in favour of claims that were even then obviously unsubstantiated.

Yes Hussein would not let them into his palaces, but he had very good reason to believe that the US was intercepting all UN intelligence, and that the US would use whatever it could to kill him. Which turned out to be true.

[Tuco]

It was clear to me at the time, speaking as the non-intellectual of the group, that Hans Blix was consistent in reporting a lack of evidence to support the Bush Regime's WMD propaganda in support of the upcoming invasion. It was also clear to me at the time that the Bush Regime had determined to invade Iraq some time in advance irrespective of the facts on the ground. Hans Blix was asked to leave Iraq by the Bush Regime, as you may recall.

[Lee Hartmann]

I think you failed to note that Atrios called it "Fred Hiatt's latest bowel movement."

nuff said.

[Kelly]

Here's today's Salon outing of more Bush truthiness;

"Jun. 10, 2008 | On Monday, a congressional panel released a draft report confirming extensive contact between disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff and the White House.

When the Abramoff scandal exploded, President Bush's spokespeople said there had been only very limited contact between Abramoff and the White House. New documents from the White House and other federal agencies show 70 previously undisclosed contacts between Abramoff or his associates and White House officials, according to the draft report, which was produced by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Those documents confirm an additional 84 contacts the committee had already figured out by combing through Abramoff's billing records back in 2006. Those billing records had showed yet 401 more White House contacts that this new report does not corroborate (or rule out).

The committee didn't uncover any evidence that Abramoff lobbied Bush personally. Bush said in early 2006 that he didn't know the man. The committee uncovered six photographs of Bush and Abramoff together: at a meeting in the Executive Office Building, at three political receptions, at one political dinner and at a White House Chanukah party."

[tedb]

What everyone else said about the UN inspectors in Iraq....
I despair every time I think about the sheer stupidity and immorality of our inexcusable rush to war.

[kharris]

It is probably not a coincidence that Hiatt is not only justifying what Bush did, but justifying it in the same terms as Bush himself. No shame. The job is to all sound the same, so that there can be no chink into which to shove a crowbar.

Even the wording is the same. Intelligence "failures". If writing down on paper a possibility or scenario that may prove wrong is a "failure" then intelligence analysis is designed to fail. Those guys do their job by examining the variety of possible implications of available information. They have to "fail" in order to do their job.

And Cheney leaned on intelligence agencies to produce the outcome he wanted. And INR in State does intelligence analysis, typically got it right on Iraq, and was ignored and then dismantled when Rice took over at State and remade as a more compliant - a quieter - creature. DoE knew those tubes weren't for centrifuges, but the White House kept saying they were, and then blamed CIA for a "failure".

Hiatt knows every bit of this. He is a part of the White House effort, pure and simple.