Review the intelligence, consider the facts

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...DG45OT2G81.DTL

Rocky Anderson
Thursday, March 29, 2007

Debra J. Saunders, in her Chronicle column, referred to comments I made on an earlier "Bill O'Reilly" TV show that cast doubt on whether Iraq was building a nuclear capability ("Deliberately clueless on intelligence, March 22). O'Reilly then called me a liar. Saunders says those who maintain President Bush deceived us into war are liars. Where is the truth?

Just consider the facts, then you decide: Did President Bush mislead this nation into an illegal, staggeringly tragic war?

On Sept. 7, 2002, President Bush represented that a "new" report from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) stated that Iraq was "six months away" from building a nuclear weapon. "I don't know what more evidence we need," he stated.

That was a fabrication, and was not addressed by Saunders in her defense of the president. No such report existed.

On Feb. 24, 2001, then-Secretary of State Colin Powell stated: "He [Saddam Hussein] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors." On July 29, 2001, less than one-and-a-half months before the 9/11 terrorist attacks, then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice stated: "We are able to keep arms from him [Saddam Hussein]. His military forces have not been rebuilt."

An October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), mentioned by Saunders in her column, included the following assessments of the Department of State intelligence agency, the Bureau of Intelligence and Research:

"The activities we have detected do not, however, add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing what INR would consider to be an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquire nuclear weapons. Iraq may be doing so, but INR considers the available evidence inadequate to support such a judgment. Lacking persuasive evidence that Baghdad has launched a coherent effort to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program, INR is unwilling to speculate that such an effort began soon after the departure of U.N. inspectors or to project a timeline for the completion of activities it does not now see happening."

"In INR's view Iraq's efforts to acquire aluminum tubes is central to the argument that Baghdad is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program, but INR is not persuaded that the tubes in question are intended for use a centrifuge rotors. INR accepts the judgment of technical experts at the U.S. Department of Energy who have concluded that the tubes Iraq seeks to acquire are poorly suited for use in gas centrifuges to be used for uranium enrichment and finds unpersuasive the arguments advanced by others to make the case that they are intended for that purpose. ... The very large quantities being sought, the way the tubes were tested by the Iraqis, and the atypical lack of attention to operational security in the procurement efforts are among the factors, in addition to the DOE assessment, that lead INR to conclude that the tubes are not intended for use in Iraq's nuclear weapon program."

"[T]he claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are, in INR's assessment, highly dubious."

In his Jan. 28, 2003, State of the Union message, Bush stated: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." He failed to mention the INR's assessment that such a claim is "highly dubious." Such an omission rendered fraudulent his representation to the Congress and the American people.

In his State of the Union message, President Bush also represented: "Our intelligence sources tell us that [Hussein] has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production." That statement was also fraudulent insofar as Bush failed to disclose that the Department of Energy and the State Department's intelligence agency both concluded that the tubes were not intended for use in a nuclear weapon program.

What would you think of a used-car dealer who told you a car you bought from him was in first-rate condition after several mechanics told him it was in good shape but two of his best mechanics told him it was a lemon? Would you trust and do business with the car dealer any more? What would you think of those who criticized anyone who pointed out the nondisclosure as being guilty of "dishonest selectivity"?

Would you ever again look for the truth from the Bush administration and those who defend its public statements on intelligence?