The Associated Press continues the media's war against George W. Bush and the administration with their report today that the number of American deaths in Iraq has passed 2,000.
The 2,000 mark was reached amid growing doubts among the American public about the Iraq conflict, launched in March 2003 to destroy Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction. None was ever found.
Oh, now you tell me. Well, actually, the AP and other organizations have been trumpeting this absence of WMD for some time. The problem is that before the war - before - pretty much everyone was writing about the WMD that Iraq possessed. Only now, after large stockpiles were not discovered, those previous writings are forgotton.
But some people remember. Or they have Lexis-Nexis or Google searches at their disposal. Robert Kagan is one such person. Writing in today's Washington Post he reviews not the history of WMD in Iraq, but the history of the reporting on WMD in Iraq, specifically from the two national papers of record, the NY Times and the Washington Post.
Miller, the story goes, was an anti-Saddam Hussein, weapons-of-mass-destruction-hunting zealot and was either an eager participant or an unwitting dupe in a campaign by Bush administration officials and Iraqi exiles to justify the invasion. The New York Times now characterizes the affair as "just one skirmish in the continuing battle over the Bush administration's justification for the war in Iraq."
[...]
There is a big problem with this simple narrative. It is that the Times, along with The Post and other news organizations, ran many alarming stories about Iraq's weapons programs before the election of George W. Bush.
He then proceeds to cite the numerous references, and quote from them:
- In 2000 Myers reported that Iraq had rebuilt 12 "missile factories or industrial sites" thought to be "involved in Iraq's efforts to produce weapons of mass destruction" and had "continued its pursuit of biological and chemical weapons."
- From 1998 through 2000, the Times editorial page warned that "without further outside intervention, Iraq should be able to rebuild weapons and missile plants within a year" and that "future military attacks may be required to diminish the arsenal again." Otherwise, Iraq could "restore its ability to deliver biological and chemical weapons against potential targets in the Middle East." "The world," it said, "cannot leave Mr. Hussein free to manufacture horrific germs and nerve gases and use them to terrorize neighboring countries."
- Times editorials insisted the danger from Iraq was imminent. When the Clinton administration attempted to negotiate, they warned against letting "diplomacy drift into dangerous delay. Even a few more weeks free of inspections might allow Mr. Hussein to revive construction of a biological, chemical or nuclear weapon." They also argued that it was "hard to negotiate with a tyrant who has no intention of honoring his commitments and who sees nuclear, chemical and biological weapons as his country's salvation."
Mr. Kagan produces many more snippets. Read it all - doesn't it sound at least a little familiar? Mr. Bush is simply following policies recommended by the NY Times editorial staff 5 years earlier.
But the story now is the deaths, and the idea that these brave Americans died in vain, in a war fought under false pretenses. Except that, as Mr. Kagan shows, the pretenses may have been in error, but they were not false. There is a difference. And with the ratification of the Iraqi Constitution, the trial of Saddam, and the freeing of 25 million Iraqi citizens from oppression it's also premature to label them as dying in vain.
"Our armed forces are serving ably in Iraq under enormously difficult circumstances, and the policy of our government must be worthy of their sacrifice. Unfortunately, it is not, and the American people know it," said Sen. Edward Kennedy, the Massachusetts Democrat.
I'll bet the 9 million Iraqis that voted on the Constitution think their sacrifice worthy, Senator. Command spokesman Lt. Col. Steve Boylan tries to straighten out the press (and Senator Kennedy), but they'd rather pursue their agenda.
In an e-mail statement to Baghdad-based journalists, command spokesman Lt. Col. Steve Boylan said media attention on the 2,000 figure was misguided and "set by individuals or groups with specific agendas and ulterior motives."
He described the grim statistic as an "artificial mark on the wall" and urged news organizations to focus more on the accomplishments of the U.S. military mission in Iraq.
Groups with specific agendas and ulterior motives ... like the Associated Press and the New York Times.
10/26/05 1240: Michelle Malkin writes more on Lt. Col. Boylan. Have a look.
