Countering the "same intelligence" argument

Here's a couple of links to check out if you want to understand the facts behind Bush's claims that Congress saw the same intelligence as the White House and that two separate committees have exonerated the administration from claims that they misused the the available intelligence.

A lengthy and thorough Media Matters artical is here.

A shorter piece from the Washington Post is here.

Bush said something like... "Democratic congressman saw the same intelligence we did back in 2003 when they voted for the war. They were speaking the truth then, now they are speaking politics." In my opinion, democrats were speaking politics then and are still doing so now. Then there was overwhelming popular support for invading Iraq due to the memory of 9/11 still being fresh and Bush's constant rhetoric tying Iraq and Al Qaeda together. I believe many Dems (and mod Republicans, for that matter) supported the war and simply because they felt it would be political suicide to oppose it. Now, with support for the war plummetting, those same politicians find it politically expedient to oppose the war.

But the actions of those congressmen do not excuse the Bush administration for their actions... namely, cherry-picking intelligence to justify a rush to war against an adversary whose ties to 9/11 are questionable at best, and most likely non-existant. Bush used the 9/11 crisis to push through a new foreign policy that he and his neo-cons could never have pushed through on their own. Using a crisis to enact reform is not a crime; but misleading congress and the country is.

One final point. Bush et all are now (and have in thepast) produced quotes by Clinton and Gore where they agree Saddam was acquiring WMD's and therefor posed a threat to the US and the World. OK, fine. They saw some intelligence that lead them to believe that. What they fail to point out, and what should be obvious, is that after seeing that intelligence the Clinton team did not choose to invade Iraq and topple Saddam. Clinton's policy was one of isolation and containment; weapon inspectors, sanctions, enforcing no-fly zones, periodically throwing some missles their way. Now, if we assume that Clinton and Bush saw similar intelligence (which seems plausible), then the difference in their responses to that intelligence means just one thing: Clinton did not think that the evidence of wrongdoing was persuasive enough to warrant a full invasion and occupation, while Bush did. A mere difference of opinion? NO. It is a difference of judgement, of priorities, of comprehension of global affairs, of leadership.

Certainly the Bush 41/Clinton policy of containment had its problems (starving of citizens, corruption in the UN Oil-for-Food, an indefinate military operation), but we now know it also had its successes (detering Iraqi aggression and eliminating their WMD programs). Arguing the merits of that program is a related but tangential debate. The fact is that, having access to the same intelligence, Clinton did not see Iraq as so great a threat to warrant invasion.

Show/Hide...