Red Handed

Every time I think nothing will surprise me anymore, the Bush administration manages to take my breath away all over again. Consider the staggering dishonesty with which Dick Cheney has been trying to mislead the American people about our knowledge of the alleged Iranian nuclear program. Here's Dick Cheney six weeks ago:

We have the inescapable reality of Iran's nuclear program; a program they claim is strictly for energy purposes, but which they have worked hard to conceal; a program carried out in complete defiance of the international community and resolutions of the U.N. Security Council. Iran is pursuing technology that could be used to develop nuclear weapons. The world knows this. The Security Council has twice imposed sanctions on Iran and called on the regime to cease enriching uranium. Yet the regime continues to do so, and continues to practice delay and deception in an obvious attempt to buy time.

As Michael Cohen says "if one looks at the language of the NIE, one could theoretically argue that Cheney didn't directly lie here. For example, Iran's "civilian" nuclear program continues and yes Iraq was pursuing technology that could be used to develop nukes . . . but of course wasn't." Indeed, the striking thing about this is the extent to which looking back at Cheney's statement he's tried very carefully to avoid directly contradicting the NIE while crafting phrases that are clearly designed to cause the listener to draw the precise wrong conclusion.

It's not as if Cheney read the NIE and decided he had some reason to believe it was incorrect. Rather, he read it, decided he'd better not contradict it, but also decided that bottom line conclusions about how Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program were inconvenient, and thus decided to talk around that minor point and try to get the American people confused about what's happening. Stunningly cynical and yes I'm resolving once again to never be stunned.

Comments

Krugman quoting Delong, "it’s worse than you could have imagined, even when you take into account the fact that it’s worse than you could have imagined."

Posted by Joel W | December 4, 2007 10:26 AM

I wonder if we now know why Iran's reactors weren't bombed-- it would have been, um, less-than-optimal politically if, once the reactors were bombed and we are at war with Iran, to get the NIE assessment that the Iranians weren't trying to build a bomb after all. It's even possible that some more-or-less sane high-level people (like Gates) made some effort to point out that this was a problem.

Posted by MattF | December 4, 2007 10:34 AM

The NIE also puts Bush's October WWIII statement regarding preventing Iran from having "the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon" in perspective. Sure Iran doesn't have an active nuclear weapons program, but we must wage war nevertheless because they still possess the knowledge.

Now we know why the goalposts moved, leaving the goalposts where they were wouldn't result in the policy outcome he prefers: war.

Posted by Dungheap | December 4, 2007 10:40 AM

Hi my name is M.Y. and I believe that the president's course of action toward Iran with regards to weapons of mass destruction should be based on the NIE as that is our best possible assesment.

Hi, My name is M.Y. and I believe that the president was wrong to believe the NIE concerning weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Posted by Dave | December 4, 2007 10:52 AM

....one could theoretically argue that Cheney didn't directly lie here.

Any more qualifiers and that clause would have collapsed under its own weight.

Posted by Davis X. Machina | December 4, 2007 10:57 AM

Dave, please read the article linked at my handle. That fact is, the CIA professionals have been infinitely more accurate in the Bush era than the political leaders who have worked to distort their findings.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | December 4, 2007 10:59 AM

Look, leave President Bush out of this. He just claimed in a live press conference that he only saw this NIE report last week, so he's completely, utterly innocent of any wrongdoing whatsoever.

Anyway, who says that it's some big, fancy requirement of being President during the biggestest war evar to save mankind from the Ay-rabs and Moozlims to actually read NIE estimates when they come out?

Shouldn't he just, like, use The Force?

Posted by El Cid | December 4, 2007 11:00 AM

Waste of time, Elvis -- you can't refute a theology. Impervious to facts, they are..

That's why they used to use stakes in the old days.

Posted by Davis X. Machina | December 4, 2007 11:01 AM

Dave:

Hi my name is M.Y. and I believe that the president's course of action toward Iran with regards to weapons of mass destruction should be based on the NIE as that is our best possible assesment.

Hi, My name is M.Y. and I believe that the president was wrong to believe the NIE concerning weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

It's painful to share a planet with people this excruciatingly stupid.

Posted by 65432 | December 4, 2007 11:02 AM

"It's painful to share a planet with people this excruciatingly stupid."

Well, I have to share the planet with people who only make ad hominem attacks.

Posted by Dave | December 4, 2007 11:13 AM

It is to address such misleading hair-splitting (Can a bald Vice President split a hair?) that the testimonial oath obliges a witness to tell , "the truth, the WHOLE truth, and nothing but the truth.

Posted by Rod Hoffman | December 4, 2007 11:25 AM

Well, I have to share the planet with people who only make ad hominem attacks.

Well, based on Elvis Elvisberg's link, Digby's comment yesterday, the actual history of the CIA telling both Bushes what they didn't want to hear, followed by deliberate administration stovepiping, the valid point from Davis X. Machina about theology being impervious to facts, etc, etc, etc., perhaps 65432 was simply summing all that up by noting that you're therefore a stupid fuck. Personally, I'd also consider "lying fuck" as a possibility.

Note, Dave, that it's not actually the ad hominem fallacy if something has already been argued out and rebutted repeatedly, then a troll shows up to throw it around as if history doesn't exist, and said troll gets called a stupid fuck by the people who have actually been paying attention. Go away and do some actual reading first; for instance, look into the Downing Street minutes about "intelligence being fixed around the policy." Then come back here and make a real argument that you thought up yourself for a change. Alternately, use Higher Wingnuttian to disregard all the evidence, return to spew the same tired wingnut talking points, get called a stupid fuck, and continue the Circle of Life. You stupid fuck.

Posted by mds | December 4, 2007 11:29 AM

mds:

Personally, I'd also consider "lying fuck" as a possibility.

Well, here we'll have to agree to disagree. I see no indication Dave is intelligent enough to lie.

Posted by 65432 | December 4, 2007 11:33 AM

Circumstances alter cases.

Iraq altered the backbone of the intelligence community so that they resisted the Admin's efforts to shape the result.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | December 4, 2007 11:44 AM

Dave: The earth is flat.

Everybody else: You are high.

Dave: No fair, ad hominem attack!

Yeesh.

Posted by Gator90 | December 4, 2007 12:04 PM

Well, since Wolfie is getting his rehab after smelling up the WB, I think we're just about ready to bring Rumsfeld back, dontcha?

Rummiekins: "Absent evidence of absence, we must quickly act to counter this incessant and unacceptable state of unknowing. Iran has acted in defiance of the World community's right to know unknowables, and in light of their stubborn refusal to rescind thoughts that may lead to acts, we must bomb this potential knowledge possession that we do not know in order to regain our knowing knowingness."

Posted by Rihilism | December 4, 2007 12:12 PM

Matt, maintaining your ability to be stunned is a critical task. When you no longer have the capacity to be outraged, you're the cooked frog in the pot of boiling water.

Posted by Jim Naureckas | December 4, 2007 12:13 PM

It's all very reminiscent of his self-exculpation over Mohammed Atta, and the "The British government has learned" formulation in the State of the Union address.

Posted by Ginger Yellow | December 4, 2007 12:33 PM

I remember how disdainful the Bush/Cheney crowd was of Clinton's "it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is" legalistic parsing. None of that from them, they promised. Honor and dignity.

Posted by honestpartisan | December 4, 2007 1:07 PM

Actually, Bush and Cheney had been sitting on this NIE report for over year. The lying is even worse. A link to a report by Gareth Porter on this is available over on econospeak.

Posted by Barkley Rosser | December 4, 2007 3:06 PM

Dear Dave

hi my name is M.Y. and I believed that Iraq had WMD and an active nuclear program before the invasion which is why I kindof sortof thought an invasion might be necessary.

The actual M.Y. has been perfectly consistent in respecting NIEs.

hi my name is RW and I was sure that Saddam Hussein had WMD and that this was an additional excellent reason to refrain from invading (consider how weapons stockpiles were secured after the invasion, look me in the eye and tell me that you doubt that Zarqawi wouldn't have gotten his hands on some WMD if there had been WMD in Iraq).

Between tne NIE and the invasion a huge amount of evidence was collected by UN and IAEA inspectors. All of it was evidence of absence of WMD. In particular all alleged evidence of an active nuclear program was decisively refuted and the IAEA correctly concluded that there was no evidence of such a program nor any leads to track down and so no reason to continue inspections let alone invade.

An NIE is a compromise document written by top officials who are political appointees. An NIE which tells the President what he wants to here is , therefore, much less credible than one which tells him the opposite. A responsible President should know that if people tell him no it means they think no but if they tell him yes it might not mean anything. Bush, obviously is not a responsible President.

Posted by Robert Waldmann | December 4, 2007 3:07 PM

This shouldn't be that surprising, as they ALWAYS do this. There was Cheney's remark that Iraq was, if you will, at the heart of the terrorist threat, or something to that effect, which could be explained in that Iraq was physically located right in the middle of the Middle East. I seem to recall Fred Kaplan doing a whole run-down of the misleading language in Bush's speech on the U.S.S. Lincoln that used all sorts of these tricks. "The enemy has attacked us, and we have answered them" (paraphrase) could have been interpreted as a reference to the "answer" we gave in Afghanistan, not Iraq. Etc.

Posted by bobbo | December 4, 2007 3:16 PM

Matt STILL isn't appropriately "stunned" - since Iran's nuclear energy program OR Iran's supposed "state sponsorship of terrorism" was never the reason for the drum beat to war anyway.

It was always oil, war profits, hegemony and Israel.

When the discussion in the MSM gets to that point, we'll be getting somewhere.

Email me when this happens.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | December 4, 2007 6:06 PM

To expand on bobbo's comment, they ALWAYS do this in every statement on every topic ! Not just terrorism, Iraq, Iran and the war, but every topic, whether the war, torture, the deficit, the US Atty firings, etc. ! The statements are only true based on a tortured interpretation of the words.

My question is what is the origin of the notion that it isn't lying to make a statement that might be literally true but intended to deceive ?

Posted by h-bob | December 4, 2007 6:08 PM

h-bob:

the notion that lying is okay when it is intended to deceive the public in order to achieve a desired goal (power) is one of the ideas of leo strauss, leading intellectual guru of the neocons. lying is a conscious strategy and you are correct, everything they say is a lie. i'm no strauss expert, i just read that somewhere.

Posted by english teacher | December 4, 2007 7:29 PM

Leo Strauss may have said this, but Plato said it first.

Posted by sm | December 4, 2007 9:30 PM

Let's talk about how accurate the CIA has been over the years--

...the Pentagon’s judgments about the world have generally proved sounder than the CIA’s. In the 1960s, the CIA said that the Soviets wouldn’t put missiles in Cuba; in the 1970s, that their missiles weren’t accurate; in the 1980s, that the missile budget wouldn’t bankrupt Moscow; and in the 1990s, that Russia’s democratic reforms were irreversible. In each case, the Pentagon argued the opposite case, and turned out to be right. Similarly, in the 1980s, the CIA said that the Soviets weren’t sponsoring terrorism, and then, in the 1990s, that Sunni and Shiite terrorists wouldn’t cooperate. In each case, again, the Pentagon rightly claimed otherwise.

Why have the soldiers so often got it right where the spooks have got it wrong? Fifty years ago, political scientist Samuel Huntington offered a clue. In The Soldier and the State, Huntington argued that America’s open society needed a professional military establishment, “steeped in conservative realism.” Generals could not be liberals. To keep the peace, they must prepare for war. They must make the best case for the worst case. They must assume the “irrationality, weakness, and evil in human nature.” Liberals were good at reform, Huntington thought, but not at national security. “Magnificently varied and creative when limited to domestic issues,” he wrote (an assertion we might dispute today), “liberalism faltered when applied to foreign policy and defense.”

The CIA has long been a liberal institution. “There are two kinds of people I never met in the CIA,” quipped retired spy David Atlee Phillips. “One was an assassin, and the other was a Republican.” On the day that the last of the 9/11 hijackers entered the United States, many of the CIA’s officers weren’t at their desks, because they were putting together a quilt to celebrate “Diversity Awareness Day.”

Posted by steve | December 5, 2007 12:01 AM

The warmongering administration is simply an eager tool of Israel and the Neocons. Anything they want, Bush/Cheney deliver, pronto and with humble apologies for taking so long. Of course the Neocon lies feed into the militarists' hope to keep the war machine expanding and thus the two groups egg each other on. What is truly pathetic is how duped average Americans have been about all this. And probably still are. The typical American has been blinded by fear of the "anti-Semitic" slur so that he can't see the way this all operates.

Posted by Hal | December 5, 2007 12:21 AM

This is what I don't get, and maybe somebody here can set me straight. If Bush knew last summer that the NIE said Iran had given up on its nuclear weapons program four years ago, and if Bush also knew the NEI would be made public this fall, then why did he continue to tell the world that Iran was intent on building the bomb? Did he misunderestimate the news media's reaction? Or was he counting on the 2004 election man-date to win over the good graces of the American people? I just don't get it. This goes beyond stupid. I've had supervisors and co-workers that thickheaded - but the President of the United States?

Posted by Heraldblog | December 5, 2007 8:27 AM

The new NIE report is certainly good news. Here's a thought, though. Presumably, the Iranians decided to end a nuclear weapons program in 2003. If they decide tomorrow that the heat is off and restart it, will it take us four years to find out about it?

Posted by Mike | December 5, 2007 8:58 AM

What kills me is in all this is that the obvious connection is NOT being made: what major news headlining event began in 2003, which just *might* have had a deterrent effect on the more "moderate" Iranians?
Hint: it begins with an 'I' and ends with a 'Q'.

As we all know, the Iranians quit being so fearful of us as we bogged down in Iraq, and they were also objectively reassured by domestic US opposition to Bush*. So why should we trust that, once wrong before, that the current, tougher Iranian regime today has not resumed their progress? These things *can* be turned off for a time and turned back on -- its not like they shot their nuke scientists and engineers and expunged the knowledge and destroyed hardware and design files.

Did we learn nothing from the NorKs' yo-yo-ing program (which we learned was more on than off after all)?

*It's a bit like the claims that capital punishment has no deterrent effect, when the efforts by the same opponents to ensure 20years of appeals si what undercut the deterrent.

Posted by newscaper | December 5, 2007 10:04 AM

Steve, we perhaps disagree on a lot of things, but those are interesting points. Thanks. Let's give proper attribution, though, for what was pasted-in wholesale.

http://www.city-journal.org/html/rev2007-10-05mr.html

Posted by Jeremy | December 5, 2007 10:38 AM

thank you Jeremy

"attribute, attribute, attribute."

Great advice once given to me by a veteran journalist.

I never intended to stake claim to some else's work.

Normally I provided too many links.

Posted by steve | December 5, 2007 7:05 PM

Well done, steve and Jeremy. And good, related, points mike and newscaper.

Going all the way back, the CIA told us that it was a good idea to parachute agents behind the Iron Curtain; that Chaing Kai Shek was winning the Chinese civil war; that North Korea wouldn't move south; that China wouldn't enter the war if we approached the Yalu; that it was a good idea to support the overthrow of elected governments in Guatemala and Iran, and support the dictators in these and other places; that we should support the Diem brothers in South Vietnam (and shortly after green-light their assassination); that we shouldn't plan for evacuation in Saigon; that Khomeini was no problem; that the Soviet Union was getting stronger, so it was a good idea to support terrorism in Central America and jihad in Afghanistan; found out about Indian and Pakistani nukes when they exploded; and that the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade was a military target.

It's a great record. Perhaps we should make a rule to find out what the CIA thinks, then do the opposite.

Posted by Robert Powell | December 6, 2007 2:43 AM

Why do I get the feeling that, like the revelations in late 2005 of illegal wiretapping, this (as well as the CIA's destruction of videotape evidence) is yet another moment of shock and outrage leading to whispers of impeachment that, yet again, never materialize? How much crimes against their republic will my people tolerate?

Posted by Alex Cacioppo | December 8, 2007 9:08 PM