THE PROGRESS REPORT -- Meet the Facts --Bush's IRAQ Aggression Credibility Gap Grows
americanprogress.org
IRAQ
Where Was the Media?
In the wake of the David Kay report, in which the weapons inspector punctured the myth that Iraq possessed WMD before the war, the country has been grappling with the question, if the Administration had been straight about the information they possessed at the time, would the nation still have supported war in Iraq? And where was the media, the group that's supposed to act as watchdog? According to the recent New York Review of Books, the Fourth Estate shares some of the blame in not exposing the White House's "pre-war failings on Iraq." According to the article, "beginning in the summer of 2002, the 'intelligence community' was [torn] by bitter disputes over how Bush officials were using the data on Iraq. Many journalists knew about this, yet few chose to write about it." The media learned that if they dissented from the White House line, they were subsequently "shut out." "Reflecting this, the coverage was highly deferential to the White House. This was especially apparent on the issue of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction—the heart of the President's case for war. Despite abundant evidence of the Administration's brazen misuse of intelligence in this matter, the press repeatedly let officials get away with it." This article is a must read – check it out in its entirety here.
nybooks.com
"CACOPHANY" OF DISCORD: The press may have been cowed by the unified front presented by the White House thus far in the war, but according to the NYT, that uniform message is starting to crack. "Rather than uniform and disciplined," writes David Sanger, in recent days the answers of the Administration on Iraq questions "have been ad hoc and inconsistent."
nytimes.com
From Colin Powell admitting he wasn't sure he would have gone to war if he'd known there were no WMD to a combative Donald Rumsfeld, contrary to findings, still insisting the WMD exist in Iraq, the White House is on the defensive about the controversial war. "It's been a bit of a cacophony," one national security official at the White House acknowledged Friday.
RUMSFELD'S ARROGANCE: Donald Rumsfeld defended the case for war in Iraq to the international community Saturday, "nearly shouting" at European allies at a time when the Administration should be bolstering international support for the reconstruction efforts. Rumsfeld, in a "pugnacious" tone, said, "I know in my heart and my brain that America ain't what's wrong in the world." According to the WP, "some European participants said they were stunned by what they called Mr. Rumsfeld's arrogance,"
nytimes.com
especially in light of the apparent intelligence failures in Iraq. "His view is, `We're right, they're wrong, and we'll continue to be right,' said Christoph Bertram, director of the German Institute for International Politics and Security in Berlin. 'It was a performance of `We know better.' "
LESSON TO BE LEARNED: There is a vital lesson to be learned from one success in the war in Iraq: Containment works. According to an op-ed in today's NYT, "a decade of international import restrictions, United Nations arms inspections and United States military deterrence look far more effective than once thought." While "hardly a perfect tool," it has become increasingly apparent, "under the right conditions, [sanctions] offer American administrations an effective alternative to military force." Unfortunately, President Bush yesterday still claimed containment doesn't work. Others in the Administration, however, previously realized the success. Secretary of State Colin Powell said on 2/24/01 that Iraq was "contained" and that Saddam "threatens not the United States." On May 15, 2001, he repeated that, saying, "The sanctions, as they are called, have succeeded over the last 10 years." National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, who in pressing for war said Iraq was "armed with weapons of mass destruction," said on 7/29/01, "We are able to keep arms from [Saddam]. His military forces have not been rebuilt." Vice President Dick Cheney concurred on 9/16/01 saying that "Saddam Hussein is bottled up" – a confirmation of the intelligence he had received. (For more on the President's claims on Meet the Press appearance, read yesterday's Progress Report.)
NATO CONFLICTED: Officials Friday discussed the role of NATO in Iraq. The NYT reports, "for weeks, alliance officials have mulled the possibility of NATO taking charge of the international force that patrols south-central Iraq." However, no decision was made; NATO needs to fulfill commitments in Afghanistan, first. NATO's new secretary general, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, explained, "NATO's first priority is to get Afghanistan right. We have no choice." Far from being able to extend to Iraq, the WSJ reported last week that NATO is having a difficult time fulfilling its current pledges. "NATO's political commitment to succeed in Afghanistan often exceeds its ability to furnish personnel and equipment." The reality: "Recruitment has been hampered by a shortage of air-traffic controllers, salary concerns, time-consuming training -- and wariness about working in a recent war zone." |
