I realized, as I look at the hash I made of what seemed a good idea at the time, that this post desperately needs an "executive summary." So here it is.
- USA Today gives up on haranguing Bush over pre-war intelligence, realizing his defense is sound. They now call the whole war a mistake. They don't actually show that it's a mistake, and they don't consider what a mistake it might have been to keep Saddam in power. Nonetheless they insist Bush admit it was a mistake, then perform self-flagellation. Meanwhile, a John Kerry speech actually contains a very concise summary of why the war was not a mistake.
You can continue reading below if you want the full diatribe. (Or, if you want to read a much better writer than I, check out Christopher Hitchens)
Yesterday’s USA Today carried an editorial that demonstrates, as clearly as anything yet printed in the mainstream media, that the “Bush Lied” meme on pre-war intelligence is not going to stick. The editors are now searching for another plan of attack. The headline:
Skewed intelligence or not, war was a mistake
Finally admitting that the intelligence may not have been “skewed,” now the focus is on the “mistake” of going to war. Talk about your shifting goalposts!
With support for the Iraq war eroding and the president's popularity crumbling with it, the White House spin machine is abruptly switching gears. It's going on the offensive.
In place of the long-standing upbeat pitch, its new line is "if we were wrong, so was everyone else," as it feels heat from all sides.
In fact, the White House line is that weasels who supported the war with the same information should not be allowed to deny and/or ignore that prior support now. And is it “spin” to correct errors? We’ll see in a minute.
Heat from a public whose support is sliding away as it did in Vietnam (ed: there’s that Vietnam comparison again); heat from Democrats who charge the administration distorted pre-war intelligence (ed: charge without proof); heat even from Senate Republicans who called on the White House on Tuesday to explain its Iraq policy (ed: wimps) and give regular reports (but who voted down a Democratic proposal for a withdrawal timetable). (ed: voted down a stupid idea)
Now we come to the meat of the editorial
In two speeches — one on Veterans Day, the other before troops in Alaska Monday — President Bush zeroed in on accusations that he had twisted intelligence. He attacked the credibility of Democrats who voted to authorize the invasion but criticize the decision now. Further, he noted, two bipartisan commissions have found no evidence the administration pressured the intelligence services.
All those assertions have at least some validity, even if they are conveniently incomplete.
So the President’s assertions regarding the “twisted intelligence” meme have validity? Why is that then “spin?” Regarding the “conveniently incomplete” I wonder if the editors at USA Today will show how these assertions are incomplete. I shouldn’t wonder – they don’t.
But the argument over intelligence is mostly a politically driven distraction. There are more important - and more concrete - conclusions that can be drawn about the decision to go to war:
Now the argument over pre-war intelligence is just a "distraction?" Why? Is it because the President’s defense has “validity,” so it’s time to shift the attack? Pathetic.
Whether Bush jimmied the intelligence or not, he led the nation into war for reasons since proved invalid. His justification for the war was that Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction, which the administration warned he might put into the hands of terrorists, presenting an imminent threat to U.S. national security. But no weapons were found, nor were any connections to Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda, or the 9/11 terrorists.
“Jimmied” is such a loaded word, denoting criminal intent. They probably meant to use more neutral language, like "presented to his advantage," especially when they had just conceded that his argument had merit. Regarding the WMD, don’t be too sure no weapons were found. And there were connections to Al Qaeda. You can find plenty of them. It’s called “Google.”
The administration didn't just go to war. It rushed to war. United Nations weapons inspectors said they didn't have proof and asked for more time. Allies who had joined in the first Iraq war did the same. Six months' delay would have let diplomacy and inspections play out. But Bush couldn't wait.
That “rush to war” took 12 years, 5 years after President Clinton made regime change the official U.S. policy for Iraq. It took 17 UN resolutions. It took weapons inspectors being thrown out in 1998. It took defiance of a “final” UN resolution, 1441, which gave Saddam Hussein one last chance to comply. More diplomacy and more inspections would have given Saddam more time to buy off people with OFF money to remove the sanctions. John Kerry made this same argument in the campaign, and the American people didn't buy it.
The editorial then proceeds to accuse the administration of wanting war with Iraq regardless. They must mean regardless of these issues, listed by Sen. Kerry in October 2002. Sen. Kerry even listed the attempted assassination of the first Pres. Bush in his speech.
Was the intelligence distorted? We might never know. We certainly don't know now.
Thank you!! Finally! Perhaps Sen. Kerry, Sen. Biden and the others who accuse the administration of “misleading” the American people, of “distorting” pre-war intelligence should discuss things with the editors.
No investigation has examined, for example, how exaggerated public claims made by Cheney and others squared with available intelligence. Further, the intelligence reports lend themselves to different, credible narratives depending on who is constructing them. How does one separate active distortion from the human tendency to favor information that plays to one's biases? Or to tell one's bosses what they want to hear?
Describing claims as “exaggerated” without showing the exaggerations and when “no investigation has examined” them is a rather biased construct, particularly given the very next sentence regarding “different, credible narratives,” emphasis on credible.
Regardless, the consequences are the same. Polls show most Americans believe the war was a mistake. More than 2,000 U.S. troops have died, more than $200 billion has been spent, and there is no end in sight.
There’s the fixation on the number of soldiers killed again, and not so they can be remembered for their heroism and sacrifice, but as a tool to attack the war. Besides, the soldiers don't like it when you do that. Remember that phrase, “no end in sight” – we’ll come back to it.
The war has deepened anti-Americanism in the region and around the world. An insurgency is raging, made up of two groups: the former ruling Sunnis, who now feel victimized, and foreign terrorists linked to al-Qaeda who have made Iraq a central battlefield and training ground. Ironically, the terrorist threat that wasn't there before the war is the dominant reason for seeing the mission through now.
Well, we’ve already seen that Iraq did have significant terrorism connections, including financially subsidizing Palestinian “martyrs.” I would consider the “dominant reason” for continuing the war to be establishing a democratic foothold in the mideast. I’m pretty sure the vast majority of Iraqis would agree.
If any success is to come from Iraq now — and that remains a possibility — it depends on staying until a stable government is elected and Iraqi forces can manage for themselves.
Well, what do you know? There is an “end in sight,” and it’s the one the Bush administration believes in: a stable government and sufficiently trained and numerous Iraqi forces to provide for their own defense. The editors had me fooled – I thought there was no end in sight.
This is what Bush wants, but that commitment will require time and lives, which demands public support.
I’m just guessing, but wouldn't it be a lot easier for the administration to gain that public support if words like “cooked”, “misled” and “lied” as regards the pre-war intelligence weren’t being irresponsibly tossed around. Two investigations have found nothing of the kind.
Bush's only chance of gaining that support is to admit what's obvious beyond the White House walls: That the war was a mistake. Only then can he credibly redefine the mission and earn broad support.
Actually Mr. Bush's best chance of gaining that support would be for the media to stop waxing nostalgic for "another Vietnam." Since they’ve already established that there is an “end in sight,” the editors inexplicably want Mr. Bush to admit to something that they haven’t demonstrated in this piece. Puzzling. It seems the editors would prefer a Saddam still in power.
Bush's portrayal of the Iraq war as part of a wider anti-terror struggle, every bit as consequential as the Cold War, is yet another reason to follow Kennedy's example. And to prove, yet again, that it is an American trait to be forgiving — and to increase support when mistakes are faced up to honestly.
People who insist the war was a mistake often point out that it’s good that Saddam has been deposed, as Bill Clinton did yesterday. If someone will explain to me how the latter could have occurred without the former, without resorting to fantasies of a steadfast France in the face of Saddam, I’ll think about whether the war is a mistake. Otherwise, the media should start giving the forces of democracy a chance to win it.
