it's how P-list liars operate, too

[pynchonoid]

When pinned down or proven wrong, just change the
terms of the discussion and claim you were talking
about something else:



Bush Admin. Now Says Iraqi WMD a 'Program'

By Knut Royce
Washington Bureau

June 10, 2003
Washington -- Faced with the awkward possibility that
no significant caches of weapons of mass destruction
will be found in Iraq, Bush administration officials
are recasting their earlier predictions by insisting
evidence will emerge that Saddam Hussein at least had
a "program" for such weapons.

Bush used the term "program" in three consecutive
sentences on the issue Monday. "Iraq had a weapons
program," Bush told reporters. "Intelligence
throughout the decade showed they had a weapons
program. I am absolutely convinced, with time, we'll
find out that they did have a weapons program."

National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, while
declaring Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press" that she
believes such weapons will be found, asserted it would
take some time "to put together a full picture of his
weapons of mass destruction programs."

Even intelligence officials are talking more broadly
of "programs." Adm. Lowell Jacoby, director of the
Defense Intelligence Agency, confirmed Friday that a
September DIA report found the agency "had no reliable
information" that Iraq had chemical weapons. He
insisted, though, "such a program existed ... such a
program was active such a program was part of the
Iraqi WMD infrastructure." [...] 

<http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/ny-wowmd0610,0,5321263.story?coll=ny-worldnews-headlines>

What they said when they were stampeding us to war:

[...] Readers may not recall exactly what President
Bush said about weapons of mass destruction; I
certainly didn't. Thus, I have compiled these
statements below. In reviewing them, I saw that he
had, indeed, been as explicit and declarative as I had
recalled. 

Bush's statements, in chronological order, were: 

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities
that were used for the production of biological
weapons." 
United Nations address, September 12, 2002 

"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons,
and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of
those weapons." 

"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein
recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use
chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator
tells us he does not have." 

Radio address, October 5, 2002 

"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces
chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear
weapons." 

"We know that the regime has produced thousands of
tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin
nerve gas, VX nerve gas." 

"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq
has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial
vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or
biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned
that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for
missions targeting the United States." 

"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting
its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held
numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a
group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" -- his nuclear
holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq
is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part
of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted
to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other
equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used
to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons." 

Cincinnati, Ohio speech, October 7, 2002 

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam
Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500
tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent." 

State of the Union Address, January 28, 2003 

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments
leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to
possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons
ever devised." 

Address to the nation, March 17, 2003 

Should the president get the benefit of the doubt?

When these statements were made, Bush's
let-me-mince-no-words posture was convincing to many
Americans. Yet much of the rest of the world, and many
other Americans, doubted them. 

As Bush's veracity was being debated at the United
Nations, it was also being debated on campuses --
including those where I happened to be lecturing at
the time. 

On several occasions, students asked me the following
question: Should they believe the president of the
United States? My answer was that they should give the
President the benefit of the doubt, for several
reasons deriving from the usual procedures that have
operated in every modern White House and that, I
assumed, had to be operating in the Bush White House,
too. 

First, I assured the students that these statements
had all been carefully considered and crafted.
Presidential statements are the result of a process,
not a moment's though. White House speechwriters
process raw information, and their statements are
passed on to senior aides who have both substantive
knowledge and political insights. And this all occurs
before the statement ever reaches the President for
his own review and possible revision. 

Second, I explained that -- at least in every White
House and administration with which I was familiar,
from Truman to Clinton -- statements with national
security implications were the most carefully
considered of all. The White House is aware that, in
making these statements, the president is speaking not
only to the nation, but also to the world. 

Third, I pointed out to the students, these statements
are typically corrected rapidly if they are later
found to be false. And in this case, far from
backpedaling from the President's more extreme claims,
Bush's press secretary, Ari Fleischer had actually, at
times, been even more emphatic than the President had.
For example, on January 9, 2003, Fleischer stated,
during his press briefing, "We know for a fact that
there are weapons there." 

In addition, others in the Bush administration were
similarly quick to back the President up, in some
cases with even more unequivocal statements. Secretary
of Defense Donald Rumsfeld repeatedly claimed that
Saddam had WMDs -- and even went so far as to claim he
knew "where they are; they're in the area around
Tikrit and Baghdad." 

Finally, I explained to the students that the
political risk was so great that, to me, it was
inconceivable that Bush would make these statements if
he didn't have damn solid intelligence to back him up.
Presidents do not stick their necks out only to have
them chopped off by political opponents on an issue as
important as this, and if there was any doubt, I
suggested, Bush's political advisers would be telling
him to hedge. Rather than stating a matter as fact, he
would be say: "I have been advised," or "Our
intelligence reports strongly suggest," or some such
similar hedge. But Bush had not done so. 

So what are we now to conclude if Bush's statements
are found, indeed, to be as grossly inaccurate as they
currently appear to have been? 

After all, no weapons of mass destruction have been
found, and given Bush's statements, they should not
have been very hard to find -- for they existed in
large quantities, "thousands of tons" of chemical
weapons alone. Moreover, according to the statements,
telltale facilities, groups of scientists who could
testify, and production equipment also existed. 

So where is all that? And how can we reconcile the
White House's unequivocal statements with the fact
that they may not exist? 

There are two main possibilities. One, that something
is seriously wrong within the Bush White House's
national security operations. That seems difficult to
believe. The other is that the president has
deliberately misled the nation, and the world. [...] 

<http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/06/findlaw.analysis.dean.wmd/>



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com