Posted on 10/11/2003 12:46:46 PM PDT by dirtboy
For weeks now, to the point of annoyance, weve witnessed Democratic politicians and liberal media talking heads stating that the threat from Saddam wasnt imminent, as President Bush had claimed. Nancy Pelosi said it, as did Senators Levin and Rockefeller. The AP and Reuters have claimed it. Bob Edwards on NPR stated it as fact in a softball question to Terry McAuliffe during an NPR interview. By the time the Kay Report was made public, the NY Times felt the lie well-positioned enough to incorporate it into their opening front-page salvo against the evidence Kay presented:
Analysis: preliminary report delivered by David Kay, chief arms inspector in Iraq, forces Bush administration to come face to face with this reality: that nothing found so far backs up administration claims that Saddam Hussein posed imminent threat to world
However, anyone who gets their news from non-PIPA approved media outlets is well aware that Bush said nothing of the sort. As a refresher, here are Bushs actual comments from the 2003 State of the Union Address:
"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."
So why would the Dems so transparently alter Bushs clear meaning here? I initially chalked it up to their pathological tendency to play games with the truth, whether they need to or not. However, upon reflecting upon Charles Krauthammers brilliant analysis in his column WMDs in a Haystack, the purpose and timing of this lie and the need for the Dems to distort what Bush said becomes clear. From Krauthammer:
Ekeus theorizes that Hussein decided years ago that it was unwise to store mustard gas and other unstable and corrosive poisons in barrels, and also difficult to conceal them. Therefore, rather than store large stocks of weapons of mass destruction, he would adapt the program to retain an infrastructure (laboratories, equipment, trained scientists, detailed plans) that could "break out" and ramp up production when needed. The model is Japanese "just in time" manufacturing, where you save on inventory by making and delivering stuff in immediate response to orders. Except that Hussein's business was toxins, not Toyotas. (emphasis mine)
The Kay Report found the framework of an extensive chemical and biological weapons program, but no weapons themselves. Above and beyond the possibility that the finished weapons themselves are either still hidden or were shipped to another country such as Syria, the existence of this kind of program was both a vindication of the decision to invade and of Bushs postulation that we should not wait until the threat is imminent.
Hence the need to alter the debate and Bushs very words.
By shifting the debate to a position where the threat from Saddam was stated by Bush as imminent, the Dems basically are attempting to make the just-in-time manufacturing approach from Saddam irrelevant to the case against him, and the Kay Report, instead of being a justification for the war, instead becomes damnation of Bush and more evidence that Bush lied to get us into war.
But the timing is rather interesting the Dems started lying about this well before the Kay Report went public. How could they have been aware of the need to engage in damage control over the Kay Report and lay the groundwork of widespread lying before the report came out?
I believe that the answer lies in Kays initial Senate briefing on his findings that happened in late July. Kay made it clear that Saddam had engaged in an extensive deception campaign to hide his WMD programs. I would also speculate that Kay confided to the Senators present that he had found programs but no weapons. It is my belief that at least one Dem Senator, seeing the problems that Kays findings would present to their attacks on Bush, saw the need to change Bushs position regarding the threat from Saddam, hence the sudden barrage of claims from the Dems that Bush stated the threat from Saddam was imminent.
If this is the case, a Dem Senator took a classified briefing and used it for purely political purposes. It would be very interesting to track this lie back in time and see when it went into widespread Dem use.
But he did, according to the NY Times school of editing quotes (Maureen Dowd, chairperson emeritus). Bush said this in that October 7th speech:
Later this week, the United States Congress will vote on this matter. I have asked Congress to authorize the use of America's military, if it proves necessary, to enforce U.N. Security Council demands. Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable. The resolution will tell the United Nations, and all nations, that America speaks with one voice and is determined to make the demands of the civilized world mean something. Congress will also be sending a message to the dictator in Iraq: that his only chance -- his only choice is full compliance, and the time remaining for that choice is limited.
Members of Congress are nearing an historic vote. I'm confident they will fully consider the facts, and their duties.
The attacks of September the 11th showed our country that vast oceans no longer protect us from danger. Before that tragic date, we had only hints of al Qaeda's plans and designs. Today in Iraq, we see a threat whose outlines are far more clearly defined, and whose consequences could be far more deadly.
Now, do a bit of judicious editing:
imminent ... ... ... ... ... ... threat
And then get rid of those annoying ellipses
imminent threat
And Bush said JUST THAT. So there, nanny nanny boo boo!
Graham started making noise right around last October, saying that we were ignoring Al Quaeda while we went after Iraq. At the time I thought that he had received intelligence information that we were probably going to be hit here in the US, and was trying to frame it like we were ignoring it, in order to hit Bush. I am almost posititve that Graham was the first to start in on the Iraq thing, because I got so incensed about it at the time.
the dems are too flippin stooopid to understand 'just-in-time' manufacturing process.
And, yes, the 'Rats have been quite obvious about seeking their opportunity to implant a lie. That Madison test had slipped my mind altogether.
Accordingly, the June 14 article from the NYT (Buckhead's #12) clearly resulted in the July 30 TV spot in Madison you found in #34.
We now know that the TV spot must've tested well among the party faithful (Madison being an appropriate test site for this determination). So, the approach was thenceforth adapted by the Democrat pols. Meanwhile, the DNC fax machines went into full bombardment mode -- and the media had their marching orders.
This thread belongs with wolfstar's "Anatomy of a Lie", which dealt with the Wilson/Plame affair. And, given that these two affairs have proceeded separately, but at the same time, we might even suspect that they are a.) related and b.) coordinated.
No problem, it was good getting the additional info from the Krugman police.
I found a June column on Bush lied about imminent threat from June 12, 2003 by Joshua Micah Marshall, whoever he is. http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/001174.html
He just SOUNDS like a pinko.
So, it looks like this started w/ loony left columnists in the June time frame, and became an official DNC talking point in July after the administration backpedaled on the claim the Iraqis sought uranium in Africa.
That sounds about right - you had the erroneous info reported just after Bush's SOTU, that probably bounced around in the left-wing blogsphere for awhile and then Krugman ran with it (as he never fact-checks anyway) - the Dems tried to exploit it as part of the yellowcake story and then it kinda sat dormnant for awhile until the Kay Report came along and had to be defused, and it's been all over the place since. The gall of the NY Times to run the lie in the very first paragraph of the story shows just how scared they are of that report and its political implications. Usually they bury the lies a bit further down the page.
But what we're seeing is, IMO, far more interesting - the patterns of how a lie develops in the left wing and how it can be re-used in a concerted manner when necessary. And they also use the media rather than say this stuff extensively themselves. Note that the media is saying that Bush claimed the threat was imminent while the politicians for the most part say only that the threat wasn't imminent.
Au contrare, what we've seen on this threat is that they are quite adept at just-in-time manufacturing of lies...
And how they are willing to test market a blatent lie in full public view, knowing they won't be called on it by the mainstream media.
We caught the Madison test, of course. And dismissed it, as I recall, because it was so obvious a lie. Therefore, we thought, doomed to fail. But we reckoned without a.) the willingness of the DNC to openly lie, b.) the readiness of the media to propagate a blatent lie and c.) the eagerness with which the Democrat base bought into the lie.
There is another important lesson in that...
Buckhead: great followup.
Diggin' the dirt is what makes this place A#1.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.