High Noon

The classic movie, High Noon, featured Gary Cooper as the sheriff of a small town in the old west.  He had married a pacifist Quaker, and was to retire as sheriff.  That is, until his nemesis, a recently paroled murderer, came looking for him.  He received lots of advice, to give up and seek his new life away from the town, to avoid the confrontation.  When it came time, with the outlaw arriving on the noon train, he stood his ground.  It was "the story of a man who was too proud to run."

Gary Cooper met his match yesterday.  President George W. Bush looked the critics straight in the eye and said "No, I'll face you, and win this fight."  Refusing to listen to those who advised giving in and running, Mr. Bush started yesterday to stand his ground, fighting back against the misrepresentations of Democrats and those in the media who would do anything - even lie - to defeat him.

And our debate at home must also be fair-minded. One of the hallmarks of a free society and what makes our country strong is that our political leaders can discuss their differences openly, even in times of war. When I made the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, Congress approved it with strong bipartisan support. I also recognize that some of our fellow citizens and elected officials didn't support the liberation of Iraq. And that is their right, and I respect it. As President and Commander-in-Chief, I accept the responsibilities, and the criticisms, and the consequences that come with such a solemn decision.

While it's perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began. (Applause.) Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war. These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs.

They also know that intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein. They know the United Nations passed more than a dozen resolutions citing his development and possession of weapons of mass destruction. And many of these critics supported my opponent during the last election, who explained his position to support the resolution in the Congress this way: "When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security." That's why more than a hundred Democrats in the House and the Senate -- who had access to the same intelligence -- voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power. (Applause.)

The stakes in the global war on terror are too high, and the national interest is too important, for politicians to throw out false charges. (Applause.) These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America's will. As our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of life, they deserve to know that their elected leaders who voted to send them to war continue to stand behind them. (Applause.) Our troops deserve to know that this support will remain firm when the going gets tough. (Applause.) And our troops deserve to know that whatever our differences in Washington, our will is strong, our nation is united, and we will settle for nothing less than victory. (Applause.)

As John McClane said to Sgt. Al Powell in Die Hard, "Welcome to the party, pal."

11/12/05 1140: Bill Kristol, writing in the Weekly Standard, feels the same, and notes the indignation of Sen. Ted Kennedy at Mr. Bush's defense.  Kristol notes that, as recent polls have suggested (I can't write demonstrated, considering the sample demographics for most of them), the strategy of accusing Bush of lying seems to be working.  Mr. Bush's best, perhaps only, hope is to get the information back into the public sphere that it is not he who is lying, or has lied.  This speech is a start.

The lie that Bush lied us into war threatens the Bush presidency in a way no ordinary political charge does. Bush needs to refute it--and to keep on refuting it--for his sake, for the nation's, and for the sake of the truth.

11/12/05 1410: ...and lie, and lie.  Linked to Wizbang's COTT XXXVII, and The Political Teen.

11/12/05 1445: A must read, Norman Podhoretz in Commentary: "Who is lying about Iraq?"  (hat tip: Jason Smith)

11/13/05 1230: The Maryhunter discusses the topic, and the false accusations, and Don Surber finds John Edwards continuing to spout them.

Comments

[Anna]

Great analogy, G. I was so glad that Bush finally spoke out.

[jpe]

The manipulation came in highlighting threats while minimizing intelligence that cast doubt on the conclusions favored by the administrations. It's notable that Bush's response doesn't address this.

[Giacomo]

(sigh)
This is where I have a problem with the attacks on Bush. He is being placed by them in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" position. There will always be "conflicting" intelligence with any threat from an organization where human probes are not infiltrated at the highest levels. Thus you have to weigh the intelligence on balance and make a decision about the proper course. This is what he did, privately within his inner circle, and with the consultation of Congress. Remember that the intelligence committees in the House and Senate, at the very least, have access to what they need.

His next step is to get the country behind that decision. So of course publicly he's of necessity going to make his strongest case possible, and downplay any behind-the-scenes discussions that took place over conflicts on the way to the decision. That's called leadership. He put the strongest face possible on a solemn decision.

So the assessments on WMD were wrong (maybe not - I heard there were 1.77 tons of enriched uranium found in Iraq). That does not imply sinister motives - "war for oil." Even the Duelfer ISG report concluded that Saddam was gearing up to restart a weapons program as soon as sanctions were lifted. On the whole, despite that "error," I believe that removing Saddam was the right thing to do, and I suspect that the vast majority of Iraqis would agree.

A longer version of this analysis can be found at Protein Wisdom.

[Giacomo]

By the way, JPE, do you have any comments on the lies of Joe Wilson?

[jpe]

There will always be "conflicting" intelligence with any threat from an organization where human probes are not infiltrated at the highest levels.

Yeah, and that's why you should accurately portray those conflicts, rather than burying countervailing evidence. If you don't, it's called "manipulating evidence."

Remember that the intelligence committees in the House and Senate, at the very least, have access to what they need.

Yep. But that stuff is classified, and members can't share what they know. That's why Graham and Durbin were shouting "Vote No" from the hilltops. Absent the actual intelligence, they were unable to persuade their colleagues that the prez was, basically, pulling a fast one.

That's called leadership.

Heh. Sure. At a minimum, that leadership has a correlative responsibility, doesn't it? Bush should've admitted what you just said: "Look, I hid evidence that our sources were lying or unreliable. That's called leadership."

[jpe]

Re: Wilson: I dunno. People seem weirdly overcommitted on both sides; yet none of their reasons for that commitment seem compelling, nor their arguments slam-dunks. Much of the assessment seems to turn on really finely-parsed interpretations and timelines. I'm just not interested enough in Wilson or his claims to follow that parsing.

[Giacomo]

Oh, come on. Wilson was debriefed by the CIA, and subsequently by the Senate, and both found that what he told them actually reinforced the belief that Iraq had interest in Nigerian uranium. Yet he wrote the opposite in the NY Times.