'You Lied to Us'

New York Times ^ | 6/02/03 | William Safire

[kattracks]

ASHINGTON

Quick — what was the biggest intelligence misjudgment of Gulf War II?

It was the nearly unanimous opinion of the intelligence community, backed by the U.S. and British military, that the 50,000 elite soldiers of Saddam's well-trained, well-equipped Special Republican Guard would put up a fierce battle for Baghdad.

Our military plan was based on this cautious assessment. That presumption of a bloody, last-ditch defense was also the basis for objections to the war: in street fighting, opponents argued, coalition casualties would be horrific, and tens of thousands of civilians would be sacrificed.

Happily, our best assessment was mistaken. Saddam's supposed diehards cut and ran. Though Baghdad's power and water were cut off, civilians were spared and our losses were even fewer than in Gulf War I.

What if our planners had believed Kurdish leaders who predicted that Saddam's super-loyalists would quickly collapse? We would have sent fewer combat troops and more engineers, civilian administrators and military police. But the C.I.A. and the Pentagon had no way of being certain that the information about the Republican Guard's poor morale and weak discipline provided by Kurds and Iraqi opposition leaders was accurate.

With thousands of lives at stake, optimism was not an option. Sensibly, we based our strategy on the greater likelihood of fierce resistance. That decision was as right when made as it was mistaken in retrospect.

Turn now to the charge heard ever more stridently that U.S. and British leaders, in their eagerness to overthrow Saddam and to turn the tide of terror in the Middle East, "hyped" the intelligence that Iraq possessed germ and poison-gas weapons.

"Hype" means "exaggerate." As used by those who were prepared to let Saddam remain in power, it is prelude to a harsh accusation: "You lied to us. You pretended to have evidence that you never had; you twisted dubious intelligence to suit your imperialistic ends, so we were morally right and you were morally wrong."

Never mind the mass graves now being unearthed of an estimated 300,000 victims, which together with the million deaths in his wars make Saddam the biggest mass murderer of Muslims in all history. Never mind his undisputed financing of suicide bombers and harboring of terrorists, from Al Qaeda's Abu Musaab al-Zarqawi to the veteran killer Abu Nidal (the only "suicide" with three bullets in his head, dispatched in Baghdad probably because he knew too much.)

And never mind our discovery of two mobile laboratories designed to produce biological and chemical agents capable of causing mass hysteria and death in any city in the world. Future discoveries will be dismissed as "dual use" or planted by us.

No; the opponents of this genocidal maniac's removal now accuse President Bush and Prime Minister Blair of a colossal hoax. Because Saddam didn't use germs or gas on our troops, they say, that proves Iraq never had them. If we cannot find them right away, they don't exist. They believe Saddam sacrificed tens of billions in oil revenues for no reason at all.

A strong majority of Americans believe he did have a dangerous program running, as he did before. Long before the C.I.A. dispatched agents to northern Iraq, Kurdish sources were quoted in this space about terrorist operations of Ansar al-Islam, whose 600 members included about 150 "Afghan Arabs" trained by Al Qaeda; after our belated bombing, some escaped to Iran.

As reassured Iraqi technicians and nurses come forward and as Baathist war criminals seek to save their skins, we will learn much more about Saddam's terrorist connections and his weaponry. It took seven years to catch the Olympic bombing suspect in North Carolina and 18 years to catch the Unabomber; the location of Saddam and Osama bin Laden won't remain a mystery forever.

In the meantime, as the crowd that bitterly resents America's mission to root out the sources of terror whips up its intelligence-hoax hype, remember the wise "mistake" we made in overestimating the fighting spirit of Saddam's uniformed bully-boys.

When weighing the murky evidence of an aggressive tyranny's weapons, President Bush and Prime Minister Blair were obliged to take no chances. The burden on proof was on Saddam. By his contempt, he invited invasion; by its response, the coalition established the credibility of its resolve. There was no "intelligence hoax." 

[poet]

"There was no "intelligence hoax."


Just thinking out loud:

Hmm, I seem to remember Sec Powell making a big deal of showing intelligence maps showing movement of trucks and he made a big deal of holding up a vial to represent anthrax. Now if they had this great intelligence pinpointing movement of trucks, how come they haven't found wmds? Is it possible that we were lied to?

I think so. Is it possible that one of the reasons for invading Iraq was a personal payback by Bush to punish saddam for attempting to assassinate his father 10/11 years ago. They continue to call it a "war", but, as far as I'm concerned it is a "police action". If he were really serious about destroying terrorism, he should have invaded Iran, Saudi Arabia, North Korea as each of these countries fit Bush's criteria of an enemy, which is to say, any country that aids, abets and harbours terrorists. It was only after the "police action" commenced that they suddenly connected Iraq to terrorists. Very convenient to justify invading another country.

This is one registed independant voter who will not vote for him in '04 because of his obscene spending spree he's on and other reasons listed below.

The republicrats are "democrat lite" and I will not vote for either party. As for his tax "reduction", let's just see if they don't get us through the back door relative to increases in the fed gas tax and other "fees".

In any event, both parties continue to violate their sworn oaths to uphold the Constitution, to wit; passage of CFR, "patriot act" and the fatherland, oops, excuse me, the "homeland security act". These are the major reasons I will not vote for "Dem Lite".

BTW, after the second "warning" of impending attacks, I ignored every subsequent one. The best way to get more freedom restricting laws on the books is to frighten half your population into being insecure.

FReegards

[Waco]

The Times is giving lectures on lying. Well, la de diddle!!!

[Imal]

A well-written piece with which I tend to agree. However, I suspect neither Bush or Blair have really gambled their futures away here.

In the fullness of time, I believe we will see yet another coup by these two on this very topic.

I am a devoted student of strategery, and I am learning its ways by observing the ways of the Master of Strategery himself.

The accusations and derision of the Master by his opponents are not compatible with the reality of his many successes. Those who tend to misunderestimate the Master would be well advised to reexamine history and seek to understand his many teachings on the topic of strategery.

Enlightenment will follow.

"The secret, my friends, is strategery."

[Imal]

If he were really serious about destroying terrorism, he should have invaded Iran, Saudi Arabia, North Korea as each of these countries fit Bush's criteria of an enemy, which is to say, any country that aids, abets and harbours terrorists.

You can't honestly believe that Bush should have invaded all these countries in a grand campaign of global conquest. To even suggest such a thing is reckless and suspect. It does not indicate serious thought or opinion on the matter.

Bush is by no means perfect, and he'd be the first to tell you. But despite, and quite possibly because of misperceptions of him, he has managed to develop a very impressive resume as a master politician who accomplishes what he sets out to do.

Don't be fooled by the malapropisms and aw shucks demeanor of this man. With them, he has disarmed and defeated much more formidable opponents than either of us would ever want to face.

The pattern of people "misunderestimating" Bush, followed by subsequent shock at his successes, continues unabated. It just so happens that those who misjudge him both lack patience and insight, otherwise they would abandon the absurd treadmill upon which they run long ago.

And all the while they rail and complain against him, he quietly turns them to serve his purposes.

But that's impossible, right? After all, he's too stupid to win every time.

I hear that every time he wins, which happens to be very often, indeed.

Just ask the decimated and demoralized remnants of the Texas House of Representatives's Democratic caucus. They are so desparate and destitute that they have literally fled the state!

You might recall that the Democrats ran Texas with an iron fist before Dubya rode into town.

It bears repeating again and again: misunderestimate Bush at your peril!

[Brad C.]

Never mind the mass graves now being unearthed of an estimated 300,000 victims, which together with the million deaths in his wars make Saddam the biggest mass murderer of Muslims in all history.

Intersting how billy jeff sent our troops into Bosnia and Kosovo because of the "ethnic cleansing" that needed to be stopped. Yet the limited reporting from those countries, there have been few "mass" graves found and no were near the number of casualties.

[DB]

When a nuke goes off in a city near you, you can tell us all about it.

[Marie Antoinette]

These are the major reasons I will not vote for "Dem Lite". You'll vote for Dem heavy instead. Thanks. The DAmnocrat party thanks you for every non-Republican vote, every Libertarian vote, every Ross Perot vote, etc., and for not voting as well.

BTW, can you name a "perfect" conservative candidate for whom you will vote? That could actually get elected?

[KeyWest]

Naw, Poet will just blame Bush. There are people out there who just do not like Bush no matter what he does just as long as he is a man who professes his faith and lives it. If he gave up his faith and lived a lie, like Clinton, then all would be fine. This age does not like absolutes.

[PGalt]

Outstanding President. Terrific Administration.

[7thson]

MA, I agree with you. I regretfully admit I made that mistake back in 1992 when I voted for Perot. I was part of the 18 percent that put Clinton in office, I am ashamed to say. I have learned my lesson, at a terrible cost. I also believe that what poet states is just idiotic.

One thing I have learned over the years, is that no matter how perfect the conservative may be, once in office he or she will have to work with imperfect people. I got into an argument with a conservative some years back when talking about our federal government. We were arguing about getting the conservative message out. He kept on saying that we - the repubs - were in control of the Congress. I kept saying, if we are in control of the purse strings, how come my taxes still keep going up? With that in mind, there should be no way that the Dems should stop anything Bush wants done. They do it because Repubs are abetting them. So, even the perfect conservative has to deal with turncoats.

[TontoKowalski]

I am a devoted student of strategery, and I am learning its ways by observing the ways of the Master of Strategery himself.

If this plays out according to form, the Democratic candidates for President will soon flood the airwaves with denunciations of the administration for lying to the public, and reiterating their concerns that the war was not justified, and complaining how we've soiled our image in the eyes of the world, and boasting that the UN was right.

And then, the evidence of WMD will be produced.

Seriously, there have been some hints that hard evidence exists. I personally believe that State is holding back its release, as it implicates our "Friends" in Iraq's weapons programs. But that's just speculation.

[DB]

I wasn't refering to the Iraqis.

[Elkiejg]

It bears repeating again and again: misunderestimate Bush at your peril!

(If I had a dime for every time Bush's critics were right about him, I'd need to borrow a dime.)

Excellent analysis! Love your tag line!

[trebb]

I can't help but wonder how the conspiracy-theory folks explain Saddam's motives for being deposed. If he didn't have the WMD, all he had to do was grant free access and be helpful to the inspectors and we would have had to rethink our reasons for going in. If he had done this, it is likely he would still be in power today. I would really like to see a rational line of thought on how he could have been so stupid...