A Pause for Hindsight (Yet ANOTHER NYT Mea Culpa on the Iraq War)

New York Times ^ | 07/16/04 | New York Times

[conservative in nyc]

A Pause for Hindsight Published: July 16, 2004 ver the last few months, this page has repeatedly demanded that President Bush acknowledge the mistakes his administration made when it came to the war in Iraq, particularly its role in misleading the American people about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction and links with Al Qaeda. If we want Mr. Bush to be candid about his mistakes, we should be equally open about our own. During the run-up to the war, The Times ran dozens of editorials on Iraq, and our insistence that any invasion be backed by "broad international support" became a kind of mantra. It was the administration's failure to get that kind of consensus that ultimately led us to oppose the war. But we agreed with the president on one critical point: that Saddam Hussein was concealing a large weapons program that could pose a threat to the United States or its allies. We repeatedly urged the United Nations Security Council to join with Mr. Bush and force Iraq to disarm. As we've noted in several editorials since the fall of Baghdad, we were wrong about the weapons. And we should have been more aggressive in helping our readers understand that there was always a possibility that no large stockpiles existed. At the time, we believed that Saddam Hussein was hiding large quantities of chemical and biological weapons because we assumed that he would have behaved differently if he wasn't. If there were no weapons, we thought, Iraq would surely have cooperated fully with weapons inspectors to avoid the pain of years under an international embargo and, in the end, a war that it was certain to lose. That was a reasonable theory, one almost universally accepted in Washington and widely credited by diplomats all around the world. But it was only a theory. American intelligence had not received any on-the-ground reports from Iraq since the Clinton administration resorted to punitive airstrikes in 1998 and the U.N. weapons inspectors were withdrawn. The weapons inspectors who returned in 2002 found Iraq's records far from transparent, and their job was never made easy. But they did not find any evidence of new weapons programs or stocks of prohibited old ones. When American intelligence agencies began providing them tips on where to look, they came up empty. It may be that Saddam Hussein destroyed his stockpiles of banned weapons under the assumption that he could restart his program at a later date. His cat-and-mouse game with the weapons inspectors may have been the result of paranoia, or an attempt to flaunt his toughness before the Iraqi people. But we're not blaming ourselves for failing to understand the thought process of an unpredictable dictator. Even if we had been aware before the war of the total bankruptcy of the American intelligence estimates on Iraq, we could not have argued with any certainty that there were no chemical and biological weapons. But we do fault ourselves for failing to deconstruct the W.M.D. issue with the kind of thoroughness we directed at the question of a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, or even tax cuts in time of war. We did not listen carefully to the people who disagreed with us. Our certainty flowed from the fact that such an overwhelming majority of government officials, past and present, top intelligence officials and other experts were sure that the weapons were there. We had a groupthink of our own. By the time the nation was on the brink of war, we did conclude that whatever the risk of Iraq's weaponry, it was outweighed by the damage that could be done by a pre-emptive strike against a Middle Eastern nation that was carried out in the face of wide international opposition. If we had known that there were probably no unconventional weapons, we would have argued earlier and harder that invading Iraq made no sense. Saddam Hussein was indisputably a violent and vicious tyrant, but an unprovoked attack that antagonized the Muslim world and fractured the international community of peaceful nations was not the solution. There were, and are, equally brutal and potentially more dangerous dictators in power elsewhere. Saddam Hussein and his rotting army were not a threat even to the region, never mind to the United States. Now that we are in Iraq, we must do everything possible to see that the country is stabilized before American forces are withdrawn. But that commitment should be based on honesty. Just as we cannot undo the invasion, we cannot pretend that it was a good idea — even if it had been well carried out. Congress would never have given President Bush a blank check for military action if it had known that there was no real evidence that Iraq was likely to provide aid to terrorists or was capable of inflicting grave damage on our country or our allies. Many politicians who voted to authorize the war still refuse to admit that they made a mistake. But they did. And even though this page came down against the invasion, we regret now that we didn't do more to challenge the president's assumptions.

[conservative in nyc]

We all know where this is going. The Slimes apologized for their allegedly bad WMD coverage. Their next question will be why President Bush hasn't apologized, like they have?

Of course, there's no mention of the sarin weapons found in Iraq and no mention of Iraq trying to purchase uranium from Niger. But the truth has never gotten in the way of the Slimes agenda before. Why start now?

[Destro]

The NYT were for the war before they were against it.

[zarf]

No mention that Iraq is merely a stepping stone to Iran's door step. If Bush wins, it's an Iranian showdown.

[MJY1288]

Yup, Lets see how the NYT's can explain away the reason why Saddam Hussein and his Regime was trying to purchase "Yellow Cake" Uranium Oxide on the black market??????

What will be their excuse?....... Saddam was manufacturing a better toothpaste? Was he trying to cure cancer? or was he trying all he could to resume his NBC programs as soon as he could?

Saddam Hussein had his chance to become a member of the civilized world and he chose not to. He called George W. Bush's bluff and lost big. The world is better off and one less murderous dictator is out of power....... When will the NYT's accept this reality?????

[Southack]

"Congress would never have given President Bush a blank check for military action if it had known that there was no real evidence that Iraq was likely to provide aid to terrorists..."

That's a poor argument. Congress, the New York Times, and President Bush knew as did we all that Saddam Hussein was paying $10,000, $15,000, and $20,000 rewards to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. That's aid to terrorists.

Likewise, it was common knowledge that Abu Nidal was in a Baghdad hospital, that Ansar al-Islam was in Northern Iraq, and that al-Zarqawi was in Iraq...among others.

Libya has also pointed out that Iraq was participating in its WMD programs (plural).

The NY Times can apologize all day long, but that's a poor substitute for being right in the first place, as was President Bush.

11 Legislative Days Left Until The AWB Expires

[hobson]

Not so fast. The Reality of Saddam’s Threat The U.S. could not have delayed dealing with Saddam Hussein.

This is a long but excellent read.

[conservative in nyc]

It's all part of the Slimes/DNC attempt to claim that:
1)President Bush's sole rationale for going to war in Iraq was WMDs.
2) There were no WMDs in Iraq.
3) Therefore, President Bush shouldn't have gone to war in Iraq. Why hasn't he apologized? We apologized!

The problem is that their first premise is untrue, and their second is slowly being proven erroneous. So their conclusion (like their paper) is not worth the fishwrap it is printed on.

[GAGOPSWEEPTOVICTORY]

Here the Slimes goes again.

Nice excuse -- their plagiarizing left wing "journalists" were too busy slamming Bush on the politically expedient DNC talking point of the day about international consensus to do an in depth investigative report about the WMD.

Now they are adopting the talking points that Bush should admit there are no WMD in Iraq and should apologize. Maybe they should stop listening to McAwful and his shrill buddies over at the DNC and should launch an investigation into the Iraq-Niger uranium connection or do a two month front page expose "Abu Garib-style" on the Iraq-Lybia-Al Qeada nuclear weapons development connection. But we know they won't because McAwful didn't tell them to do so.

[piasa]

Get a load of the mint tea flavored Kool Aid the Times is trying to serve up now.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Congress would never have given President Bush a blank check for military action if it had known that there was no real evidence that Iraq was likely to provide aid to terrorists or was capable of inflicting grave damage on our country or our allies. Many politicians who voted to authorize the war still refuse to admit that they made a mistake. But they did. And even though this page came down against the invasion, we regret now that we didn't do more to challenge the president's assumptions.

<sigh> In their apology, they completely ignore the fact that going into Iraq because of WMD was only one of several justifications. And not necessarily the most important one either. I believe that the justification most often used by the U.S. was the fact that Iraq refused to obey U.N. resolutions.

So, once again, the NYT is lying by omitting pertinant information.

[Tamzee]

But they did not find any evidence of new weapons programs or stocks of prohibited old ones.

No stocks of prohibited weapons? What about the Al Samoud missiles? The world watched as the inspecters forced Saddam to destroy them...

[KeyWest]

Where is their apology for saying that Bush lied in the State of the Union address on Niger? That is certainly WMD.

[CGVet58]

Read the article more closely; this is not an apology, it is sophistry. At every point within the above where the slimes does a supposed "mea culpa" the phrase is immediately mitigated by (either a...) slimethink castigating the administration for a greater error (thus minimizing/denying the just-admitted sanctimony of the slimes error) or countered with the usual spewing about "violating the CONSENSUS" mantra.

Reminds me of questions during an interview - when asked by a prospective employer what your weaknesses are, you say something that though at first impression might be a response showing your weakness but in reality demonstrates a strength, ie: "...I believe I can always improve my people skills because I'm so results oriented that I tend to expect alot from those around me, as well".

The slimes continues to hang their hat on:

1) Bush made mistakes;
2) Bush lied;
3) Bush should fess up to the American people;
4) Bush invaded despite wide intl opposition.

Now, the left will present "more nuanced" counters...

5) "we're not blaming ourselves for failing to understand the thought process of an unpredictable dictator" - we on the Right have understood that the nature of the enemy and our vulnerability contributed to our taking-the-offensive-before-threat-is-imminent. We know that "imminent threat" - like "smoking gun" - is a leftist oxymoron... but mark my words, CIN, with the above quote, the slimes now gives guidance to the left that it's ok for them to take action based on their failure to understand Saddam, but not ok for us to proactively deal with him.

6) Other "equally brutal and potentially more dangerous dictators"... so now it seems - per the slimes judgement - it's ok to make war on other dictators, just not Saddam. As if that were the only criteria. This is a smokescreen, just another spin on the recent leftist rant which falls along the line of "if we attack A because of X threat, then SURELY we must attack B because of XX threat".

7) The rest is the usual batch of lies by the slimes, "thoroughness we directed at the Iraq-AQ link"... "if we had known there were probably no WMD" (notice the two passives almost cancel each other out as only two negatives can - it was saddams responsibility to completely disclose everything and prove he'd gotten rid of it)... "unprovoked attack" (one of the UN resolutions in '94, iirc, essentially reinstated the conditions of war that the ceasefire predicated on Saddams cooperation had paused -- there was no 'unprovoked attack' - we were at war)... or my favorite, "Saddam and his army... no threat to the US" - again, the slimes moves away from the threat of WMD in a bottle coupled with our vulnerability.

No sir, the slimes hasn't apologized; nor do I expect them to. They are, after all, the enemy within.

CGVet58

[conservative in nyc]

No doubt it is more of the same from the Slimes. The only thing the Slimes has "apologized" for is being "hoodwinked" by that rascally mastermind, President George W. Bush. They should have known better --- President Bush is a stupid cowboy who ran roughshod over international opinion in his unilateral war against an impotent not-so-evil dictator, when compared to other truly evil dictators.

We apologized. Why hasn't President Bush apologized? Have we mentioned we apologized?

[Remole]

You are correct in regard to the bluffing act that SH was performing to the West, to the UN, to his own Iraqi population and to the larger Arab world. For the sake of his own ambition to be the Saladin of the Arab World, his own interests in preserving a sense of honor in the Arab World, his plan to maintain a deterrent force, etc, SH did preserve the fiction that he did have WMD potential. One of the failures of the intelligence not just in CIA but also in American media is in imagination (and the NYT editorial admits as much): we could not conceive why SH would want to trick the world about his WMD capabilities. Well, duh, such a desire to trick an audience is what makes a good salesperson in the bazaar and a powerful dictator of a captive population.

[MJY1288]

I suggest you read the Kay Report, Saddam Hussein definitely had the capability to produce Chem/Bio weapons, and I'm sure he wasn't trying to purchase Uranium Oxide "Yellow Cake" for a new baby food plant. The only claim that was made by the Intel community that wasn't correct was the claim that there were stockpiles of WMD's ready for deployment. I believe the stockpiles were removed before the war and will be found soon. Libya is already hinting to know their whereabouts

[Remole]

I take your point and agree with you. There is little doubt, except in certain blue states, that SH retained the capacity to resurrect his WMD capabilities within a short time after the UN inspectors left finally and the US-UK overflights ended. See also Kenneth Pollack's long article in the (Feb 04?) recent Atlantic Monthly--he gives the best explanation for where the WMD stockpiles went, and why SH decided to go on a "just in time" production system for them; yet, at the same time, SH propogated the story for domestic and foreign consumption that he DID still have stockpiles, because he hoped that the story would provide a satisfactory deterrent. As you said in an earlier post, he tried to bluff the world, but that Texan poker player (GWB) called his bluff. Too D*mn Bad.

[Mr. Jeeves]

And even though this page came down against the invasion, we regret now that we didn't do more to challenge the president's assumptions.

"We're sorry we let the president get away with it." What kind of apology is that? It's like the Flintstones:

Fred: "You're stupid."

Barney: "You'd better say you're sorry, Fred!"

Fred: "OK, I'm sorry you're stupid."

Does the times (I'll use lowercase, since they did for "president") really think they are fooling anyone?

[Billthedrill]

UN resolution 1441 (and the dozen or so others) did constitute a "broad international consensus." It wasn't that the UN and its member states didn't recognize the problem, it was that they didn't intend to do anything about it. We now know some of the motivations of certain key member states, notably France, Germany, and Russia, and they are self-serving and sordid.

This has consistently been presented as some sort of international trial by jury in which there is presumption of innocence except in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and every political motivation both international and domestic to ensure that no such evidence would ever reach that level, whether to effect a lack of overt military activity that is quite incorrectly labeled "peace," or to tear down a political foe. Those are not particularly sound bases for foreign policy, or for real world peace either.

One sign of the sort of revisionism needed to make the Times's policy less obviously contradictory is the astonishing statement that Saddam, who had gassed both Iranians and Kurds, stacked up bodies by the hundred thousand, and invaded both Iran and Kuwait and threatened to do so to Saudi Arabia, was "no threat to his neighbors," or more derivatively, "no threat to the United States." A fellow who makes every effort to appear threatening, is so. Whether he has the wherewithal to follow through is irrelevant.

[MJY1288]

I agree, Too D*mn Bad :-)