Who Is Lying About Iraq?

CommentaryMagazine ^ | 11-07-2005 | Norman Podhoretz

[KJC1]

Among the many distortions, misrepresentations, and outright falsifications that have emerged from the debate over Iraq, one in particular stands out above all others. This is the charge that George W. Bush misled us into an immoral and/or unnecessary war in Iraq by telling a series of lies that have now been definitively exposed.

What makes this charge so special is the amazing success it has enjoyed in getting itself established as a self-evident truth even though it has been refuted and discredited over and over again by evidence and argument alike. In this it resembles nothing so much as those animated cartoon characters who, after being flattened, blown up, or pushed over a cliff, always spring back to life with their bodies perfectly intact. Perhaps, like those cartoon characters, this allegation simply cannot be killed off, no matter what.

Nevertheless, I want to take one more shot at exposing it for the lie that it itself really is. Although doing so will require going over ground that I and many others have covered before, I hope that revisiting this well-trodden terrain may also serve to refresh memories that have grown dim, to clarify thoughts that have grown confused, and to revive outrage that has grown commensurately dulled.

[Steve_Seattle]

"Now under these strong standards, I think the administration did tell some fibs in the run up to war. That's what administrations do."

At the very least, they assemble facts in such a way as to support their position and minimize the objections. And that's what most people do in everyday life. But regarding war and its justifications, I have read in liberal political journals that one reason Clinton intervened in Kosovo was to send a positive message to the Islamic world, but that motive was NEVER mentioned in public. War undertaken as a PR stunt to impress Muslims never would have flown with the public.

[petercooper]

We need Karen Hughes back in the White House.

[Steve_Seattle]

"What lie did the Bush administration tell to get us into Iraq."

I don't know if it's a lie, but I think they soft-pedalled the geo-political objectives, i.e., establishing democracy in the Middle East, and overstated the WMD angle. The WMD and UN resolution arguments were the legal rationale for the war, but I think the geopolitical objective was at least as prominent in their thinking, behind the scenes. But see my post #41 for an example of Clinton doing the same kind of thing.

[Steve_Seattle]

"not fighting back"

From the MSM glossary of political terms:

Smear Campaign: 1. Any effort by a Republican administration to respond to its critics.

[Rakkasan1]

bttt

[DK Zimmerman]

Have to disagree.

Polls are showing that the propaganda is working. More and more folks (sheeple) are buying the Dems' line of crap. If someone doesn't begin the labor intensive effort of reversing this trend and soon, 2006 will be awful and we might as well write off 2008.

[Cautor]

Thanks for posting this MUST READ piece.

The bit pasted below really could be read to suggest (as others have already pointed out here) that Wilson was/in cahoots with French intelligence as part of their effort to discredit efforts by the Bush administration. Someone really needs to get to the bottom of this and soon.

"More damning yet to Wilson, the Senate Intelligence Committee discovered that he had never laid eyes on the documents in question:

[Wilson] also told committee staff that he was the source of a Washington Post article . . . which said, “among the envoy’s conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because ‘the dates were wrong and the names were wrong.’” Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the “dates were wrong and the names were wrong” when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports."

[t2buckeye]

"...it resembles nothing so much as those animated cartoon characters who, after being flattened, blown up, or pushed over a cliff, always spring back to life with their bodies perfectly intact. Perhaps, like those cartoon characters, this allegation simply cannot be killed off, no matter what."

This is the BEST analogy I have read about these allegations! He is right ON!!

[t2buckeye]

Joseph Wilson caught again?
Surprise, surprise.

[BackInBlack]

Agreed.

[BackInBlack]

Each of you asked me to name a fib. Remember, I'm using a stronger standard than "saying something one knows to be false." I'm also including statements that one passes off as true when one really isn't sure that's the case, as well as technical truths that are meant to mislead. By these standards, the "16 words" was a fib. We really didn't have enough to go on to pass off that info as true. Sure, we said "British intelligence has learned..." thus making it a technical truth. But the intent was to convey an idea that we had not adequately supported. Now, I suspect Bush himself didn't realize that was a fib, but administration officials did, and they're the ones who put it in the speech.

And regarding the aluminum tubes, there was disagreement in the intelligence community on what those tubes were for, but the administration didn't say that.

As a third example, I'd note Ari Fleisher's assertion that Iraq was an imminent threat (a reporter asked him if those words applied, and he said "absolutely").

Please bear in mind that I supported the war ANYWAY. We didn't need any of those assertions to justify this war. And I think ALL administrations are guilty of little fibs of this nature to push their agenda. Is that wrong? I'm not sure; I'm inclined to like it when they're my guys and hate it when they're not. In any event, I'm just saying we should take off the rose-colored glasses: yes, the administration lied a little -- though not fundamentally -- and we still did the right thing.

[traderrob6]

"By these standards, the "16 words" was a fib. We really didn't have enough to go on to pass off that info as true. Sure, we said "British intelligence has learned..." thus making it a technical truth. But the intent was to convey an idea that we had not adequately supported. Now, I suspect Bush himself didn't realize that was a fib, but administration officials did, and they're the ones who put it in the speech."

Actually not. There was and still is compelling evidence that Iraq was actively pursuing the purchase of yellowcake Uranium in both Niger and the Congo. The Presidents statement was both "technically" and "essentially" correct.

[traderrob6]

"And regarding the aluminum tubes, there was disagreement in the intelligence community on what those tubes were for, but the administration didn't say that."

Most people in the intelligence community believed their likely use was for nukes. The President never stated emphatically by word or inference that was there purpose.

As far as the Ari Fleischer comment I can neither confirm nor refute that it happened. If he did indeed say that then he obviously misspoke because that most certainly was NOT the administrations position. The President was quite clear in pointing out that Iraq was not presently an imminent threat and he did not want to wait to act untill they were. I don't know how he could have made that any clearer.

[Roscoe Karns]

bump

[prairiebreeze]

ringy-pingy

You may want to save the entire text somewhere and keep it handy. Maybe add to your collection of links too.

[Fedora]

Thanks! :-)

[prairiebreeze]

Excellent reference material, ping.

[feefee]

good article

thanks for the ping, kj

[Peach]

Added to my links.

What I don't understand, and never will, is why the WH doesn't mention this stuff. Why doesn't the GOP make a commercial?

Some day conservatives are going to learn how to defend themselves. Because it gets old that we do a better job on FR defending the administration than the administration does for itself.

[Eva]

I disagree, the administration believed, as did most members of the Senate, both Democrat and Republican, that Saddam was building a system of WMDs and that he posed and increasing threat to the US, his own people, and the rest of the civilized world. That was not a lie.