Rove Concealed Top Secret Paper Warning Bush Iraq Intelligence False

March 30, 2006 11:41 AM

Insulating BushKarl Rove, President Bush's chief political adviser, cautioned other White House aides in the summer of 2003 that Bush's 2004 re-election prospects would be severely damaged if it was publicly disclosed that he had been personally warned that a key rationale for going to war had been challenged within the administration. Rove expressed his concerns shortly after an informal review of classified government records by then-Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen J. Hadley determined that Bush had been specifically advised that claims he later made in his 2003 State of the Union address -- that Iraq was procuring high-strength aluminum tubes to build a nuclear weapon -- might not be true, according to government records and interviews
posted by Postroad (47 comments total)

Timing out for me...
posted by dig_duggler at 11:44 AM on March 30, 2006

Same here.
But I got the gist.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:48 AM on March 30, 2006

But we DID know this prior to the 2004 election? At least those of us that watch the McLaughlin Group or listen to NPR.
posted by tkchrist at 11:58 AM on March 30, 2006

Gay adoption.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 11:58 AM on March 30, 2006

Surely this will be the thing that brings Bush down.
posted by wfrgms at 12:03 PM on March 30, 2006

I'm afraid Jesse is probably right
posted by haikuku at 12:05 PM on March 30, 2006

Great, comprehensive article, Postroad.

This is a laff ryot:

"The president of the United States is not a fact-checker." -- Dan Bartlett, White House Communications Director.

Well, I'll say.
posted by digaman at 12:06 PM on March 30, 2006

I thought we heard all this a couple years ago? Don't I remember the democrats trying to make a big deal out of "16 Words" (I think that was the buzzword they tried to attach)?
posted by b_thinky at 12:09 PM on March 30, 2006

wfrgms: My thought exactly.

At this point, the people that want him gone, already want him gone and nobody else wants to hear anything about it.

We just have to wait for 2006, at a minimum before something is done to reign the sumbitch in.
posted by empath at 12:12 PM on March 30, 2006

FOREIGNERS EXIST!
posted by Artw at 12:12 PM on March 30, 2006

If you haven't known this for quite some time, then I would posit, you also didn't think that the US was a target for terrorism before 9/11/2001.

Basically, wake up and smell the coffee. This is old news, but bears repeating.
posted by Freen at 12:13 PM on March 30, 2006

b_thinky, actually, you still haven't heard it.
posted by digaman at 12:13 PM on March 30, 2006

FOREIGNERS EXIST!

Even worse, There're mexicans too! And they could be adopting gay babies.

I don't think this gay adoption thing doesn't seem to have as much traction as gay marriage, thankfully. People might be bugged by gayness, but even they can see that it would be better to rase a child in a loving home then in an orphanage or in foster care.
posted by delmoi at 12:16 PM on March 30, 2006

Anyway, who cares about these stupid tubes. I don't think anyone beloved they really had a nuke program, it was the chemical/biological stuff people were mostly worried about.
posted by delmoi at 12:18 PM on March 30, 2006

People are adopting GAYS?!?
posted by tkchrist at 12:24 PM on March 30, 2006

I thought polygamy was the big thing now, not teh gays..
posted by empath at 12:30 PM on March 30, 2006

Why does everyone hate the cups?
posted by shnoz-gobblin at 12:31 PM on March 30, 2006

Uhm, delmoi -- there was that little thing Condi Rice said about "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." Which proved to be a crucial statement in building popular and congressional support for the war. So, yes, those lies about those little tubes cast a very large shadow.
posted by digaman at 12:32 PM on March 30, 2006

-- that Iraq was procuring high-strength aluminum tubes to build a nuclear weapon -- might not be true

I can't help but take a step back and laugh... Can anyone tell me who the only country in human history to use a nuclear weapon against a civilian population is?

I'll be damned if those terrrrists get hold of a nuke on my watch!!
posted by Raoul.Duke at 12:41 PM on March 30, 2006

even they can see that it would be better to rase a child in a loving home then in an orphanage or in foster care

Unfortunately, this is not the rational conclusion many will come to. For a large amount of people homosexual==pedophile still, even though it's long since been proven otherwise.

So for them the argument goes like this: "Is it better to be in a foster home or orphanage, or to be buggered by a pervert?". In their mind, the answer is the former.
posted by Kickstart70 at 12:44 PM on March 30, 2006

People are adopting GAYS?!?

Is that like getting a lemon?
posted by Dreamghost at 12:45 PM on March 30, 2006

Go get 'em, Fitz.
posted by digaman at 12:45 PM on March 30, 2006

Gay adoption is lining up to be one of the 'wedge issues' in the 2006 mid-term elections:

"Gays adopt children to molest them. So says right-wing Tennessee State Rep. Debra Maggart (R): 'We…have seen evidence that homosexual couples prey on young males and have, in some instances, adopted them in order to have unfretted [sic] access to subject them to a life of molestation and sexual abuse,' she said. Adoption institutions strongly disagree."

posted by ericb at 12:48 PM on March 30, 2006

For a large amount of people homosexual==pedophile still, even though it's long since been proven otherwise.

Exactly --

"...[T]he ratio of heterosexual to homosexual pedophiles was calculated to be approximately 11:1."

-- National Center for Biotechnology Information | U.S. National Library of Medicine.
posted by ericb at 12:53 PM on March 30, 2006

"It's a Karl Rove thing. When reality is unsatisfactory, just manipulate the media."
posted by ericb at 12:55 PM on March 30, 2006

I thought crab people would be the big 06' wedge issue?


posted by Dreamghost at 12:56 PM on March 30, 2006

Have you guys not noticed that they've suddenly created a "huge" immigration issue in the past three weeks? That's the wedge issue they're working on now.
posted by interrobang at 1:10 PM on March 30, 2006

CCCCRRRRRAAAABBBBBB dem darn mexicans PPPEEEEEOOOOPPPPPPPPLLLLLEEEEE
posted by Dreamghost at 1:13 PM on March 30, 2006

Have you guys not noticed that they've suddenly created a "huge" immigration issue in the past three weeks? That's the wedge issue they're working on now.

Nah, that's the issue that bites them squarely in the ass - they already pissed off African-Americans with the Katrina debacle, now they're pissing away whatever Latino support they had with the nativist garbage.
posted by kgasmart at 1:13 PM on March 30, 2006

Surely this will be the thing that brings Bush down.

Well, there's at least one guy who hasn't yet figured out that Bush was exaggerating the WMD evidence. Richard Cohen, writing in today's Washington Post:

None of this necessarily means that Bush doctored U.S. intelligence to make a purposely false case that Iraq was seething with weapons of mass destruction. There is plenty of evidence that others in the administration -- Dick Cheney, in particular -- exaggerated such that their pants must have caught fire, but nothing so far proved that Bush knew he was making a false case.
posted by russilwvong at 1:28 PM on March 30, 2006

Darn, for a minute I thought that headline read "Insultating Bush". Can't we just make fun of the way the guy speaks, not the way he led our country to war under pretenses he knew were false? I mean, it just makes me feel so mad when you attack the guy on issues.

PS Gay crabs?
posted by jepler at 1:47 PM on March 30, 2006

This is my shocked and awed face.
posted by Four Flavors at 1:59 PM on March 30, 2006

President Bush, March 17, 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.

Turns out there was doubt, and he'd been told there was before he made this statement.
posted by kirkaracha at 2:12 PM on March 30, 2006

PS Gay Crabs?

They support terrorists, apparently.
posted by eriko at 2:15 PM on March 30, 2006

I wish people would quit complaining about Bush and just wait it out. Nobody can seem to dig up an impeachable offense, and it's arguable that if he did do something that could get him out of office early, USA would suffer that much more embarassment in the eyes of the rest of the world. I don't like him, most of my friends don't like him, most of my family don't like him. But we don't waste a lot of time bemoaning the fact that he hasn't been great for this country. He'll be gone in a couple of years, and until then, I'd rather hear about how GOOD his competitors are as opposed to how BAD his administration is.

And besides he's the best wartime president we've had in peacetime and the best peacetime president we've had in wartime. Counter that!
posted by Roger Dodger at 3:22 PM on March 30, 2006

russilwvong: to those people I always ask "Would you rather Bush be a liar or an incompetent leader of his administration?"

I have yet to get someone who supports Bush to answer the question.
posted by Kickstart70 at 4:03 PM on March 30, 2006

The answer, of course, is that they prefer (or have been sold) a decisive leader, one who's able to take tough decisions even if he exaggerates or gets things wrong, rather than an intellectual flip-flopper who can't make up his mind.

Personally, I'd prefer someone who isn't blind to reality.

Roger Dodger: --it's arguable that if he did do something that could get him out of office early, USA would suffer that much more embarassment in the eyes of the rest of the world.

Maybe, but I think it'd do something to overcome the embarrassment of the 2004 election. As John Perry Barlow put it (shortly before the election): The idea that we might actually re-elect George Bush is unfathomable - indeed, inexcusable - to them. As [a German friend] put it to me, "We can forgive you for electing him once. As we ought to know, any electorate can make a tragic mistake. But if you elect him twice, we will start fearing you Americans as much as we currently fear your government." I suspect this is a sentiment one could encounter almost anywhere on God's blue earth.
posted by russilwvong at 5:00 PM on March 30, 2006

FOREIGNERS EXIST!

Immigants! I knew it was them! Even when it was the bears, I knew it was them.
posted by neuron at 5:03 PM on March 30, 2006

"The president of the United States is not a fact-checker." -- Dan Bartlett, White House Communications Director.

I guess that's why we need immigrant workers. There's some jobs many Americans just don't want to do.
posted by weston at 5:26 PM on March 30, 2006

Surely this will be the thing that brings Bush down.

At this point, the people that want him gone, already want him gone and nobody else wants to hear anything about it.

Personally, I'm glad more and more information like this is coming to light. I hope people like Murray Waas keep digging and digging and digging. While it's true that no amount of information will change anyone's mind at this point (you either love Bush or hate him), surely history is still watching.

With any luck, Bush will be universally recognized as the worst president in history.

If you squint hard enough, perhaps this could be the silver lining in all of this.
posted by underdog at 6:03 PM on March 30, 2006

I suspect this is a sentiment one could encounter almost anywhere on God's blue earth.

Yes.
posted by dreamsign at 7:13 PM on March 30, 2006

"it's arguable that if he did do something that could get him out of office early, USA would suffer that much more embarassment in the eyes of the rest of the world."

It's also arguable that it would send a message to the world that although we can be led astray, justice will prevail and our system works if given enough time and a fistful of facts.
Putting him on trial before an international criminal court could be the biggest triumph of democracy and the rule of law in human history.
posted by 2sheets at 10:50 PM on March 30, 2006

Personally, I'd prefer someone who isn't blind to reality.

Personally, I'd prefer someone who doesn't have his head so far up his own ass that it is poking into another dimension.

Consider this: a simple "dirty nuke" attack on an American city is all that it will take for Bush43 to declare martial law, and he will become President for Life - just like Idi Amin. And if you think it unthinkable that this bunch would pull a stunt like that to stay in power, you haven't been paying attention.

Barring this charming scenario, things still aren't peachy. To the foregone conclusion that the balance of power will shortly change for the Rethuglican scum currently running things, let me interject one word:

Diebold.

Or better still a new marketing slogan - Diebold:All the Votes Money Will Buy!

Sure, when we had paper and pencil ballots, it was possible to cheat, but the cheating had to be done by hand. Electronic voting has simply automated the process on a massive scale.

Those who cast the votes, decide NOTHING; --- those who COUNT the votes decide everything.-Uncle Joe Stalin
posted by Enron Hubbard at 7:34 AM on March 31, 2006

Clint Curtis, the programmer who reported that Florida Congressman Tom Feeney asked him to develop a vote-rigging program is now running for Congress against Feeney. He first must get the Democratic nomination.
posted by sonofsamiam at 8:33 AM on March 31, 2006

"He'll be gone in a couple of years, and until then, I'd rather hear about how GOOD his competitors are as opposed to how BAD his administration is."

Basically, what a lot of us here are afraid of is that while he himself may be gone - and via underhanded means there's a possibility he won't be, as per Mr. Hubbard above - the power bloc he represents will still be very much in control of this country.

Unfortunately that's likely to continue no matter which party gets into the White House, really.
posted by zoogleplex at 10:40 AM on March 31, 2006

Unfortunately that's likely to continue no matter which party gets into the White House, really.

I strongly disagree. The Bush II administration has made a radical break from past US foreign policy. The sooner the US returns to sanity, the better.
posted by russilwvong at 12:18 PM on March 31, 2006

What Murray Waas’s big scoop may really tell us about Bush’s pre-war deceptions.
posted by homunculus at 9:01 PM on April 4, 2006