More Repositioning On Iraq By The Dinosaur media

To paraphrase the old saying, success has a thousand fathers....failure's not only an illegitimate love child but doesn't even get awarded child support.

Some of the dinosaur media apparently are `rethinking' the standard narrative on Iraq, and there's hardly a quagmire to be seen...now that we've seen significant military success there, even if the dino media tries to downply it by not reporting it.

A case in point is the light shed on the standard `cookedintelligencebushhitlerliedpeopledied script,used as a justification for attempting to sabotage the war effort ummm..courageously dissent and support the troops.

Recently the US Senate Intelligence Committee issues it's long awaited analysis - the so-called Rockefeller report , named for the Arkansas Democrat senator - on the intel used to make the decision to go into Iraq. And some senate Democrats are trying to play politics by trumpeting that it somehow proves that Bush really did lie.

Except it doesn't..and this time, some of the dinosaur media isn't quite so ready to buy the script, given the hits their credibility have taken as of late.

The WAPO was first out of the box again, proving that not only did the report not prove that `Bush lied', it proved just the opposite:

On Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates."

On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president's statements "were substantiated by intelligence information."

On chemical weapons, then? "Substantiated by intelligence information."

On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information."

Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? "Generally substantiated by available intelligence."

Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information."

As you read through the report, you begin to think maybe you've mistakenly picked up the minority dissent. But, no, this is the Rockefeller indictment. So, you think, the smoking gun must appear in the section on Bush's claims about Saddam Hussein's alleged ties to terrorism.

But statements regarding Iraq's support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information." Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda "were substantiated by the intelligence assessments," and statements regarding Iraq's contacts with al-Qaeda "were
substantiated by intelligence information." The report is left to complain about
"implications" and statements that "left the impression" that those contacts led
to substantive Iraqi cooperation.

In the report's final section, the committee takes issue with Bush's statements about Saddam Hussein's intentions and what the future might have held. But was that really a question of misrepresenting intelligence, or was it a question of judgment that politicians are expected to make?

After all, it was not Bush, but (Democrat Senator Jay) Rockefeller, who said in October 2002: "There has been some debate over how 'imminent' a threat Iraq poses. I do believe Iraq poses an imminent threat. I also believe after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. . . . To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can."

Whoopsie.

Even better was this bit from Senator Rockefeller's home paper, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette:

IN THE EVENT you haven’t noticed it’s a presidential election year. You can tell by the ever growing flurry of conspiracy theories—not just delicious new ones like Barack Obama’s being some kind of Manchurian Candidate for Jihad, Inc., but ones that, even if they’ve grown old and wormy by now, can be pulled off the shelf and re-issued as a brand-new congressional report. Like the 170-page piece of work just out of the Senate Intelligence Committee. The precarious burden of this report is that the evil crew in the White House systematically exaggerated the threat that Saddam Hussein’s regime posed by tilting the intelligence available at the time and overlooking views that didn’t fit in with its lust for war.

But this report doesn’t even tell the half of it, for the sinister neocon cabal behind the invasion of Iraq was even wider than the Democratic majority of this Senate committee lets on. Here are just some of the dire warnings over the years about those elusive weapons of mass destruction that Saddam Hussein was supposed to be preparing. Innocent Reader might be surprised at their source “We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.” —President Bill Clinton, February 17, 1998.

“[Saddam Hussein ] has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.” — Madeleine Albright, secretary of state in the Clinton administration, November 10, 1999.

“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.” —Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, September 19, 2002. (Senator Levin may now be demanding that President Bush set a timetable for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq, but he can’t fool us. He was clearly part of this pro-war plot. )

“We know that [Saddam Hussein ] has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.... Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” —Al Gore, a former vice president of the United States who back then could sound remarkably like the current one, on September 23, 2002. Clearly both veeps were in this together.

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” —Senator Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002. Yes, the same Ted Kennedy—may he soon be restored to full health—who would later claim that President Bush and his cronies cooked up the war in Iraq war on his ranch in Texas. But that accusation was probably just to distract us from the senator’s own part in stoking fears of a Saddam Hussein armed with WMD.

“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons....” —Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, who would later become one of the more voluble opponents of the war, on October 3, 2002.

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaida members.... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.” —Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, now of New York, on October 10, 2002. Goodness. So many conspirators. That ranch house outside Crawford, Tex., where Ted Kennedy told us the war was hatched, must have been awfully crowded.

THERE ARE those who portray all these conspirators as just innocent victims of intelligence reports manipulated by the Bush administration and carefully fed to innocents like John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and so many other Washington figures known for their simple naivete. Unfortunately for that theory, one bipartisan investigation after another into the collection and interpretation of pre-war intelligence has found no evidence of such manipulation.

To quote the Senate Intelligence Committee’s unanimous report back in 2004, “The Committee did not find any evidence that Administration officials attempted to coerce, manipulate, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction capabilities.”

Heh.

And here's another shoe dropping, this time from Carl Ford, one of the Democrats' favorite State Department official, frequently quoted as a lonely dissenter standing up to the Administration's "twisting of intelligence," on Saddam's terrorist connections:

"Our evidence suggests that Baghdad is strengthening a relationship with al-Qaeda that dates back to the mid-1990s, when senior Iraqi intelligence officers established contact with the network in several countries."


"We have some evidence that Iraqi Intelligence has been in contact with elements in the northeastern area. And the al-Qaeda operatives there are in regular contact with other operatives located in Baghdad. The Iraqi government has also received information from other sources alerting it to the presence of al-Qaeda operatives in Baghdad."

"We have hard evidence that al-Qaeda is operating in several locations in Iraq with the knowledge and acquiescence of Saddam's regime." {...}

...most intelligence agencies did not think the Iraqi dictator would share unconventional weapons with terrorists. President Bush believed the nation could not take the risk that they could. But on the question of meaningful links between Al Qaeda and Iraq, something the anti-war movement believes never existed, the evidence suggests a more nuanced picture than Mr. Rockefeller has portrayed. This is where Mr. Ford's January 31, 2003, memo comes into play.

Mr. Ford's memo came on the eve of Operation Iraqi Freedom. His words demolish a talking point for Democrats who still say Al Qaeda had nothing to do with Iraq until the coalition of the willing invaded. Mr. Ford wrote that the former emir of Al Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Musab Zarqawi "has had a good relationship with Iraqi intelligence officials." He added that intelligence on Qaeda "revealed the presence of safe house facilities in the city as well as the clear intent to remain in Baghdad. Also, foreign NGO workers outside of Iraq who are believed to provide support to al-Qaeda have also expressed their intent to set up shop in Baghdad."

I'm certain that certain Democrat politicians will continue to misrepresent this, especially with an avowed anti-war candidate as the party's nominee.But facts are awfully stuborn things, as a certain former president once pointed out. And they have a way of inserting themselves at the most inconvenient times.

Imagine what might happen if the news from Iraq continues to improve and the American people continue to realize it and to understand who really has been lying to them all along..say, around October?

Things could get interesting.