Monday, June 09, 2008

Only Congressional Democrats . . .

Can do the research, put together the information, show their work, and STILL claim that their dead-wrong answer is the right one. Senator Jay Rockefeller has repeatedly spouted the "Bush Lied, People Died" nonsense that is a catechism on the left, yet here's what the Rockefeller Commission, which he headed with a mandate to analyze the pre-Iraq War intelligence and use of it by the Bush Administration, found:

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.

That's the analysis of Fred Hiatt, the Washington Post's Editorial Page Editor -- not a water carrier for the Bush Administration.

No comments: