Wash, Rinse, Repeat

Big Lie or Incompetence?

Speaking of wormtongues, an Associated Press writer named Tom Raum has an op-ed disguised as a straight news article that asserts that:

President Bush keeps revising his explanation for why the U.S. is in Iraq, moving from narrow military objectives at first to history-of-civilization stakes now.

Initially, the rationale was specific: to stop Saddam Hussein from using what Bush claimed were the Iraqi leader's weapons of mass destruction or from selling them to al-Qaida or other terrorist groups.

But 3 1/2 years later, with no weapons found, still no end in sight and the war a liability for nearly all Republicans on the ballot Nov. 7, the justification has become far broader and now includes the expansive "struggle between good and evil."

And a bit later:

When no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq, Bush shifted his war justification to one of liberating Iraqis from a brutal ruler.

That stuff like this not only survives, but thrives, absolutely amazes me. Here's a journalist who has, according to some editor's notes on other articles of his that I read, been with Associated Press since 1973. He's no cub reporter, he's a veteran professional journalist. He's also as wrong as he could possibly be.

When President Bush addressed the United Nations in September of 2002, he did in fact specifically mention the danger of Iraq giving or selling weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups. He also, in the very same address, specifically demanded:

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose, and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles, and all related material.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all support for terrorism and act to suppress it, as all states are required to do by U.N. Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shi'a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans, and others, again as required by Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown. It will return the remains of any who are deceased, return stolen property, accept liability for losses resulting from the invasion of Kuwait, and fully cooperate with international efforts to resolve these issues, as required by Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept U.N. administration of funds from that program, to ensure that the money is used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people.

Near the end of the address President Bush also said this:

The United States has no quarrel with the Iraqi people; they've suffered too long in silent captivity. Liberty for the Iraqi people is a great moral cause, and a great strategic goal. The people of Iraq deserve it; the security of all nations requires it. Free societies do not intimidate through cruelty and conquest, and open societies do not threaten the world with mass murder. The United States supports political and economic liberty in a unified Iraq. (emphasis mine)

Less than a month later in Cincinnati, President Bush again made the case for confronting Iraq, mentioning (once again) not only Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, but also the failure of Iraq to comply with other UN resolutions. And once again he noted the goal of freedom and self-government for the Iraqi people:

America believes that all people are entitled to hope and human rights, to the non-negotiable demands of human dignity. People everywhere prefer freedom to slavery; prosperity to squalor; self-government to the rule of terror and torture. America is a friend to the people of Iraq. Our demands are directed only at the regime that enslaves them and threatens us. When these demands are met, the first and greatest benefit will come to Iraqi men, women and children. The oppression of Kurds, Assyrians, Turkomans, Shi'a, Sunnis and others will be lifted. The long captivity of Iraq will end, and an era of new hope will begin.

Three months later in the 2003 State of the Union address, in addition to the possible threat from weapons of mass destruction, President Bush said:

The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages -- leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained -- by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning. (Applause.)

And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country -- your enemy is ruling your country. (Applause.) And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. (Applause.)

During the six months of debate between September of 2002 and the start of the Iraq War in March of 2003, there's no doubt that some of the reasons to confront Saddam were emphasized over others at certain times and in certain forums. To go from a reasonable debate on emphasis to a flat statement that "When no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq, Bush shifted his war justification to one of liberating Iraqis from a brutal ruler.", as Mr. Raum does, is false. In fact, it's so false as to make me wonder whether it's a deliberate lie or just stunning incompetence on the part of a supposedly professional journalist. I don't know Tom Raum and I certainly don't know what's in his heart or mind. Maybe he truly believes what he wrote, which if true doesn't speak well for himself or his editors.

If you read each of the speeches that I linked to above, there's plenty of fodder there for debate on what the President got right and what he got wrong. No matter where one stands on the run-up to the Iraq War though, we ought to at least approach the debate honestly and with facts. Mr. Raum is missing at least one of those.

Comments

[Boy Named Sous]

Thank you. Thank you for what I've said for more than a year, for what the President and his people have dropped the ball on reminding us, and what the Left keeps trying to gloss over with their "No WMD'S" chant. I keep repeating it, and so should you, because the only way to prevent a lie oft repeated from being adopted as the truth is to repeat the truth even more often.

[Boy Named Sous]

Manual Trackback.

[Ken S, Fifth String on the Banjo of Life]

And don't you just love lefty math? 500 chemical warheads = "no weapons of mass destruction"

[Dave E.]

You are right, Brian. Far too many people are getting away with falsehoods when it comes to Iraq. What used to be just the ravings of the Kossacks and those at DU now go unchallenged in the mainstream press and the Democratic party. Well, almost unchallenged. It's really quite amazing.

Ken-Bizarre isn't it? But, if all they read are major media outlets and they never go to source documents, I guess I can see it.

[Boy Named Sous]

Ken & Dave,

The WMD issue is lied about on two fronts: First, that his having them was the sum total of the WD argument, and second that he had none. As you mention, Ken, the lie that in hindsight he never had any has been factually disporven, but keeps getting touted. But more importantly, it's important to remember that prior to the war, that part of the case for war was founded on two premises: That we had every reason to believe he had them, and furthermore that he had failed for 11 years to provide sufficient (if any) proof that he was disposing of them in a timely and satisfactory manner.

The Left completely ignores this part of the case, because they know that if they acknowledge that this was a casus belli, they cannot refute it. Much easier to simplify the argument to "He had WMD's" and then crow "See? He didn't!"

[Dave E.]

Another aspect is that until Bush began making the case for military action against Iraq, the sanctions regime was under increasing pressure from NGOs and Russia, France, China, and Germany. Remember all those protests about how the sanctions were killing Iraqis? They suddenly stopped around the end of 2002 and the mantra then became that Saddam could be contained. I could be wrong, but I would guess that if the Coalition had failed to act in March of 2003, those same groups and governments would have returned to trying to remove the sanctions once the danger of Coalition action had passed. And where would we be today? A question that never seems to be asked of those who now say that toppling Saddam was a mistake.

[Ken Summers]

Another little tidbit people forget: Many on the left argued against the battle* because Saddam would use chemical weapons if we invaded (and then when we crossed the red or purple or whatever it was line, then when we entered Baghdad, and so on).

*Iraq is a "war" in the same sense that Guadalcanal was a "war".

[Dave E.]

Good point, Ken. Maybe campaign is the word to use.

[Ken Summers]

Thanks, Dave. Campaign is definitely more accurate than battle.

[DirtCrashr]

The Left always lies, it's what they do - they demand the truth, then they lie. It doesn't even matter what it's about, they'll lie because it's simply their nature. They really can't avoid it.
That's how I read the local newspapers anyhow and voting (SF Bay Area/Silicon Valley) - just vote against whatever they propose or support and you won't go wrong. At least you won't vote FOR some ill conceived, ridiculously written, and horribly misguided legislation - and the less legislation the better.

[Cuirthe]

Hmm. This post and its comments remind me of those Socratic dialogues where the 'winner' successfully demolishes a bunch of arguments which only a nit-wit would put forward, while avoiding substantive issues to which the asnwers are less convenient.

I'm not dumb enough to think I'll alter your views, but let me at least raise some of the points which you've chosen to overlook, and which are inconsistent with the version you portray.

1 - concerning Saddam's *willingness* to use chemical weapons and other WMDs: those with a slightly longer memory will remember that his threat to use them in GW1 turned out to be all bluster, both in the land war and in the Scud attacks. Yes, he is known to have used them in Halabja, but that was in 1988, before even GW1 and the ensuing process of degrading his military capabilities.

2 - concerning his *ability* to use chemical weapons: the fact remains that he did not have any substantive ability to strike outside his own borders at the point where a claimed justification for the invasion was that he 'posed a direct and immediate threat to other countries, including the US and UK'. A theoretical ability to hit a UK military base in Cyprus with a home-made 'Scud Plus' does not count.

There were far more reasons to believe that Saddam's chemical capability was *not* a threat than the converse.

Where I agree with one commenter is that it was indeed bizarre that Saddam - for whatever reason - did not simply come clean about the status of his weapons programme. But that is not the same as either having such a capability or making use of it.

There are three passages in your original post which raise such egregious ironies that it's almost funny. The first is where you cite Bush saying:

"The United States has no quarrel with the Iraqi people; they've suffered too long in silent captivity. Liberty for the Iraqi people is a great moral cause, and a great strategic goal."

Indeed it is, and it is one which the invasion and subsequent occupation have signally failed to deliver, and which there is little or no prospect of current policy delivering.

The second is this:
"And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country -- your enemy is ruling your country." Well, I bet they agree with that assessment now. So even if you cling to the belief that GW2 was justified in principle, how much longer does the chaos in Iraq have to go on for you to recognise that it has failed in all practical terms?

The third is this:
"America believes that all people are entitled to hope and human rights, to the non-negotiable demands of human dignity." Except those people whom it believes are entitled to nothing other than open-ended detention without charge, trial or access to justice. Oh, and torture. If anything is clear about Guantanamo, it is that current American policy does not view any human rights as non-negotiable.

As I say, I don't expect this to convince any of you, but if it at least makes you think, wonder and question, fine.

[Dave E.]

Cuirthe-This post was about a specific assertion, that Bush only talked about WMDs before the war and later added the other justifications. I think I pretty clearly demolished that assertion and yes, I think Tom Raum is a nit-wit. It's a little odd to accuse me of "avoiding substantive issues" because I didn't address them in this particular post. I also didn't address stem cell research, intelligent design, or countless other controversial topics.

Since you raised some new issues, let's look at them.
1. True, Saddam didn't use them in the first Gulf War. A military commander would have been grossly negligent though, to have not been concerned that he might use them in the second. The wider concern was that Saddam would supply terrorists with such weapons and try to do so in a deniable way. Bush and others in the Administration would have been negligent if they had not been concerned about that.
2. Another myth. Bush clearly stated that Iraq had to be dealt with before it became an imminent threat.

"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option."

Agree or disagree with that policy, to say that Bush did not recognize that Iraq was not yet an "imminent" threat is false.

As far as the ironies go, sorry, I'm missing that. No doubt about it, I expected that Iraq would be in a better situation by now than it is. That's not ironic, it's sad. The blame for that should go to the anti-democratic and barbaric factions that are fighting the elected Iraqi government. It's truly bizarre that a significant number of people blame the US instead of the bombers and murderers for creating the violence in Iraq today.

Iraq has a sovereign government, in case you missed that. The US didn't release the Shiite sheik this week out of the goodness of our hearts. We did so because we were legally obligated to comply with the Iraqi government's request. That government has been in place for less than six months and it faces enormous challenges in all facets of Iraqi life. It is having it's successes and it's failures, no doubt, but I don't think we should give up on them yet. The current Iraqi government may yet fail and then we will have to see what options are left. I don't think we should abandon it now and ensure that failure.

As far as Guantanamo goes, I don't believe that people who systematically violate the Geneva Conventions to conduct warfare are entitled to the same rights as captured soldiers as defined in those same conventions. Nor do I think that foreign terrorists are entitled to all of the protections of the US constitution. And I don't consider coercion, as ugly as that can be, to be torture. Comparing the desire for a just and civil government in Iraq to the complex question of what to do with people who would use any means to destroy such governments is kind of silly I think. Terrorists are not "freedom fighters" or "minutemen" or soldiers. They are murderers who use the very freedoms and rights of civil societies to try to destroy them. I don't have all the answers on how to deal with them, but I think treating them as common criminals with all the rights they are entitled to is foolish.

[Cuirthe]

Thanks Dave - a very measured and balanced reply. A couple of points in response:

- I absolutely agree that a military commander would be negligent not to weigh the risk of the deployment of non-conventional weapons in any given theater, but that is different from a political head of state elevating that risk to the level that it justifies invasion. I think you would acknowledge that the threat Bush said he was concerned about was not that US troops might face chemical weapons in the event of a land assault - it was that the rest of us faced that danger. When you consider what has emerged since about the intelligence on which that assertion was based, you have to conclude that either Bush (and Blair, incidentally) knew the data didn't suport their policy but went ahead anyway.. or at least that they must have suspected it did not justify an invasion.

- I absolutely agree with you that the 'other justifications' were cited at least as early as the WMD factor - but out of political expedience, WMD was clearly nudged into prime position, presumably because it represented at least some kind of threat to people outside Iraq. After all, as long as Saddam only tyrannised his own people, why would the West want to send its sons in to die on their behalf (pragmatically speaking...)? I still maintain that subsequent events showed the WMD threat to be an empty one; whether you attribute the misjudgement to faulty intelligence, political expedience or outright venal manipulation will of course depend on your pollitical leanings ;^)

- Sure, the various factions who are now vying for power in Iraq bear their share of responsibility for the bloodshed and chaos which is ruining the lives of the rest of the population... but I remember (pre-invasion) the picture we were all invited to believe in: that of an oppressed Iraqi people who, given the chance, would unify in opposition to Saddam if we stepped in to give them the opportunity. That was wilfully simplistic. It's not "us against them"... it's "them against each other, and they both hate/resent us". Think of Northern Ireland as an analogy: it wasn't "UK vs Irish", it was "Irish vs Irish, and they were both prepared to murder anyone else who interfered in their internecine activities.

The tough moral question this raises is: is it better to leave a tyrant in place because he at least suppresses the internal dissent which would tear his country apart, or depose him and unleash the factional killing we're seeing now? I'll freely admit, I don't know the answer to that one. Yes, I agree that the fledgeling Iraqi government is something to be cherished and nurtured, but hey, if you start a forest fire and then plant a seedling in the middle of it, don't expect my unfettered admiration for your efforts to protect the seedling...

And lastly on Guantanamo: *if you prove through due process* that someone has systematically violated the Geneva Conventions, that they are terrorists and murderers, then apply the weight of justice to them. The point is that Guantanamo (and Bagram, and the rest of the camps which have more or less successfully been kept out of the public eye) go straight to the sentence without any of the trial. That should be repugnant to anyone. If you think someone is a murdering terrorist, prove it in a credible court and no-one will quibble. If you ditch all due process and lock them up indefinitely, people should rightly argue against that. If they don't, then what argument do they have against the indefinite detention (without trial or charge) of, say, alleged drug dealers, alleged paedophiles, alleged money launderers? All of those miscreants (ab)use the freedoms and rights of civil societies to do things which, if unchecked would ultimately destroy them.

As far as coercion goes; again, there isn't an easy answer - but I ask you this: for how long can you 'coerce' information out of someone and still get useful data? It's clear to me that within a couple of months at the outside, any *operational* data you beat out of a terrorist suspect will be out of date and useless. If you 'coerce' someone for long enough, sure - you'll get a confession out of them. They'll tell you they *are* Saddam Hussein, or Elvis, or anyone. All moral considerations aside, it's of no practical use.

Dave, I have more respect for your views that I did when I read the original post and comments, so thank you for your measured response... but I suspect we're going to have to agree to disagree on a lot of this.

[Dave E.]

Cuirthe-Thanks for your comments. Yes, I think we will have to agree to disagree. You bring up some good points, though I view them from a very different perspective than yours. Your comments are welcome and if I get the time and energy to lay out my positions in more detail in future posts I look forward to getting your perspective.