Conghaileach
20th November 2002, 17:56
Good reasons aren't enough for Bush
Foolish exaggerations on Iraq merely feed paranoia of the antiwar camp
Opinion
Richard Cohen
Appearing on the Dick Cavett Show back in 1980, Mary McCarthy said of
her fellow writer Lillian Hellman: "Every word she writes is a lie,
including 'and' and 'the'." The same cannot yet be said about George
W. Bush and his administration - but it has not been around as long as
Hellman was and is not nearly as creative.
Evidence is accumulating, though, that neither Bush nor his
colleagues are particularly punctilious about the truth. For good
reason, they sorely want a war with Iraq - but good reasons are not,
it seems, good enough for this administration. Instead, both the
president and his aides have exaggerated the Iraqi threat, creating
links and evidence where they do not exist. Even before this war
starts, its first victim has been truth. Take Bush's assertion that
there is a link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. If there is, it
is tenuous and coincidental. The senior al Qaeda official Bush said
was in Baghdad seems not to be there anymore - and it's not clear
whether Hussein and his guys knew he was there in the first place. As
for any link between the terrorist attacks of September 11 and Hussein
- maybe none exists.
But in Bush's telling, all qualifications disappear. In speaking
about Hussein this month, Bush said, "This is a man who we know has
had connections with al Qaeda. This is a man who, in my judgment,
would like to use al Qaeda as a forward army." Maybe in his judgment
- but not in anyone else's. Similarly, Bush appears to be alone in
thinking that Iraq has a growing fleet of unmanned aircraft that could
be used "for missions targeting the United States." The CIA indicates
Iraq may have such aircraft, but their range is another matter.
In all likelihood, Baghdad has nothing - no plane, no missile, no
box kite - capable of reaching the United States. Bush also has said
that Iraq was "six months away from developing" a nuclear weapon. This
is news to every expert I've talked to or read about. It is just not
the case. Iraq is believed to be as many as five years away from
developing a bomb. Administration officials and their key allies
outside government continue to claim that a meeting took place in
Prague between Mohamed Atta, the supposed leader of the September 11
terrorists, and an Iraqi intelligence official. But no evidence of
that meeting exists - not that the White House acknowledges that.
What's disturbing about these exaggerations is that they fertilize
the growing paranoia of what must now be called the antiwar movement.
Not since the Vietnam era have we seen the vilification of a president
as a scoundrel and a liar - not to mention a fool. In caricature, Bush
is as dumb as Lyndon Johnson was ghoulish.
Equally disturbing, we are beginning to realize that Bush's
campaign tactics in the Republican primaries against Sen. John McCain
were not an aberration. When Bush's allies and minions in New York
distorted McCain's position on breast cancer research and attacked him
in personal terms in South Carolina, we got a first peek at Bush's
willingness to tolerate almost any tactic on his way to a goal.
Bush's remarks are sometimes characterized as off the cuff and not to
be taken literally. But some of his not-so-precise statements were
made in speeches - and I don't see why precision is not required in
all cases. All the president is doing is weakening his own arguments.
If Americans are going to die in Iraq, then the reasons for war
cannot be embellished. The majority of Americans who believe there is
a hard link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda are going to feel
betrayed when they find out afterward that no such relationship
existed.
A case for war exists. A case for exaggerating it does not.
The Guardian Weekly 31-10-2002
Foolish exaggerations on Iraq merely feed paranoia of the antiwar camp
Opinion
Richard Cohen
Appearing on the Dick Cavett Show back in 1980, Mary McCarthy said of
her fellow writer Lillian Hellman: "Every word she writes is a lie,
including 'and' and 'the'." The same cannot yet be said about George
W. Bush and his administration - but it has not been around as long as
Hellman was and is not nearly as creative.
Evidence is accumulating, though, that neither Bush nor his
colleagues are particularly punctilious about the truth. For good
reason, they sorely want a war with Iraq - but good reasons are not,
it seems, good enough for this administration. Instead, both the
president and his aides have exaggerated the Iraqi threat, creating
links and evidence where they do not exist. Even before this war
starts, its first victim has been truth. Take Bush's assertion that
there is a link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. If there is, it
is tenuous and coincidental. The senior al Qaeda official Bush said
was in Baghdad seems not to be there anymore - and it's not clear
whether Hussein and his guys knew he was there in the first place. As
for any link between the terrorist attacks of September 11 and Hussein
- maybe none exists.
But in Bush's telling, all qualifications disappear. In speaking
about Hussein this month, Bush said, "This is a man who we know has
had connections with al Qaeda. This is a man who, in my judgment,
would like to use al Qaeda as a forward army." Maybe in his judgment
- but not in anyone else's. Similarly, Bush appears to be alone in
thinking that Iraq has a growing fleet of unmanned aircraft that could
be used "for missions targeting the United States." The CIA indicates
Iraq may have such aircraft, but their range is another matter.
In all likelihood, Baghdad has nothing - no plane, no missile, no
box kite - capable of reaching the United States. Bush also has said
that Iraq was "six months away from developing" a nuclear weapon. This
is news to every expert I've talked to or read about. It is just not
the case. Iraq is believed to be as many as five years away from
developing a bomb. Administration officials and their key allies
outside government continue to claim that a meeting took place in
Prague between Mohamed Atta, the supposed leader of the September 11
terrorists, and an Iraqi intelligence official. But no evidence of
that meeting exists - not that the White House acknowledges that.
What's disturbing about these exaggerations is that they fertilize
the growing paranoia of what must now be called the antiwar movement.
Not since the Vietnam era have we seen the vilification of a president
as a scoundrel and a liar - not to mention a fool. In caricature, Bush
is as dumb as Lyndon Johnson was ghoulish.
Equally disturbing, we are beginning to realize that Bush's
campaign tactics in the Republican primaries against Sen. John McCain
were not an aberration. When Bush's allies and minions in New York
distorted McCain's position on breast cancer research and attacked him
in personal terms in South Carolina, we got a first peek at Bush's
willingness to tolerate almost any tactic on his way to a goal.
Bush's remarks are sometimes characterized as off the cuff and not to
be taken literally. But some of his not-so-precise statements were
made in speeches - and I don't see why precision is not required in
all cases. All the president is doing is weakening his own arguments.
If Americans are going to die in Iraq, then the reasons for war
cannot be embellished. The majority of Americans who believe there is
a hard link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda are going to feel
betrayed when they find out afterward that no such relationship
existed.
A case for war exists. A case for exaggerating it does not.
The Guardian Weekly 31-10-2002