Saturday, November 12, 2005

Pants on Fire

The Washington Post has just declared that the Chimperor has no clothes.
President Bush and his national security adviser have answered critics of the Iraq war in recent days with a two-pronged argument: that Congress saw the same intelligence the administration did before the war, and that independent commissions have determined that the administration did not misrepresent the intelligence.

Neither assertion is wholly accurate.

The administration's overarching point is true: Intelligence agencies overwhelmingly believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and very few members of Congress from either party were skeptical about this belief before the war began in 2003. Indeed, top lawmakers in both parties were emphatic and certain in their public statements.

But Bush and his aides had access to much more voluminous intelligence information than did lawmakers, who were dependent on the administration to provide the material. And the commissions cited by officials, though concluding that the administration did not pressure intelligence analysts to change their conclusions, were not authorized to determine whether the administration exaggerated or distorted those conclusions.

National security adviser Stephen J. Hadley, briefing reporters Thursday, countered "the notion that somehow this administration manipulated the intelligence." He said that "those people who have looked at that issue, some committees on the Hill in Congress, and also the Silberman-Robb Commission, have concluded it did not happen."

But the only committee investigating the matter in Congress, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, has not yet done its inquiry into whether officials mischaracterized intelligence by omitting caveats and dissenting opinions. And Judge Laurence H. Silberman, chairman of Bush's commission on weapons of mass destruction, said in releasing his report on March 31, 2005: "Our executive order did not direct us to deal with the use of intelligence by policymakers, and all of us were agreed that that was not part of our inquiry."

Bush, in Pennsylvania yesterday, was more precise, but he still implied that it had been proved that the administration did not manipulate intelligence, saying that those who suggest the administration "manipulated the intelligence" are "fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments."
Nice to see the press is finally moving beyond the fair-and-balanced approach of the last few years and calling the strikes and balls as they see them. You know, like ... uh ... journalists.

And it seems that Bush's big "I Am Not a Liar" speech from the other day has gone over about as well as Nixon's "I Am Not a Crook" statement. This latest Newsweek poll, for which half of the sample was interviewed after Bush's speech, now has Bush down at 36%. Only 42% of Americans still think Bush is not, in fact, a liar and for a president who's built everything on his image as a straight-shooter, that's gonna hurt.


S.W. Anderson said...

Yes sir, if Bush's poll numbers go much lower, they'll be in negative territory.

He can then add that deficit to his jobs-creation, budget and trade deficits.

Otto Man said...

Seriously, what's the absolute floor of his support? 35% 30%? I mean, 27% of Illinois voters voted for Alan Keyes and he was clearly insane.

I think Bush could suck the blood of a young child on national TV and still maintain 30% support. You know Jonah Goldberg would be out there complaining that the Democrats don't have a plan for sucking the blood of the innocent and George Bush has therefore shown bold leadership.

Thrillhous said...

One thing's for sure. look how low his numbers are, and he's been lying to make things seem better than they are. Just imagine how low they'd be if he was honest and fessed up to some of his disasters? Yeah, I think lying Bush will be around for awhile.