NYT Editorial: Mr. Bush's Version

[dw]

Published: February 9, 2004 in The New York Times

...snip...

Yesterday, in an interview with NBC's Tim Russert, after a week in which it became obvious to most Americans that the justifications for the war were based on flawed intelligence, Mr. Bush offered his reflections, and they were far from reassuring. The only clarity in the president's vision appears to be his own perfect sense of self-justification.

Right now, the questions average Americans are asking about Iraq seem much clearer than the ones Mr. Bush is willing to confront. People want to know why American intelligence was so wrong about the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Mr. Bush didn't have a consistent position on this pivotal issue. At some points during his Oval Office interview, he seemed to be admitting that he had been completely wrong when he told the public just before the war started that the intelligence left "no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." At other moments he suggested the weapons might still be hidden somewhere, or that they may have been transported to another country. At times he depicted himself as having been misled by intelligence reports. But he insisted that George Tenet, the director of central intelligence, was doing a good job and deserved to keep his job.

...snip...

Mr. Bush's explanation of how he reconciled the current activities in Iraq with his 2000 campaign rejection of "nation building" was simply silly. (American troops are building a nation in Iraq, he said, but they are also "fighting a war so that they can build a nation.") And it's very hard to take seriously Mr. Bush's contention that he was not surprised by the intensity of the resistance in Iraq.

The president was doing far more yesterday than rolling out the administration's spin for the next campaign. He was demonstrating how he is likely to think if confronted with a similar crisis in the future. The fuzziness and inconsistency of his comments suggest he is still relying on his own moral absolutism, that in a dangerous world the critical thing is to act decisively, and worry about connecting the dots later.

MORE

[aquart]

1. So, you think the MTP interview tanked?

Like every other damn thing this monster tries?

[pfitz59]

2. You bet it tanked!

Watch as the rats start jumping ship in the coming months. the new dem Pres must hold open hearings on ALL circumstances surrounding 9/11 and the Iraq War. The BFEE must pay!

[Manix]

5. ...in a brief swing thru the conservo press they seem quiet,suspect

this means not impressed, otherwise they would be hollering.

[KT2000]

3. Another thing he did

was to say that other countries also believed they had WMD's. Reporters have been taking this at face value.
But....Most other countries look to the US for interpretations of the intelligence.

[praxiz]

7. Actually ..

.. some other countries believed the U.S. (not a lot - most saw all of this "intelligence" as either unimportant or half-truths or just fabrications), but their belief was what is called the fruit of a rotten tree (I think that's what it's called) and so the gullibility of others can obviously not be used to defend this administration.

That would be like saying "Hey, we lied and they believed us. That means we lied SO well we deserve credit for it, and should be let off the hook."

Some feel the CIA is to blame, some feel the Bush administration handpicked and creatively interpreted the intelligence to serve their own agenda. I agree with both of them.

[kskiska]

4. All his "fuzziness and inconsistencies"

were out there for all to see – way back during the 2000 debates. No one seemed to care then. Al Gore pointed them out, but the media wasn't interested. It was better they thought, to have a president the average Joe could sit down and have a beer with. It sure doesn't sound as though the NYT is about to endorse * for re-election.

[Snappy]

6. A turn around.

The Media could do a turn around and start subtley supporting the Neo Fascists but for now they smell the blood in the water that is dripping from Dubya the Dunce. As most sharks do they will probably start circling and taking bites.

This is the time for the Dems to come on full out in offense and relentless and cut into the rotting flesh of the Neo Fascists. This is war on home front to take back America.

[ixion]

8. wow... that last line is powerful...

Some of Mr. Bush's comments yesterday raise questions even more disturbing than the idea that senior administration members might have misled the nation about the intelligence on Iraq. The nation obviously needs a leader who is always alert to the threat of terrorism from abroad. But it cannot afford to have one who responds to the trauma of 9/11 by overreacting to the possibility of danger. In the coming campaign, Mr. Bush, who described himself as a "war president," is going to have to show the country that he is capable of distinguishing real threats from false alarms, and has the courage to tell the nation the truth about something as profound as war. Nothing in the interview offered much hope in that direction.




Is the NY Times being reborn into a real newspaper? I certainly hope so.

[Brotherjohn]

10. John Kerry should memorize this part:

"The nation obviously needs a leader who is always alert to the threat of terrorism from abroad. But it cannot afford to have one who responds to the trauma of 9/11 by overreacting to the possibility of danger."

That is exactly what I thought with all the talk about making decisions "with war on my mind". That about says it all.

[donhakman]

11. Its better than TV

[Jack Rabbit]

9. The Times editorial is scathing, but still too kind

(A)fter a week in which it became obvious to most Americans that the justifications for the war were based on flawed intelligence, Mr. Bush offered his reflections, and they were far from reassuring.

The intelligence was not flawed. It was cooked. Russert did not address that in any of his questions to Mr. Bush, nor does the Times in this piece.

The reason that the intelligence reports showed that Saddam had WMDs is because that is what the policymakers told them to report. The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace made a study of the intelligence leading up to the invasion and noted a "dramatic shift" in intelligence reports prior to and following October 2002, suggesting (but not proving) that the intelligence community was unduly influenced by policymakers' views. We also know that the Pentagon set up the Office of Special Planning for the purpose of cherry picking intelligence reports to emphasize those elements that supported the case for the invasion and disregard those that did not.

Information was available to the public that contradicted the Administration's claims. Scott Ritter, the former chief UN weapons inspector and no leftwing kook, stated that when inspectors left Iraq in December 1998, Iraq's weapons program was almost completely destroyed. Just prior to the invasion, it was revealed that General Hussein Kamel told UN weapons inspectors that he had ordered Iraq's chemical weapons destroyed. During the period from December 2002 until a few days before the invasion, UN weapons inspectors again went to work in Iraq and found only some missiles that flew too far under ideal conditions as the only arguable instance of Iraqi noncompliance with directions to disarm. In addition, all reports of meetings between al Qaida operative and Iraqi intelligence agents were debunked.

The Administration, from Bush down, lied and lied deliberately. They knew that Saddam was a paper tiger who had no association with al Qaida, yet kept repeating claims to the contrary and couldn't use Saddam's name in a sentence without also mentioning September 11.

Those of us who were paying attention and getting news and information from respectable foreign sources and some non-mainstream sources in the US demonstrated against the invasion as informed citizens. We were right. We will not now allow Bush to continue to lie without challenging his facts.