Dan Froomkin: A Pattern of Deception

[babylonsister]

A Pattern of Deception

By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Wednesday, December 5, 2007; 2:27 PM

President Bush changed the way he talked about Iran in August: He stopped making explicit assertions about the existence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program.

On Monday, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence released a new national intelligence estimate in which the nation's 16 intelligence agencies concluded that Iran suspended its nuclear weapons program four years ago -- a dramatic rejection of an earlier set of findings.

Bush yesterday said he was only briefed about the new estimate last week.

But a close examination of his word choice over the past year suggests that he learned something around August that got him to stop making claims that were apparently no longer supported by American intelligence.

Instead of directly condemning Iranian leaders for pursuing nuclear weapons, he started more vaguely accusing them of seeking the knowledge necessary to make such a weapon.

Even as he did that, however, he and the vice president accelerated their rhetorical efforts to persuade the public that the nuclear threat posed by Iran was grave and urgent. Bush went so far in late August and October as to warn of the potential for a nuclear holocaust.

Indeed, a careful parsing of Bush's words indicates that, while not saying anything that could later prove to be demonstrably false, Bush left his listeners with what he likely knew was a fundamentally false impression. And he did so in the pursuit of a more muscular and possibly even military approach to a Middle Eastern country.

It's an oddly familiar pattern of deception.

more...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/12/05/BL2007120501703.html?hpid=moreheadlines

[gateley]

1. K&R - but I thought Cheney, at least, has known for a YEAR. nt

[williesgirl]

2. If you have time, read all the comments from readers - click to the right of the article. rec'd

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

3. An oddly familiar pattern of deception

From his choice of words, it certainly seems to be an intentional deception and not simply a lack of knowldge about the nuclear program, as Bush now claims.

Remember the SOTU speech in 2003 and the "uranium from Africa" where in that case he suggested that Saddam Hussein was seeking a nuclear bomb? Bush claimed lack of knowledge in that case as well, despite the fact that he was counseled to remove similiar remark from an earlier speech in 2002.

Even if we buy Bush's wild claim that it wasn't intentional deception, it was grossly negligent at best. How can someone who claims to have been misled by intelligence regarding Saddam's alleged plans to build a bomb with Niger uranium, deliberately ignore intelligence regarding Iran's nuclear program (or lack thereof)? Any normal human being, not to mention a competent President would have alarm bells going off in his head when confronted with possible new evidence about another alleged nuclear program regarding another alleged enemy. And Bush once said "fool me one, cain't git fooled agin'". Well, he's expecting the American people to believe that he was actually in the dark on two separate nuclear programs that turned out not to exist, all the while planning wars against two countries over them.

This certainly is a pattern of deception...intentional and devious deception.

[Patsy Stone]

4. Dan rules.

Always one of the best stops in the tubes.