White House disputes NYT editorial

[sabra]

Source: Politico

White House National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley disputed the accuracy Monday morning of an editorial that ran in the Sunday New York Times.

“Sunday’s New York Times contains an editorial expressing inaccurate and incomplete statements on pre-war intelligence and the war in Iraq,” Hadley said in a statement provided by the White House.

In the editorial, the Times takes Bush to task over an interview he gave to ABC’s Charles Gibson last week in which he admitted that the biggest regret of his presidency was the “intelligence failure in Iraq.”

“The truth is that Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had been chafing to attack Iraq before Sept. 11, 2001,” the Times wrote.

...

Hadley then jabbed the Times for being slow to acknowledge gains made in Iraq due to the so-called “surge” of U.S. troops in 2007.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1208/16297.html

[SpiralHawk]

1. "You know you can trust us. Smirk." - Commander AWOL Bush & republicon homelander propagandists

[BOSSHOG]

2. Fucking liberal rag trying to keep us from rewriting history

Yo hadley if you neocon constitution hating bastards had listened to four star Freaking General Shinseki in 2002 and not fired* him there would have been no need for a surge.

* - Info for lurkers, bush fired shinseki before he retired. Thats more history you are not going to be able to rewrite.

[Soylent Brice]

6. wow.

overlooked that nugget of info somehow.

thanks boss.

[predfan]

3. Any story mentioning the Bush administration and "intelligence failure"

should be flagged for redundancy.

[alfredo]

4. Let's push for war crimes trials. Also mention that if we don't act,

the world court will act. It's better we deal with our own than get into an international struggle over something we should have handled ourselves.

[orbitalman]

10. A Pearl of Logic !

[alfredo]

12. I'm just an irritating grain of sand. It is up to the oyster to make the pearl.

Each one of us is that grain of sand.

[bvar22]

16. I'm tired of petitioning "Congress" to do its job.

It is time to take responsibility.

I will donate $500 to ANY organization that will place a Bounty on Bush/Cheney to be paid to anyone who provides evidence or testimony that leads to their indictment, arrest, or the issuing of an International Arrest Warrant.

A small, transparent trust located in a neutral country like Switzerland could administer the fund. If the BOUNTY is promoted internationally, it would quickly grow to Mega-Millions.

The fund would also be tasked with running full page Wanted For War Crimes ads in major Global newspapers every 3 months until the Bounty is awarded or depleted.

I believe that such a fund would be wildly popular worldwide, and provide the administrators an opportunity to make a little money.
I have neither the resources or skills to institute such a fund, but like I said above, I am willing to donate $500. I also believe that there are at least a million more worldwide (extreme minimum) who would also be willing to donate....that adds up to some serious money.

Wanted
for
WAR CRIMES


A $500 Million Dollar Reward will be paid to any individual, organization, or country that provides concrete information leading to the arrest, or the issuance of an Internal Arrest Warrant for War Crimes committed by George Bush, Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, or Donald Rumsfeld.

It is clear that the Opposition Party (Democratic Party) and the US Justice Department will do NOTHING to hold the criminals accountable.
A private organization representing Citizens of the World would have better results.

Even if Bush/Cheney are never arrested, a Mega-Million Dollar International Bounty would certainly keep them looking over their shoulders, curtail retirement travel plans, AND serve as a warning to future "Unitary Executives".

It would also put a nice ribbon around the Bush Legacy.

[alfredo]

17. They won't have to do it. Someone outside the government can start

the ball rolling. That will give Obama deniability when the words "partisan witch hunt" start flying around.

[The abyss]

20. World Court

If we, as a nation, do not deal with this on our own turf, then I fear a time will come when the piper comes calling.

It is popular amongst some to cry “Off to The Hague”. If that actually happens then we will have lost.

[Laelth]

22. Welcome to DU?

Just curious ... lost what?

The United States is a LIBERAL Country.



-Laelth

[The abyss]

23. Lost what

Thank you.

Lost what? Putting paid to our own criminals. It is our house to clean.

[Laelth]

24. I agree that we should clean house.

But if we don't, I'll be happy to see the international community do it for us. I want these criminals behind bars.

Like you, I would prefer that we Democrats defend the Constitution. If we don't, we'll be proving we are the wimps Republicans already think we are. How can we expect the American people to believe we're willing to fight the country's enemies if we're not even willing to fight Republicans?

On the other hand, I also want to send a message to future tyrants that there are serious consequences that flow from war crimes and breaches of international law. If it takes a foreign court to do it, so be it.

Thanks for the response.

The United States is a LIBERAL Country.



-Laelth

[Winterblues]

5. Was WHIG even mentioned?

Or the Special Intelligence Office that was designed to give them the Intelligence they wanted...The flawed Intelligence came from that group. It did not come from the normal Intelligence circles...

[Robbien]

7. The WH has sunk so low as to now be arguing with Opinions in newspapers

Hey WH: There were no WMDs AND there were no failures of intelligence. Deal with it. The public stop buying your catapulting of the propaganda.

[xxqqqzme]

8. An invasion of a non-threatening country

for the dual purpose of stealing their natural resources for the enrichment corporate cronies.....there was NO intelligence failure; there WAS intelligence fabricated and withheld...and that was successful in providing the anticipated war profits.

[The Stranger]

9. He's worried about being tried as a war criminal.

Our memory will be long.

[nbcouch]

11. There was NO INTELLIGENCE FAILURE

They had the intelligence they needed to make the right decision, which would have been to stay the fuck out of Iraq. They knew damned well that the case they were making for the invasion was fraudulent, so they "fixed the intelligence around the policy."

Invading and occupying Iraq wasn't a mistake, nor was it based on faulty intelligence. It was based on LIES, DISTORTIONS and FABRICATIONS, a monumental fraud perpetrated by the most egregiously criminal administration in the history of this nation. And in a little over a month they'll walk away completely unaccountable for it. We can only hope that the World Court will have the balls to pursue and prosecute them, which the US government did not.

[NMDemDist2]

14. sure there was

sadly though, the 'intelligence' that failed was at the highest levels of decision in the Oval Office and the Pentagon.

[nbcouch]

21. No, I think not

With the notable exception of the puppet Bush himself, they knew exactly what they were doing and things went more or less according to plan. For example, the intention never was to "liberate Iraq," or they surely would be free of the occupying force today. Nor was it to bring democracy to Iraq, or they would surely have it by now, five and a half years after the end of the "war" and the desired regime change, instead of the minimally functional train wreck the government there continues to be.

As for Bush, don't fall into the trap of believing that he was the decision-maker in all of this. George W Bush was chosen for the presidency for a number of reasons, chief among them that he is so easily led.

[MadMaddie]

15. nbcouch

Well said!

I haven't given up on our own Legal system yet,but there is always the Hague!!

Welcome to DU!

[Lasher]

13. I saw that part of the interview.

It was clear that Junior was disappointed that reality did not conform with the intelligence myth he had created. He does not regret having created it because that was necessary to sell his war. Whenever he says he has regrets, it is never in the context of anything he has done wrong. It is always because of something that has happened to him, or something someone else has done or failed to do. This is predictable narcissistic behavior.

There is abundant evidence that shows Junior and key members of his administration were obsessed early on with an invasion of Iraq:

On January 30, 2001, ten days after Bush took office, the National Security Council met for the first time. Former Secretary of the Treasury, Paul O'Neill provided an account of that meeting to author Ron Suskind for his book The Price of Loyalty. According to O'Neill, the entire meeting was about Iraq, and Condoleezza Rice began by noting that Iraq was destabilizing the region and that it might be the key to reshaping the entire region.

O'Neill quotes one of the individuals at the meeting who had also attended National Security Council meetings of the previous administration and who had noticed a significant change in this meeting from those of the previous administration: "In the Clinton administration, there was an enormous reluctance to use American forces on the ground; it was almost a prohibition. That prohibition was clearly gone, and that opened options, options that hadn't been opened before."

The next meeting of the National Security Council was held on February 1, 2001 and again it was about Iraq. In summarizing the discussions, O'Neill said this:


"From the start, we were building the case against Hussein and looking at how we could take him out and change Iraq into a new country. And, if we did that, it would solve everything. It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The President saying, 'Fine. Go find me a way to do this.'"

Suskind writes that by March, "Actual plans, to O'Neill's astonishment, were already being discussed to take over Iraq and occupy it - complete with disposition of oil fields, peacekeeping forces, and war crimes tribunals - carrying forward an unspoken doctrine of preemptive war."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/05/11/30_...

And true to form, Hadley whines about a lack of credit for the 'success' of the escalation in Iraq. They truly do not understand why the administration is not being praised for the reduction in violence. But once it became obvious to most of us that we had been lied into this conflict, there was no longer a possibility of popular support. I will create a metaphor to demonstrate:

Your son is obsessed with fire trucks. He calls the fire department to say your barn is on fire. The fire department arrives to hack holes in the barn. Out come the fire hoses, to drench the building and all its contents. The hay and corn inside are ruined and your animals escape. The barnyard is reduced to an enormous mudhole. The fire department bills you for their services.

Your son admits he knew the barn was never on fire, but you can be sure it could not burst into flames now. And it sure was fun watching the spectacle. Did you notice how he brought coffee and sandwiches from your kitchen for the firemen?

When this is not met with your praise he is confused and disappointed.

[Thickasabrick]

18. Hadley is just nervous because he doesn't have his pardon yet.

[pacalo]

19. Why didn't Politico provide a link to the NYT opinion?

If Politico sees fit to write about a spoiled brat's temper tantrum, I'd also like to read what the grown-up said.

Found the NYT op piece here, & it's scathing, but absolutely dead-on true:

The truth is that Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had been chafing to attack Iraq before Sept. 11, 2001. They justified that unnecessary war using intelligence reports that they knew or should have known to be faulty. And it was pressure from the White House and a highly politicized Pentagon that compelled people like Secretary of State Colin Powell and George Tenet, the Central Intelligence director, to ignore the counter-evidence and squander their good names on hyped claims of weapons of mass destruction.

We long ago gave up hope that President Bush would acknowledge his many mistakes, or show he had learned anything from them. Even then we were unprepared for the epic denial that Mr. Bush displayed in his interview with ABC News’s Charles Gibson the other day, which he presumably considered an important valedictory chat with the American public as well.

It was bad enough when Mr. Bush piously declared that he hopes Americans believe he is a guy who “didn’t sell his soul for politics.” (We suppose we should not bother remembering how his team drove Senator John McCain out of the 2000 primaries with racist attacks or falsified Senator John Kerry’s war record in 2004.)

It was skin crawling to hear him tell Mr. Gibson that the thing he will really miss when he leaves office is no longer going to see the families of slain soldiers, because they make him feel better about the war. But Mr. Bush’s comments about his decision to invade Iraq were a “mistakes were made” rewriting of history and a refusal to accept responsibility to rival that of Richard Nixon.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/07/opinion/07sun2.html?p...