Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Myself to Death: The President Who Cried Wolf and Other Fables

Monday, February 19, 2007

The President Who Cried Wolf and Other Fables

The Bushies are crying wolf again, and Frank Rich is calling them on it. You hardly need me (or Frank Rich) to tell you this is an old trick of theirs--we wouldn't be fighting in Iraq right now without it. But as with the original boy who called wolf, the message is beginning to get tiresome, and people are catching on.

Maybe the Bush White House can't conduct a war, but no one has ever impugned its ability to lie about its conduct of a war. Now even that well-earned reputation for flawless fictionalizing is coming undone. Watching the administration try to get its story straight about Iran's role in Iraq last week was like watching third graders try to sidestep blame for misbehaving while the substitute teacher was on a bathroom break. The team that once sold the country smoking guns in the shape of mushroom clouds has completely lost its mojo.

Surely these guys can do better than this. No sooner did unnamed military officials unveil their melodramatically secretive briefing in Baghdad last Sunday than Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, blew the whole charade. General Pace said he didn't know about the briefing and couldn't endorse its contention that the Iranian government's highest echelons were complicit in anti-American hostilities in Iraq. Public-relations pandemonium ensued as Tony Snow, the State Department and finally the president tried to revise the story line on the fly. Back when Karl Rove ruled, everyone read verbatim from the same script. Last week's frantic improvisations were vintage Scooter Libby, at best the ur-text for a future perjury trial.

Yet for all the sloppy internal contradictions, the most incriminating indictment of the new White House disinformation campaign is to be found in official assertions made more than a year ago. The press and everyone else seems to have forgotten that the administration has twice sounded the same alarms about Iranian weaponry in Iraq that it did last week.

In August 2005, NBC News, CBS News and The Times cited unnamed military and intelligence officials when reporting, as CBS put it, that "U.S. forces intercepted a shipment from Iran containing professionally made explosive devices specifically designed to penetrate the armor which protects American vehicles." Then, as now, those devices were the devastating roadside bombs currently called E.F.P.'s (explosively formed penetrators). Then, as now, they were thought to have been brought into Iraq by members of Iran's Revolutionary Guard. Then, as now, there was no evidence that the Iranian government was directly involved. In February 2006, administration officials delivered the same warning yet again, before the Senate Intelligence Committee.

. . .

Let's not forget that the White House's stunt of repackaging old, fear-inducing news for public consumption has a long track record. Its reason for doing so is always the same: to distract the public from reality that runs counter to the White House's political interests. When the Democrats were gaining campaign traction in 2004, John Ashcroft held an urgent news conference to display photos of seven suspected terrorists on the loose. He didn't bother to explain that six of them had been announced previously, one at a news conference he had held 28 months earlier. Mr. Bush played the same trick last February as newly declassified statistics at a Senate hearing revealed a steady three-year growth in insurgent attacks: he breathlessly announced a thwarted Qaeda plot against the U.S. Bank Tower in Los Angeles that had already been revealed by the administration four months before.

But a large operation such as the Iraq war demands more than one lie to sustain it. Although none of us can be quite sure why we entered the war, what we were trying to accomplish, or why it's so important that we stay, we're certainly aware that the official explanation has shifted from one pretext to another.

Oh what a malleable war Iraq has been. First it was waged to vanquish Saddam's (nonexistent) nuclear arsenal and his (nonexistent) collaboration with Al Qaeda. Then it was going to spread (nonexistent) democracy throughout the Middle East. Now it is being rebranded as a fight against Tehran. Mr. Bush keeps saying that his saber rattling about Iran is not "a pretext for war." Maybe so, but at the very least it's a pretext for prolonging the disastrous war we already have.

What makes his spin brazen even by his standards is that Iran is in fact steadily extending its influence in Iraq - thanks to its alliance with the very Iraqi politicians that Mr. Bush himself has endorsed. In December the president welcomed a Shiite leader, Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, to the White House with great fanfare; just three weeks later American forces had to raid Mr. Hakim's Iraq compound to arrest Iranian operatives suspected of planning attacks against American military forces, possibly with E.F.P.'s. As if that weren't bad enough, Nuri al-Maliki's government promptly overruled the American arrests and ordered the operatives' release so they could escape to Iran. For all his bluster about doing something about it, Mr. Bush did nothing.

It gets worse. This month we learned that yet another Maliki supporter in the Iraqi Parliament, Jamal Jafaar Mohammed Ali Ebrahimi, was convicted more than two decades ago of planning the murderous 1983 attacks on the American and French Embassies in Kuwait. He's now in Iran, but before leaving, this terrorist served as a security adviser, no less, to the first Iraqi prime minister after the American invasion, Ibrahim al-Jafaari. Mr. Jafaari, hailed by Mr. Bush as "a strong partner for peace and freedom" during his own White House visit in 2005, could be found last week in Tehran, celebrating the anniversary of the 1979 Iranian revolution and criticizing America's arrest of Iranian officials in Iraq.

Even with as low of an opinion of the Bush administration that I hold, I have a hard time imagining that anyone in that organization wanted to achieve anything in Iraq like what they have. Likewise, I really have no idea what the purpose of the continued fabrications could be. But their current result, strengthening the Iranian position while we insist that Iran must not only be contained but diminished, cannot be denied.

4 Comments:

At 1:42 PM, February 19, 2007, Blogger mike a said...

They suffer the hallucinations of kings.

"When humanity, subjugated by the terror of crime, has been driven insane by fear and horror, and when chaos has become supreme law, then the time will have come for the empire of crime."

 
At 2:36 PM, February 19, 2007, Blogger Stevie T said...

"...and people are catching on."

Man, these people are slow.

 
At 10:45 PM, February 19, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh Doug, I tried -
If you go to www.suntimes.com and look up the QT (Quick Takes) column for Monday, February 19, you'll see the following near the end of the column:
Chuck Greenia, a Chicago reader, writes:
"Is it Obamamania or simply Obamania?"
Obama. Obamarama. Obamaramamania.
We should get this straight, as politics is a serious business. (end of excerpt)

As you will immediately recognize, I got this directly from a blog entry of yours from a week or two back. I just want you to know that in the missive I sent to QT, I very specifically indicated that I was quoting "author Douglas Tonks." The Sun-Times, alas, did not see fit to include that information, but I wanted you to know that I tried!

 
At 11:18 PM, February 19, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks for the attempted shout out, Chuck! Here's the Sun-Times link.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home