Over at the Tennesseefree.com group blog, William claims a new Senate report “conclusively shows Bush lied to justify war” in Iraq.

You may remember William, who also blogs at Loose TN Canon, from his “best hate mail of 2007” comment written under the “pesdet” alias: “You rednecks are a pretty conflicted bunch… guns and god… good luck on your goals to force your values down peoples throats. Your christianist fascism will not fly in this America.”

In this post, he links to a new report on prewar Iraq intelligence by the Senate Intelligence Committee. Well, actually, he only links to a caustic press release about the report, rather than the actual report itself. Why doesn’t he link to the report? I’ll let you come to your own conclusions there. Here’s a sample from the press release, quoting the committee’s chairman:

“Before taking the country to war, this Administration owed it to the American people to give them a 100 percent accurate picture of the threat we faced. Unfortunately, our Committee has concluded that the Administration made significant claims that were not supported by the intelligence,” Rockefeller said.

But let’s take a look at what the report actually says.

There are 16 conclusions contained in “The Report on Whether Public Statements Regarding Iraq By U.S. Government Officials Were Substantiated By Intelligence Information.”

Of these, the Democratic-led committee concludes that the Bush Administration’s prewar statements were substantiated or “generally substantiated” in 10 categories. These categories include statements about Iraq’s nuclear capabilities, biological weapons programs, chemical weapons programs, WMD, delivery systems (missiles and UAVs) and links to terrorism (support for terrorist groups, providing safe haven to terrorists and having contact with Al Qaida).

A typical “substantiated” conclusion from the report reads like this: “Statements in the major speeches analyzed, as well additional statements, regarding [topic A] were substantiated by intelligence information.”

So in 10 of these 16 categories, the committee’s Senate Democrats (joined by some moderate Republicans on the committee) found that the administration’s statements were supported by U.S. intelligence, and these include most of the fundamental justifications for the U.S. military response in Iraq.

Let’s look at the remaining six conclusions:

Conclusion 4 finds that the administration’s statements concerning Iraq’s chemical weapons production capability and activities “did not reflect the intelligence community’s uncertainties.” In other words, the White House failed to permeate its statements with an appropriate number of caveats and footnotes, to reflect some “uncertainties” in the intelligence. I suspect that no amount of dithering would satisfy most critics of the war, even if it were practical to make such exhaustive public comments.

Similarly, Conclusion 16 claims the administration’s statements about a postwar Iraq “did not reflect the concerns and uncertainties expressed in the intelligence products.” As we’re all aware, however, intelligence agencies hedge their bets by routinely including “concerns and uncertainties.” Additionally, the committee admits “there were many other sources of information available to policymakers,” and that the committee “did not explore these other sources” since it is “beyond the scope of this report.”

Conclusion 6 references a single “not substantiated” statement by Secretary Rumsfeld about “underground WMD facilities that were not vulnerable to conventional airstrikes.” The supporting statement, however, admits that “many intelligence analysts suspected” Iraq had such underground facilities.

Similarly, Conclusion 14 references a single statement by Vice President Cheney about a suspected meeting between Muhammad Atta and an Iraqi intelligence officer. If that sounds familiar, it’s because we’ve discussed that statement here before, in great detail. In summary, the Vice President was answering a question from Tim Russert, who asked if Cheney still thought there was NO connection between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 attacks. The Vice President affirmed that his impression was unchanged, that he thought there was no link, but followed that Czech intelligence had passed the U.S. some information about Atta, which he wanted to follow-up on. The Vice President vehemently objects to this mischaracterization of his comment, as do I.

Conclusion 12 finds that “statements and implications” by the administration suggesting Iraq partnered with or trained Al Qaida “were not substantiated by the intelligence.” I’ll have to study each of the statements again*, but since I know the White House was careful not to draw a direct tie between the two, I suspect the emphasis here is on “implications,” which are subjective in nature. The committee is apparently so desperate to attack George Bush that it has resorted to criticizing what the President didn’t say, or what it imagines he meant to say, rather than what he actually said. [See also Update II below]

Finally, Conclusion 15 finds that the administration’s suggestion that Saddam Hussein might hand over weapons to terrorist groups was “contradicted by available intelligence information.” This is the only one of the six that seems problematic, but more on that in a second.

First, let’s summarize the six conclusions that are unfavorable to the administration:
- Two are complaints about the scarcity of footnotes and caveats,
- Two are objections to single statements (both with substantial extenuating circumstances),
- One largely deals with subjective “implications” and things not actually said,
- And one is problematic.

Attached to the 172-page report are the “Minority Views of Vice Chairman Bond and Senators Chambliss, Hatch and Burr,” Republican members of the committee who claim to have been “cut out” of the process and whose amendments were ignored.

Among other quotes excluded from the report, they offer this statement by Chairman Rockefeller, recorded on October 22, 2002:

Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose real threats to America today, tomorrow. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East. He could make these weapons available to many terrorist groups, third parties, which have contact with his government. Those groups, in turn, could bring those weapons into the United States and unleash a devastating attack against our citizens. I fear that greatly.

In the Democrats’ zeal to prosecute and persecute the President, they have isolated his statements, studying them alone, in a vacuum, and have tried to erase from history the fact that they themselves made the same accusations, based on the same intelligence.

The Minority statement should be read in full, along with the Appendix including their proposed amendments, but let me quote just two important paragraphs here:

In the cases in which the majority concluded that statements were not substantiated by intelligence or did not convey fully the intelligence community’s analysis, it is clear that either the words of the policymakers in question or the body of intelligence available at the time were distorted in order to make these false charges…

It is ironic that the Majority would act outside the rules in order to adopt reports that accuse the Administration of distorting and mischaracterizing prewar intelligence on Iraq… these reports, crafted by the Majority, fail even to achieve their intended purpose. The Senate Intelligence Committee’s unanimously approved July 2004 Phase I report makes clear that flawed intelligence — not Administration deception — was the basis for policymakers’ statements and decisions. None of the facts in these last two reports changes or negates the Committee’s unanimous conclusion four years ago.

Also ironic is the fact that William, and hundreds of anti-war bloggers like him, have mischaracterized this report and have leapt to the conclusion that Bush lied, when in fact the report — biased though it is — makes very clear that the vast majority of the Administration’s prewar statements were supported by, and based upon, flawed U.S. intelligence. In doing so, they become guilty of the very same error they incorrectly charge the White House with committing.

*Update - Upon review of pages 59-71 of the report, which lists the statements at issue in Conclusion 13, it’s clear to me that no such direct ties were alleged by the Administration. The White House did make several statements about individuals and meetings, and those statements were supported by intelligence. However, they did warn about the *possibility* of greater collaboration between Iraq and Al Qaida; I find no reason to expect intelligence agencies to explicitly confirm policymakers’ theories, musings and conjecture of this kind.

Update II - Note the Minority’s comment on Amendment 99, “We think it is stretching this project too far to not only purport to be the judge and jury of what policymakers said, but also what staff believes they “suggested” or “implied.”

Very true.

Also, see Amendment 119, which replaces Conclusion #12 with this:

Amendment 119

UPDATE III — Thank you, Gateway Pundit; I forgive you for probably being a Cardinals fan (I have to do that a lot, living in AAA-affiliate Memphis).

UPDATE IV — Washington Post Editor Fred Hiatt provides a more concise and articulate version of the argument above (via Glenn Reynolds). Lots more info at Gateway Pundit, HotAir and the Anchoress. See also Powerlineblog.

UPDATE V — James Kirchick has another excellent column on the subject.