The Misleaders Who is Dick Cheney kidding?

[jbfam4]

The Misleaders
Who is Dick Cheney kidding?
By Jacob Weisberg
Posted Tuesday, Nov. 22, 2005, at 7:05 PM ET
The Misleaders - Who is Dick Cheney kidding? By Jacob Weisberg

http://www.slate.com/id/2130884/?nav=fo

Dick Cheney calls it "dishonest," "reprehensible" and "not legitimate" to claim that the administration misled the public about prewar intelligence. In his speech at the American Enterprise Institute on Nov. 21, the vice president added for good measure that "any suggestion that prewar information was distorted, hyped or fabricated by the leader of the nation is utterly false."

Most Democrats in Congress think that prewar intelligence was indeed distorted and hyped—though not "fabricated," which, like the accusation that they have accused Bush of "lying," is a straw man of Cheney's. Democrats believe that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Rice, and others misrepresented what our government knew about Saddam Hussein's WMD capacity and his links to terrorists in order to make a stronger case for invading Iraq.


Because the Republicans who control Congress have prevented any investigation into the administration's use of prewar intelligence (as opposed to the gathering and formulation of that intelligence), there's a lot we still don't know. Officials haven't yet had to answer questions about what they knew or did not know when they advanced various spurious claims. And even the kind of investigation that Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid is demanding could prove frustratingly inconclusive, because proof of deception requires knowing someone else's state of mind. In the president's case, it may be possible to show that he should have known enough to avoid some inaccurate assertions, including the notorious "16 words" in his 2003 State of the Union address about Saddam seeking to buy significant quantities of uranium from Africa. But as with Ronald Reagan during the Iran-Contra scandal, Bush's combination of self-delusion, disengagement, and sheer mush-headedness nearly precludes the possibility of willful deception.

Here's what we do know already, without a congressional inquiry: Members of the Bush Administration were dishonest with the public and with Congress about prewar intelligence. We've known this for some time—see, for example, the comprehensive and damning story Barton Gellman and Walter Pincus wrote in the Washington Post in August 2003 ("Depiction of Threat Outgrew Supporting Evidence"). Over the past two years, several incidents of executive-branch dishonesty in the run-up to the war have turned into subscandals of their own: the aluminum tubes that Iraq used for missiles and not gas centrifuges, the yellowcake uranium that Saddam didn't try to buy from Niger, the mobile biological warfare laboratories that turned out to be hydrogen generators for balloons, the al-Qaida chemical warfare training that was based on a false confession, the meeting with Mohamed Atta that didn't happen in Prague.

[cliss]

1. Amen to that. Since Cheney is talking about

dishonest, reprehensible and not legitimate, let's be inclusive.

I think Cheney has a tough time getting out in "public". And by public here I mean conservative institutions that will be favorable to him, or hand-picked audiences who will not dispute him. Even in these "friendly" circumstances, I think Cheney hates doing it.

He would rather sit alone in his office, or sit in his underground bunker, planning and scheming. Bush is nothing more than Cheney's Yes-man.

Cheney has always been the "brains" behind the outfit. The problem is, this man has massive psychological problems (I won't go into it here).

[Paranoid Pessimist]

2. If anyone is qualified to recognize "dishonest, reprehensible and

illigetimate" it's Dick Cheyney,