Home > Jay Bookman > Archives > 2008 > June > 11 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USOn war, deception and now denial
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Here’s the column for Thursday:
Did President Bush and his administration lead us into the Iraq war under false pretenses?
Absolutely, they did. The documented evidence is overwhelming. Nonetheless, some of those who initially backed Bush’s decision to invade Iraq continue to claim otherwise, arguing that the president — and they themselves — were upfront with the American people in laying out the invasion case.
For example, in a recent column, Washington Post editorial page editor Fred Hiatt described the “Bush lied, people died” thesis as a fiction, citing a new report issued by the Senate Intelligence Committee chaired by Sen. John Rockefeller (D-West Virginia).
To Rockefeller, the report documents “the absolute cynical manipulation — deliberately cynical manipulation, to shape American public opinion,” and says he too had been fooled into supporting the war. But to Hiatt, the Rockefeller report actually absolves Bush of the charge of deception. As he points out, the report confirms that pre-war statements concerning Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs were “generally substantiated by intelligence information.”
Unfortunately, that information just turned out to be “tragically, catastrophically wrong,” Hiatt writes.
In other words, how were the Bush administration and other war advocates — including Hiatt himself— supposed to have known that before the war?
Hiatt is trying to fight this battle on ground that he can defend. The intelligence community did indeed believe that Saddam Hussein possessed WMD, and it was honestly surprised to learn otherwise after the war, as was I.
However, the case for war was based on two additional assertions: First, that Saddam had close ties with al Qaida and other international terrorist groups, and that because of those ties, he might give those groups access to WMD to be used against the United States.
Neither claim had a foundation in reality or intelligence, and in fact were contradicted by reports from the CIA and other U.S. intelligence agencies. The Rockefeller report is quite explicit in its conclusions:
“Statements by the president and vice president indicating that Saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attacks against the United States were contradicted by intelligence information,” it stated.
It further concludes:
“Statements and implications by the president and secretary of state suggesting that Iraq and al Qaida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al Qaida with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence. Intelligence assessments, including multiple CIA reports and the November 2002 NIE [National Intelligence Estimate], dismissed the claim that Iraq and al Qaida were cooperating partners.”
However, there had also been a larger, more important lie behind the invasion of Iraq. The Bush administration did not seriously believe that Iraq posed a danger to the American people. It sought war for another reason entirely, because it believed that the invasion of Iraq and the assertion of U.S. military might could be the first step in transforming the Arab Middle East into a pro-American region and turning Iran into a docile puppy dog. Others in Washington, including some Democrats and members of the national media, shared that simplistic assessment.
However, they also understood that the American people would not agree to fight a war in pursuit of such grandiose goals. To agree to war, we had to be frightened into believing that our own safety was at risk, that without an invasion, mushroom clouds might soon rise over American cities.
So the Bush administration constructed a scenario that would accomplish that feat, and many in the Washington-based media — “complicit enablers,” as former Bush press secretary Scott McClellan described them — put that scenario on their loudspeakers without questioning its veracity.
That’s the awkward truth.
Services »
Comments
By hillbilly ragger
June 11, 2008 3:37 PM | Link to this
Nicely put, but isn’t it simpler to simply say “Fred Hiatt is a warmongering asshat” and be done with it?
I mean, that’s all I needed to know when confronted with his pathetic piece in this morning’s dead-tree version of the AJC.
By Dusty
June 11, 2008 4:31 PM | Link to this
War and deception are two things at which Bookman has expertise. He is ANTI-WAR and he tells BIG LIES. Now he is going to tell us about the BIG DENIAL that Democrats have finally and desperately put together.
Yes, indeed, a DENIAL of the fact that DEMOCRATS VOTED TO GO TO WAR after looking at the same clsssified information from CIA, British Intel, and agreement from Tony Blair and the UN.
Americans went to war because terrorists had killed thousands of innocents 9/11. Then we moved on to Iraq believing wmds would kill more Americans. If that was false info, it could not be verified until we got there.
Deception indeed. The deception is going on now with power hungry Democrats looking for a way out of the steps THEY TOOK in favor of war. They also think this anti-Americanism will make Obama’s stand against war (commonly called cowardice)look “better”.
AGAIN…Dems voted for the war….Now they want to call it deception.
I think Democrats believe, if you lie long enough, somebody is going to believe you.
Americans are too smart for such obvious shenanigans.
By WhatWillLauraDo?
June 11, 2008 4:37 PM | Link to this
Can Bookman, or the blog monitors explain why a comment that SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSED THE BLOG TOPIC was deleted, just because it also was critical of Bookman?
Talk about an “awkward truth”. Why is this blog afraid of legitimate criticism?
By JAY BOOKMAN
June 11, 2008 4:47 PM | Link to this
To WhatWillLauraDo:
I would be glad to explain. The first dozen or so times you posted those charges, they were allowed to stand. You were given more than adequate opportunity to make your point. Posting the same thing beyond that point becomes tiresome to the point of harassment, and your fellow commenters began to complain.
I hope that clarifies the situation.
By WhatWillLauraDo?
June 11, 2008 5:16 PM | Link to this
Thank you for responding Jay. Sincerely. Allow me to offer a brief defense to put this issue to bed. The first time I posted it, it was in response to your comment about a “good APS school” so I thought it had some direct relevance. If you had responded (as you have to many others who have asked you a direct question) I wouldn’t have posted multiple times…because you would have responded right? :)
Sorry I had to go all “Shawshank Redeption” on you (when he wrote the weekly letter repeatedly to the powers that be until he got his prision library funded, for those who don’t know) but I do think the AJC editors have, I hate to use such a confrontational term, “stonewalled” this issue.
Is that not fair? Is not the role of the Fourth Estate to serve as a check and balance of government? To take it a step farther, does the blogsphere not serve as another check and balance when the media falls short of its Fourth Estate role?
Again, sorry for the Shawshank Redemption approach, but I knew of no other way to get the issue addressed.
The ironic thing: I TOTALLY AND COMPLETELY AGREE on your take about the lies and deceptions (and media manipulation) used to engage us in this quagmire. That willingness to address it, when it was not a popular thing to do, was what made the lack of response on the issue I brought up so disappointing.
Finally, if in the future, you do another blog referencing APS, would you not consider my query legitimate and would you be willing to discuss the editors’ position, or lack thereof?
By GOPs got to go
June 11, 2008 5:48 PM | Link to this
Dusty, You are incredibly dense. So go dust something please, maybe your rarely used brain.
By CJ
June 11, 2008 5:49 PM | Link to this
I didn’t get a good look at the Senate Intelligence Committee report, but my understanding is that Bush & Associates also deliberately exaggerated/invented the nuclear threat, despite intelligence and caveats to the contrary.
Let’s also not forget that Hans Blix was arguing that he and his WMD inspection team were getting all the access and cooperation they needed and were requesting more time to allow the inspectors to finish their jobs. Bush said no. So this notion that we all believed that Saddam had WMDs is just as bogus given the fact that Bush wouldn’t let the U.N. inspectors complete their work—which would have shown otherwise.
I vote for impeach, remove and imprison…seriously.
By Taxpayer
June 11, 2008 5:57 PM | Link to this
And yet, no matter what truths are revealed, there is still the “plausible deniability” truth to fall back on. I mean, really. Even if a half dozen other “McClellans” came forward, just one simple statement by just one high-ranking person — “I did not have sex with…” — is sufficient to maintain the doubt without irrefutable evidence to the contrary. And even then it may still boil down to yet another set of truths — truths that one wants or even needs to believe. It’s that little “what if”, that when successfully used, is the true savior of one who might otherwise be labeled a hypocrite for thrusting the rule of law so unjustly upon another. Don’t get me wrong though — I’m not attempting to claim an “equality” of sorts between two completely different cases here. In fact, I cannot help but sometimes take some small amount of comfort in the knowledge that this on-going “war” between the Democrat and Republican encampments may yet help to relieve even more festering hostilities and expose additional truths to those of us once, or even still, deemed to be incapable of handling the truth. Anyway, that’s what I always say.
By Me
June 11, 2008 6:41 PM | Link to this
This is kinda like arguing how the horse got out of the barn. Fact is the horse is out of the barn. Question is what do we do now.
By You
June 11, 2008 6:55 PM | Link to this
claim the horse is out of the barn yet I claim it is not. What do we do now.
By Joe Gluckman
June 11, 2008 8:04 PM | Link to this
The Bush Administration betrayal of the US reminds me of the actions of the admin. in the movie “Wag the Dog”.
By Dreamon
June 12, 2008 9:06 AM | Link to this
Fact: Zarqawi was present in Iraq long before 9/11 being given shelter and comfort.
Fact: all of the Democratic leaders of the various intelligence cmte had the SAME info behind closed door mtgs and they came to the same conclusions.
It’s always in hindsight liberals bcome so self righteous. Where were these loud voices prior to the war. In your mind, the “village idiot” from Texas outfoxed all the senior “enlightened” liberal Sens and Reps—-shame, shame, shame
By LA
June 12, 2008 10:17 AM | Link to this
Of course they lied their way into the war. Rove knew the only way Bush would be re-elected was to appear as a non-wimp. And since Bush considered getting the re-elected the main indicator of success (as opposed to good policies), idiot boy hopped on board and drove us into the lose-lose situation in which we find ourselves.
By Copyleft
June 12, 2008 10:50 AM | Link to this
Where were these loud voices prior to the war?
Well, I was marching in the streets, e-mailing my representatives, and telling everybody on every forum I could find that this war was a bad idea, based on slanted intelligence and irrational paranoia.
Turns out I was right. Gosh! If only more Americans hadn’t been swayed by terror and faux-patriotism.
By Tom in California
June 12, 2008 1:07 PM | Link to this
Bush should be impeached and removed from office for his misdeeds. Then he should be criminally prosecuted and imprisoned.
I understand the view of people who say there’s no point in impeachment this late in Bush’s term. I respectfully disagree. Leaving him in office even for a few more months is a bad idea, because he has repeatedly hinted that he wants to launch another lunatic war, this time against Iran. We can’t even handle what we’ve got going in Iraq right now. Iran is twice as large and twice as tough as Iraq. Allowing Bush to attack Iran would be disaster.
By Matthew
June 12, 2008 1:50 PM | Link to this
Yes, Americans were swayed by terror and faux patriotism. I love how the left gets giddy whenever they see an opportunity to insult those who proclaim to be patriotic.
Not surprising from a group who happily disparages America, so long as it also inflicts damage on Bush.
I’m glad Bookman put this issue to rest. I wasn’t satisfied with the governmental reports or with those of England, Israel or Australia. What Bookman lacks in foreign policy knowledge, political insight and experience, he makes up for with broad assumptions that he dispenses without supporting evidence. The administration didn’t really think Iraq was a threat. Whew, thanks for clearing that up Jay.
By Joe in PA
June 12, 2008 6:33 PM | Link to this
“whenever they see an opportunity to insult those who proclaim to be patriotic.”
No many of us true Americans and patriots relish the fact of confronting the NATIONALISTIC attitudes many mistake for patriotism and then denounce those who are true patriots as traitors. The quote is “Patriotism is the last bastion of the scoundrel” for a reason.
And many of us don’t “disparage” America, we honestly recognize it’s shortcomings and errors and seek to fix those problems. Being a blind rah-rah cheerleader is not patriotism, it’s idiocy and makes us worse than we are today not better.
By AG
June 12, 2008 7:53 PM | Link to this
How cute that the author leaves out all the other findings of the report which completely exonerate Bush only to focus on the one point where exaggerated intelligence is debatable(Saddams ties to Al-Qaeda). But of course the report also made these claims:
“Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab Al Zarqawi & other Al-Qaeda related terrorist members were substantiated by the intelligence assessments.”
Congress wonders why there approval ratings are lower than Bush’s.
By Matthew
June 12, 2008 8:16 PM | Link to this
Joe,
A) While I enjoy strong quotes, they’re below anecdotal evidence when it comes to supporting an argument.
B) I find it hilarious that the left has attempted to make nationalism an entirely dirty word.
C) Patriotism certainly requires one to question their country’s leadership. I agree. But that doesn’t justify unabated spite. Some people (including liberals) don’t engage in disparaging America, I don’t dispute that.
D) I think it is incredibly ironic that you’re willing to say other people are fake in their patriotism, while also criticizing them for calling others “traitors.” It requires quite a bit of audacity to judge the patriotism of others while condemning those on the other side of the political spectrum who do the same.
E) Criticizing your country can be a good thing. It could also be a terrible thing. It is obviously subjective. I suspect some people in Obama’s party think destroying the corporate structure of the American economy would be a good thing for the country. I don’t. Some Americans (liberals, of course) will probably criticize their nation for acting in their own interest without the approval of the international community. Is that the honest recognition of an “error”? Honest maybe. Objective? No way.
By Dracaveli
June 13, 2008 3:50 AM | Link to this
The purpose of propaganda is not to provide interesting distraction for blase young gentlemen, but to convince, and what I mean is to convince the masses.
But the masses are slowmoving, and they always require a certain time before they are ready even to notice a thing, and only after the simplest ideas are repeated thousands of times will the masses finally remember them.
When there is a change, it must not alter the content of what the propaganda is driving at, but in the end must always say the same thing. For instance, a slogan must be presented from different angles, but the end of all remarks must always and immutably be the slogan itself.
Only in this way can the propaganda have a unified and complete effect. This broadness of outline from which we must never depart, in combination with steady, consistent emphasis, allows our final success to mature. And then, to our amazement, we shall see what tremendous results such perseverance leads to-to results that are almost beyond our understanding.
All advertising, whether in the field of business or politics, achieves success through the continuity and sustained uniformity of its application.
Here, too, the example of enemy war propaganda was typical; limited to a few points, devised exdusively for the masses, carried on with indefatigable persistence.
Once the basic ideas and methods of execution were recognized as correct, they were applied throughout the whole War without the slightest change.
At first the claims of the propaganda were so impudent that people thought it insane; later, it got on people’s nerves; and in the end, it was believed.
~A. Hitler (Mein Kampf)
By StoossyJettuh
August 13, 2008 4:51 AM | Link to this
spybot spyware adware
By TimothyLRsa
August 19, 2008 3:25 AM | Link to this
walker nashville czjvb walkers for horses
By TimothyLRsa
August 19, 2008 3:37 AM | Link to this
walker park zsudd walkersville maryland
By QRGarrettsa
September 2, 2008 4:15 AM | Link to this
very good