June 11, 2003

Lies, Lies, Lies, Yeah!

The failure of Coalition forces to locate any Weapons of Mass Destruction has helped give birth to a new article of faith for many opposed to President Bush: there never were any WMDs, and the President knowingly lied about their existence to fuel support for the war. A number of other bloggers have already explained why this is unlikely.

If it was already common knowledge that Iraq had no WMDs, why didn't anyone say so before the war? The French did almost everything in their power to prevent the war, yet they never suggested that Iraq didn't have any WMDs. The debate prior to the war focused on the question of what should be done about the WMDs, not whether or not they existed. So if President Bush actually knew that Iraq didn't have any WMDs, it was a tremendous intelligence coup, as the rest of the world believed Iraq actually possessed WMDs.

If we do accept the idea that the President lied about such a major issue, that raises the obvious question of why? There were numerous reasons to support a war, (most of which were cited by the White House at some point), from the humanitarian issues to Iraq's support of terrorism. Were WMDs so crucial to the argument that the President couldn't win support without them? Hardly. If the President had known in advance that Iraq had no WMDs, why wouldn't he focus the WMD question on the truth; that Iraq not only had WMDs in the past, but that they had used them, that they had shown no signs of stopping their pursuit of WMDs, therefore we had to attack before they acquired some? That was the primary argument regarding nuclear weapons after all.

And if the President did believe that he had to lie about WMDs, why wouldn't he arrange some evidence to prove his case? If he was willing to lie about their existence in the first place, planting evidence seems a small next step. Instead, what we've seen thus far seems to vindicate what's already been said. The United States had reason to believe that Hussein was working on WMDs, and that he probably still possessed those he was known to have after the first Gulf War. It now appears that Hussein either was able to hide or transfer those weapons to Syria before the war, or that he didn’t have any at all. In the first case, then the President didn’t lie, he simply failed to act quickly enough. In the second, it’s possible the President lied, but one does have to wonder why he didn’t do something to ensure his lie wouldn’t be easily discovered.

What is really frustrating about the hysteria regarding the President’s ‘lies’ is that it is distracting attention from a serious issue. If the President did lie in order to gain support for a war, then we have a true scandal on the scale of Watergate, not the Whitewater/Iran-Contra wanna-bes that have stood in for Watergate in the 1980s and 1990s. If the President didn’t lie, it raises some very important questions about our intelligence-gathering services, questions that deserve serious scrutiny. Yet these questions are being successfully laid aside by the secrecy-minded Bush Administration, in part because of the ridiculous assertions being made by foes of the administration.

The fact no WMDs have yet been found does not prove that President Bush lied about Iraq’s WMDs. No matter how loud it’s shouted, it’s still not proof. It’s certainly odd, and it raises some very interesting questions. But it’s not proof of lies. Claiming that it is does nothing to advance the argument.

UPDATE (6/13/03): Jim Henley, hopefully inadvertently, has an impressive array of mistaken assumptions about this post that I'll try to clear up.

First, nowhere here do I say that it's impossible that the Administration lied, nor have I said that it's impossible that they could have. Jim is either deliberately misrepresenting my case on the assumption most of his readers will take him at his word, or he didn't bother to really read the piece.

Second, my restatement of the 'big lie' doesn't cover every version, and perhaps I should have made that clear. But Jim's assertion that my version is inaccurate is, itself, incorrect. While Jim may not subscribe to that version, there are some anti-war and anti-Bush ranters who've said just that. In either case, since I don't go into the question of if there ever were WMDs, it's not relevant to the argument.

Third, Jim ignores the thrust of my question regarding intelligence. Instead he 'restates' my argument to suggest I was arguing something different to prove a different point. An impressive minuet. Let's try again. France, as one example, was strongly opposed to the war. If Iraq's WMDs had all been destroyed prior to the war, it doesn't seem unreasonable that some intelligence services might have been aware of that, and might have argued that point in an attempt to forestall the war. It's not proof, but it's certainly a valid question, and it raises the question I'm more concerned about: were the WMDs already gone before the United States invaded, are they still hidden somewhere in Iraq, or have they been transported elsewhere? The fact that no intelligence service that we know of was arguing the weapons didn't exist suggests that one of the latter two is correct. I think Jim might even deign to agree with me that it's important we find out the truth about the WMDs.

Fourth, I'll readily concede Jim may have a point. For me, WMDs were not crucial to the case for war. However, it may well be correct that the WMDs were the deal-maker for the American public. Therefore, there may have been greater incentive for the Administration to lie than I had considered above.

Fifth, again Jim has a point. I find it difficult to believe the Administration would lie on such a big issue, but perhaps that's idealism rather than reality. Most Administrations have gotten away with lying over the past quarter-century, so I suppose there's not all that much stigma to hold back this Administration. That does raise the question of planting evidence, though; if they don't care about lying, then as I pointed out above, why not go the distance and 'prove' your case with some carefully placed evidence?

Sixth, Jim closes with a gratuitous dig about my deciding which criticisms are 'reasonable,' as if he is somehow above this plebian habit. Please. We all have to make judgement calls regarding the information we get every day. Or is Jim telling us that he spends just as much time addressing the question of whether or not aliens are controlling the Administration as he does wondering if or how the Administration lied to gain support for the war? Of course not, because Jim would no doubt tell us that the former claim is unreasonable. We have a finite amount of time to spend, and determining which issues we'll address and which we'll ignore is a vital part of life. Jim may disagree with me about what I choose to address, but snide comments hardly constitute an argument.

So let me sum up; I don't know if the Administration lied about Iraq or not. And neither do you. The absence of WMDs does not prove that the Administration lied. However, I do think that the question of whether or not the Administration lied is very important, and that it bears further scrutiny and discussion. That argument is not served by claiming things which are untrue.

UPDATE (6/13/03): As I should have known from the start, Jim's misinterpretation of my post was just that, a misinterpretation. Befitting a classy blogger, he's posted a clarification, for which I'm grateful. Jim demonstrates, in my opinion, a much better way to react than I did above, as I should have been more judicious with my language in responding.

Posted at 09:47 PM | Politics | TrackBack (0)