Bush Lied Us Into War? Can Barack Lie Us Out?

28Nov/1014

Bush Lied Us Into War? Can Barack Lie Us Out?

Jim Hoft has the story about the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate that claimed Iran had disbanded its nuclear program four years earlier, and the demagoguery that then-Senator Obama engaged in on the basis of that flawed intelligence.

Now, thanks to the Wikileaks document dump, we find out that this report by leftists in the NIE was horribly inaccurate. In fact less than four months after the NIE report was released the Saudi regime was begging the US to “cut off the head of the snake” and put an end Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

D'oh! Well, I'm certain that that was the patriotic intention of the Wikileaker, whether he's this fine fellow or another. Among the more embarrassing revelations, a very low opinion of some of the leaders among our allies, the Brits (according to The Guardian's advance publicity):

It says the files include "devastating" criticism of UK operations in Afghanistan and serious political criticisms of David Cameron.

It also alleges the documents include claims of inappropriate behaviour by a member of the royal family.

There are also said to be requests for specific intelligence about individual MPs.

The files are among thousands leaked to the whistleblowers' site.

Earlier, the BBC was told the leak would cause embarrassment to Prime Minister David Cameron and his predecessor Gordon Brown.

Guardian writer Simon Hoggart said they would show the PM was "not very highly regarded".

The Foreign Office said the leaks could damage national security.

None of this, I am sure, has the least to do with Obama's enormous freelance arms deal with the Saudis.

Dan Collins

Dan Collins is a dude who blogs. He used to blog elsewhere. Now he blogs here.

Website - More Posts

Filed under: Too Lazy to Categorize Leave a comment

Comments (14) Trackbacks (0) ( subscribe to comments on this post )

Topsecretk9
November 28th, 2010 - 20:31

Great round up, Dan.

Like or Dislike: 0 0
( REPLY )
Topsecretk9
November 28th, 2010 - 20:32

Being lazy, how far back do these cables go, does anyone know yet?

Like or Dislike: 0 0
( REPLY )
Topsecretk9
November 28th, 2010 - 20:39

Man. I found this comment at a Politico link –

“I’m very surprised to see that included in the docs are some from February of this year and as for back as 1989″

Like or Dislike: 0 0
( REPLY )
Dan Collins
November 28th, 2010 - 20:39

I haven’t heard, yet. There’s nothing about Blair that I’ve heard, though, and if there were, the Guardian would likely have found a way to make it seem bad.

Like or Dislike: 0 0
( REPLY )
Topsecretk9
November 28th, 2010 - 20:40

Oh, I meant to say in the last comment, the media has only seen 250k of 2.5 million docs? Is that right? Yikes.

Like or Dislike: 0 0
( REPLY )
Dan Collins
November 28th, 2010 - 20:42

That’s what I hear, too. It must have been pretty indiscriminate, except for the fact that they’re classified, for whatever reason. Mostly out of CYA habit, I suppose.

Like or Dislike: 0 0
( REPLY )
Topsecretk9
November 28th, 2010 - 20:58

This is a really random thought, but I wondered if Wikileaks would censor their own leak? ( i.e. bury docs that might adhere to their own world view)

Like or Dislike: 0 0
( REPLY )
Topsecretk9
November 28th, 2010 - 20:59

might NOT adhere.

Like or Dislike: 0 0
( REPLY )
Dan Collins
November 28th, 2010 - 21:02

Possible, but they’d need a lot of readers with a lot of expertise to know one way or the other regarding some of this stuff.

Like or Dislike: 0 0
( REPLY )
Topsecretk9
November 28th, 2010 - 21:49

I know. But I still can’t help wondering. It’s all so fishy.

Like or Dislike: 0 0
( REPLY )
Meep
November 29th, 2010 - 05:09

The problem is that usually it’s not going to be a single email that would expose their worldview, but rather a history of back-and-forth. It would take far too much work to figure that out given the volume…. so dump them all and hope they get a trophy.

And they won’t be able to retroactively remove the docs — I assume the wikileaks people aren’t that dumb.

Like or Dislike: 0 0
( REPLY )
Meep
November 29th, 2010 - 05:09

And I think they’d assume that CNN [good for them not signing the confidentiality agreement], NYT, etc. etc. would only report the angle they want reported. I.e., the anti-war, anti-West angle.

Like or Dislike: 0 0
( REPLY )
serr8d
November 29th, 2010 - 07:30

The site is impossible to access. They claim it’s a ‘distributed DOS attack’, but more likely just everybody and Obama’s aunt wants to see what’s on there.

None of it can be much more damaging to President Bush, at least not more so than the years of Leftist and MSM inventions. I’ll chuckle at anything giving BHO more fat-lip-stitches. As for the rest, meh; we, or someone else, surmised most of it already, probably.

Oh, and the Saudis are not our friends. Giving money to al-Qaeda whilst calling for Ahmadinnerjacket to be blown away? Both ends against the middle.

Like or Dislike: 0 0
( REPLY )
Dan Collins
November 29th, 2010 - 08:02

That’s exactly why I’m critical of the arms deal. It amazes me that Obama can talk such idealistic mush about the Arab world and reducing our involvement while engaging in the worst kind of “realpolitick”. On the other hand, if he were counting on events to cloud coverage after Thanksgiving, he timed that well with respect to the latest WikiLeaks doc dump.

For the very paranoid, I’ll just point out that coincidence doesn’t equal collusion.

Like or Dislike: 0 0
( REPLY )