Whose Manipulating What?
This article with the expectation setting headline "Report Says Pentagon Manipulated Intel" actually has very little to say about intel being manipulated. The headline gives one ("one" being "me") the distinct impression that the Dems have finally proven that the Bush administration lied about something leading up to the toppling of Saddam. I'm sure Air America was given the same hopeful expectation. Poor, Air America, yet another disappointment. Let's refresh the long-time readers of H-Blog (Hi UBlo's Mom!) as to what the Bush administration did claim leading up to the Iraq war. They said that there were "links" between Saddam's regime and Al Qaeda and international terrorists. And guess what? There WERE "links" between Saddam's regime and Al Qaeda and international terrorists. It is well documented that agents of the Saddam regime had meetings with Al Qaeda members and that Iraq hosted terrorist training camps prior to the US invastion.
Somehow the media reports of this assertion changed this claim to "There are links between Saddam and 9/11". This may be a subtle point, but that was never claimed. The logic may follow for some that if Saddam had links to Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda attacked the US on 9/11 then Saddam had links to 9/11. However, that was never explicitly asserted by the Bush administration. That's because there is no intel proving a link between Saddam and the operation that brought down the twin towers. Saddam clearly gave aid and comfort to our enemies, but it is not clear if he actually participated in the attack. Of course, wondering if he may have is a perfectly reasonable thing to do given the facts.
It's well past time for thoughtful participants of the "why did we invade Iraq" debate to move past the strawman invented by the left who said Iraq attacked us on 9/11. Saddam was in violation of the sanctions impossed upon him after the Gulf War (this is why the UN security council passed resolution 1441 which mentioned "serious consequences" if Iraq did not change its ways) and Saddam was aiding "terrorists" (granted a very broad term and one that more often covers enemies of Isreal instead of enemies of the US...if there is a diffence). I think it is perfectly fair to question the decision to invade Iraq as there may have been other valid options available to us. However, it is completely irresponsible to charge the Bush administration or the intelligence community or the media of having "deceived us" into war.
Posts
5 comments:
I actually think you missed the "bias" here. I kept reading for some verification of the "Manipulated Intel" part, but could only really find, "The report found that former Pentagon policy chief Douglas J. Feith had not engaged in illegal activities through the creation of special offices to review intelligence." Not real exciting, maybe the full report had more detail. Levin certainly had his take, but he's hardly "unbiased."
But I didn't expect anything along the lines of proof that W "lied" from the title. More that the Pentagon made some big errors, maybe intentional. If anything, had the article laid out "manipulation" it could have helped W by showing that he relied on bad info (unless the article said that W pressured them into bad intel).
As far as the reasons, I remember WMD, imminent threat, "smoking gun being a mushroom cloud over NYC," yellow cake, aluminum tubes, etc. The UN thing never seemed to be a big reason. In fact, I think its a really poor reason, especially coming from the right because they HATE the UN. Like your posts which generally blast it as useless, borderline immoral, etc. How can you support W if his sole, or even main reason was going to war because of UN rules? If that were really the case, I would have expected a passionate debate against the war from you, "putting US soldiers in danger because of UN resolutions is wrong," etc. I'm sorry but this "We went to war because Saddam violated UN sanctions" thing feels like holding on the last straw in a batch of reasons that were definitely, or may have been patently wrong.
As far as the Saddam-9/11 link, as recently as last year (I think - not my post so you don't get my normal stellar research) something like 65% of Americans and 80% of our soldiers believed that Saddam was responsible for 9/11 and that's why we're there. So while the White House never specifically made the claim, they certainly benefited from it, used it, and never made a real effort to correct this incorrect perception. The way I see it, if you use the deception to get your way, you can't really complain when it comes back to bite you.
The left has always equated the "pentagon" and the "military industrial complex" as an extension of the hawks in power. From that viewpoint, trumpeting manipulation by the pentagon is trumpeting manipulation by the White House. Part of me wants to conclude that that type of analysis an anachronistic, but I can't come up with any other explanation for the irrational conclussions drawn by the left regarding the war.
The reason why UN resolution 1441 is so important is because it reduces the argument that this was an illegal war railroaded through by a blood-thirsty president to farce. Its the old, "even YOUR people agreed with us" argument.
I can't remember once reading an article or speaking with a right winger who believed Iraq attacked us on 9/11. Clearly, this is not to say that none did, but I'm rather skeptical about the poll numbers sited. Of course, I also don't know anyone concerned about the demise of Anna Nichole Smith and that seems to be the most important news story of our time so I guess I don't hang with the right crowd.
Now, if I claim that Muscles should take off his mask for his driver's license photo and support legislation saying so and you say, "yeah, I'll vote for that and I think it allows him to see through women's clothing too". Then if it turns out Muscles can't see through women's clothing somehow that should come back to bite me for using your misguided support to pass the bill? I don't think I get that.
Did a quick google search, I vouch for nothing here, just poll data. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm and for the military, http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075
I also found this interesting article from 2003 in The Christian Science Monitor (http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html)
"In the end, will it matter if some Americans have meshed together Sept. 11 and Iraq? If the US and its allies go to war against Iraq, and it goes well, then the Bush administration is likely not to face questions about the way it sold the war. But if war and its aftermath go badly, then the administration could be under fire.
"Going to war with improper public understanding is risky," says Richard Parker, a former US ambassador to several Mideast countries. "If it's a failure, and we get bogged down, this is one of the accusations that [Bush] will have to face when it's all over.""
Fast forward, and look what's going on. To get to your point, if you use my ignorance to get your way (this is especially more so if you play into it - which is one of the accusations against W using Saddam and 9/11 in the same sentence type stuff), good for you, but you have to expect anger when that same ignorance comes back against you. If your trying to sell me a car and I'm on the fence, but I start to think the car can fly, and I drone on and on about how great it will be to have a car that can fly, start go get real excited about the flying car you're selling me, and you do nothing, absolutely nothing to correct my misperception, I buy the car, it doesn't fly, I'm going to be mad. You may not be at fault, but I'm going to be mad none the less. Which is why a decent person moves to correct my misperception.
As you've said time and again, W has to "sell" the war. In selling he allowed, and possibly even nudged, a misperception that would help his cause. I don't recall any words coming from W in the prior 5 years that made any attempt to correct an obvious public misperception about Saddam and 9/11. Zero. Your big on telling the people the truth and letting them decide. Granted, there's a large other debate about the difference between telling a lie, and allowing one to be thought of as true. But in any case, public anger, right or wrong, one this should surprise no one.
But I want to be clear. I'm not saying W is evil for this. An overwhelming majority of people in the same situation, or even a very minor similar one (car sales for example) would have done exactly the same thing. My bet is that most everyone has been in a situation where you're trying to get something and another person is giving it to you, but they have some wrong impressions, and we let it ride. My point is about the resulting anger. Anyone of us, who did that, should not be at all surprised when the other person gets angry later. Period.
And here's the thing, if Clinton did the same thing that W did in this situation you be going ballistic right now, and so would I.
Refresh your memories. Beginning the winter after 9/11, there was a lot of chatter along these lines: If we--meaning the U.S.--were wrong about al-Qaida, what do we really know about Iraqi WMD, and to whom will those weapons go should Sadaam fall?
That more or less precipitated EVERYTHING that was done and said in support of the invasion, and we ultimately acted on the basis of what we didn't know and couldn't prove for ourselves without invading. Cheney and the Pentagon's civilian leadership-- despite a number of military and civilian analysts' doubts that were sadly under-reported--let Chalabi and his "eyewitnesses" play Chicken Little with the CIA, the State Department, and the New York Times, with the disasterous consequences we now face.
Intent or degree of intent to deceive is a sucker's game. Bottom line: We were, and continue to be, misled--most of us, including me, willingly, afraid to take a chance on a future of loose germs that is as inevitable as our next Iraq war.
I see UBlo's point but maintain that I think it is too strong. I'm afraid I don't agree that I would be balistic if Clinton were assited by a misunderstanding that he didn't foment. That is just too subjective for me.
I disagree (at my own peril) with Muscles that I have been misled into anything. My belief was and continues to be that each of the points used to justify war with Iraq were sufficient without the others. That one of them appears to have been false does not change anything.
I strongly agree that there is more war in our future in the middle east but I don't know who the named target will be. And all this fighting has been a forgone conclussion for some time. Nitpicking reasons is a sucker's game. The truth is that war was declared decades ago and we're just getting savvy.
Post a Comment