It is completely clear that the Bush Administration, and their minions in the Pentagon, went out of their way to only look for information that supported their assertions. Iraqi exiles, many of whom had not been to Iraq in decades, were used as sources (and handsomely compensated) for reports that described the inner workings and policies of Hussein's administration. These exiles were, in fact, coached in their "evidence" by being told in advance which "facts" would be paid for and which ones wouldn't, as well as being told which "facts" would discredit them as a source. Beyond that, it appears that this propensity for gullibility allowed the Iranian intelligence services to shape the "information" provided in order to facilitate Iran's goal of seeing their greatest foe, Saddam, removed from power.
The reason that so many foreign intelligence services concluded the same thing as the Bush Administration is that these foreign services were provided the same false information that the Administration presented as fact. In one case, the Niger yellowcake "fact", the British intelligence services questioned whether this assertion relied on a known-to-be-discredited report from a few years previous. In fact, the assertion did, but the Administration had simply re-packaged the discredited report and pressured some all-too-compliant flunkies to present it as something new, so that it could be said with a straight face that this was "new intelligence". Over and over again, foreign intelligence services started with the premise that the Administration's assertions were sound, and again and again "discovered" the same phony informants providing the same phony "facts" and vouched for by the U.S. In short, the Administration misled not only America, but our allies as well.
Thus, the world was led to believe that Saddam had chemical and biological weapons and was willing to (and planning to) give them to Al-Qaeda. The world was also led to believe that Al-Qaeda was allied with Saddam, and thus the invasion would be "payback" for 9/11. Saddam was also alleged to have nuclear weapons, though we weren't exactly sure about that. But if he did, that meant he would provide them to Al-Qaeda, wouldn't it? I mean, if Botswana had nukes, they could provide them to Al-Qaeda, so hadn't we better invade Botswana, too? This line of reasoning could be used to justify the invasion of any nation on the planet. Any country that had a brewery could, conceivably, produce biological weapons. And they could, conceivably, sell them to Al-Qaeda. Any country that had a high-school chemistry lab could produce chemical weapons, and thus could make these weapons available to Al-Qaeda.
So the Administration set up a generic, one-size-fits-all case for the invasion, occupation, and installation of a "friendly" (i.e. puppet) government of any nation. Then it created a NIE that boldly proclaimed the right of the U.S. to invade any country that could be a threat, even if it was not a threat at the time. And when the President made his statement that "you are either with us or against us", it was clear what was implied: any world leader that failed to say what they supposed to say, or do what they were expected to do, was a potential target for invasion.
And then they pointed to the support of these world leaders as some kind of vindication of their case.
It was circular logic on an astounding scale, given credence by the mistaken belief that the U.S. wouldn't actually lie so boldly, so profoundly, so comprehensively about something.
But, of course, we now know that they did. The entire world knows it, too. The foreign leaders that jostled to be first on the list to crawl up Bush's rectum have now been removed from office and discredited. Their careers are over. And if a real threat were ever to emerge, the U.S. would be hard-pressed to persuade the international community of it's credibility. Thus, Bush has made us weaker, more vulnerable, and less prepared to deal with terrorism. On the plus side, we got rid of one of several dictators in the Middle East and one of dozens in the world. In doing so, we removed the primary obstacle to Iran's regional dominance and virtually created a failed state to take Saddam's place.
Kel at The Osterley Times has video of MSNBC's report on the Phase 2 report.
You may also wish to check out the DailyKos post titled "The Two Realities" for a look at how the neo-cons and their media minions are spinning this report. An excerpt:
Basically, there are two interpretations of the report. One conclusion is that Bush, Cheney, and other war proponents drastically stretched the true meaning of what intelligence they did have in order to make a case not borne out by that evidence. They took some true intelligence, and some known-to-be-untrustworthy intelligence, and some "intelligence" that consisted of nothing more than nonsense fabricated by the administration intended to heighten the perception of imminent massive threat, and presented it to the public, and Congress, and even the United Nations in an attempt to make the case for preemptive war against a secondary power with no connection to the actual terrorist attacks we were supposedly responding to.
The other interpretation, which Hiatt elucidates masterfully, is (1) Who Cares, It's Old News, and (2) Well, They Didn't Lie About Everything, So There, and (3) You'd Better Let Them Stretch Intelligence All They Want Next Time Too Or You'll Be Sorry Because The Terrorists Will Get You.
With regard to the summary of Hiatt's points, it sounds incredibly weak.
It is "old news" precisely because the Administration has stonewalled for so long. It is relevant because, as I said before, the world (and the American public) will now be deeply suspicious of any assessment of any future threat, even if it is real. It is also relevant because the neocons and the Bush Administration continue to conflate Iraq with 9/11 and continue to assert that the invasion and occupation of Iraq has made us safer at home. This is simply another case of the Republicans diverting attention from their lies and errors by asking the world to "move on" and "stop pointing fingers", while admitting nothing. Does anyone remember how the Republicans described (and some continue to describe) those who questioned the invasion and occupation as "traitors", "America-haters", and "supporters of terrorism"? One wonders where this grandiose aversion to "finger-pointing" was then. Iraq was, and still is, the primary "achievement" of the neocons, but now they are asking us to stop looking so closely at it. It is the primary justification for the Republican efforts to circumvent the Constitution, but this is now something that is "old news" and need not be examined further. Even as McCain (and most of the other Republicans that were up for their Party's nomination) contends that Iraq is the "pre-eminent challenge of our century", they still try to dismiss the basis for it as a settled issue.
Iraq is the foundation of Republican self-identification. One cannot be taken seriously in the GOP even today without acknowledging that the invasion was necessary and fully justified, and should be pursued to whatever capricious and ever-shifting definition of "success" or "victory" the Party comes up with. Thus, it is completely relevant to discuss that the rationale for the invasion and occupation was flawed, false, and distorted. As long as the GOP continues to support, defend, and take credit for the invasion of Iraq, then the examination of the underpinnings of that policy are fair game.
Some of the "facts" that the Administration presented turned out to be untrue, but the Administration contends that it was merely the victim of faulty intelligence. However, it is clear from former Administration officials that there was an eagerness to discard contrary evidence, and to prevent anything that might lead to contrary evidence from even being examined. In short, the Bush Administration created a situation that encouraged faulty intelligence to be provided to them, and penalised those who worked to provide a contrary case. Thus, if the Administration was a victim, it was a willing victim.
Let's not lose sight of what the Bush Administration's plan was: an easy invasion and a hand-off to Ahmed Chalabi's puppet government, and a happily-ever-after ending. Then bask in the glory of success and a permanent Republican majority, backed by a police state.
The Republicans gambled and lost.
However, the mere fact they could have gambled and won is now being trotted out as some kind of lame-ass excuse for the faithful.
So if anyone takes their mortgage payment and spends it on lottery tickets, then the mortgage company is just being a bunch of small-minded bastards if they move to foreclose on you, because you could have won millions. So let's not "point fingers" at people over why we are now living in a cardboard box in the alley. Let's "move on" and focus on getting a spot a the local homeless shelter. Let's "come together" and stop the "useless bickering" over who gambled away what and who ended up suffering. And, most importantly, let's not come away from this thinking that we shouldn't try to go for those millions again, because we could win next time. Don't you want to win?
Yes, the Republicans now want the world to acknowledge the brilliance of their policies, based not on the real outcome, but rather the best possible outcome. And this has been one of the primary trademarks of the Republicans, as I have said before: The best possible outcome is the only likely outcome. If you fail to believe that, then you somehow fail to believe in America. This means you that "hate America", and everything you say can be dismissed out of hand.
Nothing has changed. The circular logic of the neo-conservatives remains a fixture and staple of the GOP. The neo-cons remain eager and ready to employ this circular logic as often as is possible, because there is simply no price to be paid when they gamble and lose.
