The Counter-deception Blog

Knowing (9-11) exactly how (9-11) we got into this war (9-11) would be unpatriotic (9-11). Therefore (9-11) we should (9-11) change the subject (9-11).

washingtonpost.com

Asterisks Dot White House's Iraq Argument

By Dana Milbank and Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, November 12, 2005; A01

President Bush and his national security adviser have answered critics of the Iraq war in recent days with a two-pronged argument: that Congress saw the same intelligence the administration did before the war, and that independent commissions have determined that the administration did not misrepresent the intelligence.

Neither assertion is wholly accurate.

The administration's overarching point is true: Intelligence agencies overwhelmingly believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and very few members of Congress from either party were skeptical about this belief before the war began in 2003. Indeed, top lawmakers in both parties were emphatic and certain in their public statements.

But Bush and his aides had access to much more voluminous intelligence information than did lawmakers, who were dependent on the administration to provide the material. And the commissions cited by officials, though concluding that the administration did not pressure intelligence analysts to change their conclusions, were not authorized to determine whether the administration exaggerated or distorted those conclusions.

…

A-Roving we shall go, a-Roving we shall go, Heigh, Ho, the Kerry-O! A-Roving we shall go!

[ROVING, TO ROVE  (verb) To spin facts into dissembling and distracting, emotionally-laden, fictions; to misdirect attention from embarrassing and damaging realities. Conducting personal, ad hominem, attacks; explicitly distracting attention from facts bearing on the subject at hand; directing attention onto the messengers and away from the messages. Using media shills to ask irrelevant softball questions and plant favorable spin in mass media. Deceiving media reporters by mis-attributing information to media reporters. Using distracting and irrelevant iconic references, such as 9-11, and Ronald Reagan. To convert serious issues into campaign humbuggery.]

washingtonpost.com

Bush Spars With Critics Of the War
Exchanges With Democrats Take Campaign-Style Tone

By Linton Weeks and Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, November 12, 2005; A01

TOBYHANNA, Pa., Nov. 11 -- President Bush and leading congressional Democrats lobbed angry charges at each other Friday in an increasingly personal battle over the origins of the Iraq war.

"It is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began," Bush said as he used a Veterans Day address here to lash out at critics. "These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America's will." Democrats retaliated with a barrage of statements accusing the president of skewing the facts, just as they maintain he did in the run-up to the invasion of March 2003.

Although the two sides have long skirmished over the war, the sharp tenor Friday resembled an election-year campaign more than a policy disagreement. In a rare move, Bush in his speech took a direct swipe at last year's opponent, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), while the White House issued an unusual campaign-style memo attacking Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.). Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman followed with a speech blistering 10 Democrats for "political doublespeak."

From their campaign-style war rooms, the Democrats and allied liberal interest groups churned out "fact sheets" dissecting Bush's comments and comparing them with past statements and investigation findings in an effort to undercut his arguments. Kerry accused Bush of "playing the politics of fear and smear on Veterans Day."

The fierce back-and-forth underscored how central Iraq has become in the political environment leading into next year's mid-term congressional elections. After a succession of setbacks for Bush, including slow hurricane relief and a failed Supreme Court nomination, his public standing in opinion polls has tumbled to the lowest level of his presidency.