Bush Goes Out Dodging
Harry Truman famously said of his responsibilities as President that “the buck stops here.” No president makes all his decisions — or even any of them — completely on his own. But a responsible president needs to take responsibility for the policies and actions of his administration.
An irresponsible President, by contrast, says stuff like this to ABC News:
BUSH: I don’t know — the biggest regret of all the presidency has to have been the intelligence failure in Iraq. A lot of people put their reputations on the line and said the weapons of mass destruction is a reason to remove Saddam Hussein. It wasn’t just people in my administration; a lot of members in Congress, prior to my arrival in Washington D.C., during the debate on Iraq, a lot of leaders of nations around the world were all looking at the same intelligence. And, you know, that’s not a do-over, but I wish the intelligence had been different, I guess.
It’s stunning that the President is still trying to mislead people about this rather than taking responsibility for his actions. French President Jacques Chirac didn’t feel compelled “looking at the same intelligence” to invade Iraq. Neither did German Chancellor Gerhard Schroder or the leaders of any number of other countries. No intelligence received by the White House ever justified the more extreme claims made by members of the administration, and some of the pre-war intelligence (that from the State Department INR Bureau, for example) was spot-on. The administration deliberately went out of its way to re-write intelligence reports as less ambiguous than they really were — compare the classified and unclassified version of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq — and to ignore reports that didn’t match the administration position.
Last, at the actual moment during which Bush pulled the trigger on war, inspectors were on the ground in Iraq. Hans Blix and Mohmmaed ElBarradei were in an excellent position to improve our knowledge of Iraqi WMD activities. And both Blix and ElBarradei were saying that there were no weapons stockpiles and no active WMD programs. There were busy asking the United States to hand over whatever contrary intelligence we had so that they could check it out. But instead of listening, Bush plunged the country into a disastrous war. It wasn’t a decision he made alone, but it was his decision; not something “the intelligence” made him do.
Greg Sargent makes an excellent point about how Bush is able to get away with this whitewash:
Of course, Bush made the decision to overlook all the good intel — not to mention the claims of those poor forgotten inspectors — saying that Saddam wasn’t really a threat at all, or certainly not one requiring the response Bush himself ordered.
One overlooked thing about this is that not only Bush, but many supporters of the war — Dems and liberal hawks included — also have a vested interest in pretending that the good intel never existed and those inspectors never said what they said. Those inconvenient historical facts reflect rather badly on them, too. With so many opinion-makers having vested interests of their own in telling the story this way, history has been tidily rewritten, and Bush is able to make this claim without a peep of objection from his big-time network interviewer.
Exactly. Without a vigorous opposition party, this kind of thing goes down the memory hole. And with so much of the opposition party having joined Bush in failing to take a serious look at the intelligence, you don’t get vigorous opposition. And so Bush is able to get away with it.
43 Responses to “Bush Goes Out Dodging”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
December 1st, 2008 at 2:08 pm
If you read between the lines he can only be blaming the Cheney team. I can’t imagine Cheney making that statement.
December 1st, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Fair enough about how many Dems have been co-opted into pretending the intelligence was clearer, but the reason “Bush is able to make this claim without a peep of objection from his big-time network interviewer” is that Charlie Gibson is (1) not terribly bright and (2) works for an organization not terribly interested in subjecting Presidents to tough interviews (although we’ll see if that stays the case come January 20).
December 1st, 2008 at 2:23 pm
John Emerson is right. Bush is saying that he was a patsy. And maybe he’s right, what with all the intelligence scrubbing, manipulation and stovepiping. Of course, if he never saw the kinds of assessments that Schroder and Chirac were getting, Bush deserves blame for being an incurious and mentally lazy boob, easy to manipulate. He also deserves blame for ever presuming to run for president in the first place, rather than saying, “You know, I really don’t have the sort of education and intellectual temperament that one should have in order to do that job.”
December 1st, 2008 at 2:28 pm
Bush is able to get away with this because he’s dumb. I don’t see any need to go much beyond that.
December 1st, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Maybe he’s blaming America for electing him. I do.
December 1st, 2008 at 2:30 pm
He would have invaded, according to himself, regardless of the intel. What he’s really saying is “I wish we’d found some weapons so I could tell those Euro-bozos ‘told you so.’”
December 1st, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Bush was interviewed by his sister on an NPR program (whose name I forget) last week. When asked about being the President, he said something to the effect of “It was a great experience for me, I learned a lot.” At which point my mind exploded. I thought it was a job where the Prez serves the people in some fashion, and tries to improve the country or something to that effect. I’m glad he had a good time, and I’m sure being the prez looks great on the resume, but couldn’t he have at least said he tried hard or it was really difficult?
And I blame America for voting for him as well. I’m with Michelle Obama – I’m proud now that we elected Barack.
(p.s. – the spell checker picks both Barack and Obama up as mis-spelled)
December 1st, 2008 at 2:39 pm
The reason Bush will continue to get away with this revisionism in perpetuity is because a large number of those in power in 2003 and in a position to speak out against Bush’s absurd proclamations that we’d given Hussein every last chance to prove the absence of WMDs refused to do so. Whether it was because they believe Bush, because they were too timid to contradict a popular President, or because they thought it unwise to undermine Bush’s casus belli on the eve of an inevitable war, everyone except for a marginalized handful of folks was silent in February and March of 2003. Al Gore is really the single notable exception. Even Obama tamped down his public criticism in the weeks immediately preceding the war.
The fact is that Saddam absolutely rolled over to every single one of Hans Blix’s demands within a few short, hurried months following resolution 1441.
I think this issue–the total lack of honesty surrounding the immediate pre-war debate–is vastly more important than who believed what about intelligence. The entire legal pretext for the war to both domestic and international audiences was about getting inspectors in to assess the situation regardless of the quality of the underlying intelligence. That happened and we went to war anyway; and off the top of my head I can’t think of a single person who doubled back on their AUMF vote when it became absolutely clear that Bush had no intention to cooperate in good faith in inspections. Biden’s said as much after the fact, but he was silent in early ‘03 as well.
December 1st, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Maybe he’s blaming America for electing him. I do.
But Kerry *could* have been worse. That was the argument in 2004 which many, many pretend serious people (e.g., Megan McArdle) bought with no apology. And you are correct: they are to blame.
December 1st, 2008 at 2:46 pm
How do you read this as blaming Cheney? or Bush saying he was a patsy?
To the contrary, he is just saying that none of this can properly be blamed on him, and that any fault should be ascribed to the intelligence agencies. Cheney has said much the same thing (though he may not have ventured into “wish[ing] the intelligence had been different.”
This is the same weaselly crap we have heard from him since 2003. In fact, of course, there was lots of intelligence that pointed to no WMD. Bush et al just chose to ignore it.
December 1st, 2008 at 2:46 pm
Last, at the actual moment during which Bush pulled the trigger on war, inspectors were on the ground in Iraq. Hans Blix and Mohmmaed ElBarradei were in an excellent position to improve our knowledge of Iraqi WMD activities. And both Blix and ElBarradei were saying that there were no weapons stockpiles and no active WMD programs.
These particular facts have really disappeared from a lot of peoples’ consciousness. I have had several otherwise intelligent people insist that Blix declared Hussein to be out of compliance and left Iraq voluntarily.
December 1st, 2008 at 2:51 pm
“And with so much of the opposition party having joined Bush in failing to take a serious look at the intelligence, you don’t get vigorous opposition. And so Bush is able to get away with it.”
Bush is “getting away with it” — if that’s what you call it — because we have term limits, and he was limited to two terms. Without term limits, he would have had to quit while he was down — something it’s hard to picture Bush doing — or go out losing to Obama. (With today’s Republican Party, could McCain have beaten Bush in the GOP primary? I doubt it.) And if Bush had run against Obama, then there would have been one of those so-called “accountability moments” for the lame dodges like this one. Bush gets away with it only because Obama and ascendant Democrats don’t really have a reason to kick him as he slinks out the side door.
December 1st, 2008 at 2:53 pm
And so Bush is able to get away with it.
Well, not really. He is the most unpopular President in history after all. And I don’t think a couple of “legacy” interviews will change much.
December 1st, 2008 at 3:40 pm
It’s an evasion for quite another reason, beyond that the administration selected from, misread, and lied about the evidence. So what if there was suspicion of WMD? I thought they might exist myself and still opposed the war. Gore said something not dissimilar.
First, it didn’t necessarily make Iraq a more immediate threat than many others. Second, we had a process in place for containing and, potentially, even dismantling weapons, between our flights over, deterrence, threats, and especially Blix et al. Third, war had every likelihood of then endangering us much further, since the nation would fall into chaos and the weapons could slip from the hands of a dictator to actual terrorists. They might also be turned against our troops and others in defense during the invasion. Finally, even if all that didn’t hold true, we couldn’t afford to shift attention from Afghanistan and other efforts, including the international coalitions to support them.
And sure enough, others have proved more dangerous, Blix was doing his job, Iraq did slip into chaos benefiting no one but perhaps Iran, and the more measured response to 9/11 degenerated into a disaster that, pace Obama, I doubt we can recover from.
December 1st, 2008 at 3:46 pm
I can’t help but point out that while we regulars certainly understand the context, it seems quite likely that a first-time reader who clicked through to this post would feel a bit misled upon learning at a later time that the post’s author had in fact supported the war.
Matt certainly has taken responsibility for this error many times, and I give him credit for that. Still, it seems perverse to write a post like this and not at least point out that Matt himself was one of the “liberal hawks” who helped cheer on this war.
APS
December 1st, 2008 at 4:11 pm
What Commander Codpiece is basically saying is, “I’m the decider guy, and I’m outta here in 50 days, so f*ck you!”
Does anyone realistically expect any sort of introspection or humility from Bush?
If so, I am the widow of the Nigerian Finance Minister and we would appreciate your assistance in accessing $20million from my late husband’s Swiss bank account…
December 1st, 2008 at 4:32 pm
France and Germany didn’t invade because they couldn’t and wouldn’t because they are nations of grass eaters.
Blix and ElBarradei deserve a large portion of the blame because they spoke in the terms of UN courtiers – useless and flaccid.
December 1st, 2008 at 5:54 pm
For the sake of intellectual honesty, Matt should probably mention the millions of dollars that the German and French governments had invested in Iraq via the (almost thoroughly corrup) Oil-for-Food program. Arguing the case concerning the incompetence that led us into the war does not require that one posit benign intentions on the part of those governments that chose not to join the invading coalition. The fact that the French and German governments had a substantive vested interest in maintaining the status quo in Iraq is largely uncontested.
December 1st, 2008 at 7:29 pm
Bush is lying. Again. They suppressed the nature of the intelligence about the aluminum tubes usefulness in centrifuges. One analyst, out of his field, postulated the suitability of the tubes for use in centrifuges. One. All the rest said “nope”. The one analyst’s view was the one that made its way to the Congress.
December 1st, 2008 at 7:37 pm
John (and every unapologetic war supporter alive, apparently):
The fact that the French and German governments had a substantive vested interest in maintaining the status quo in Iraq is largely uncontested.
It’s also largely irrelevant to the point being made, if you’d bother to digest it.
APS
December 1st, 2008 at 8:14 pm
As I understood it, the subject of the post concerned (at least partly) the respective motivations of the Bush Administration and the governments of France and Germany in deciding to invade or not invade Iraq. The post contains the extremely implausible premise that the decision by France and Germany not to invade was based primarily (if not solely) on the dearth of available intelligence regarding Saddam’s weapons programs. I was simply making the point that this claim is questionable, at best.
December 1st, 2008 at 8:54 pm
Actually John, your point — that France and Germany, among others, privileged considerations beyond the intelligence for or against the existence of Iraqi WMD in their pre-war decision-making — aligns with Yglesias’ point — that Bush himself privileged considerations beyond the intelligence for or against the existence of Iraqi WMD in his pre-war decision-making. In both examples, the intelligence can be irrelevant to the decision.
In any case, the French and German response to the intelligence, however sullied by commercial considerations, is but one data point among many (the aluminum tubes, the experience of the inspectors on the ground, Powell’s UN presentation, the hastily cobbled together October NIE) that demonstrate that the certainty of the intelligence was not a strong motivation for war. So at least as far as Bush’s decision is concerned, the intelligence actually was irrelevant to the decision.
That’s why the faulty intelligence dodge rings so hollow today.
December 1st, 2008 at 9:05 pm
If I remember correctly most of the oil sold under the oil-for-food program was sold to the US, and most of the corrupt dealings by Saddam was with American companies.
The accusation of not supporting a war in Iraq due to business is absurd anyway, since America is deep, deep in bed with the Sauds for business reasons.
December 2nd, 2008 at 12:38 am
On March 14, 2003, six days prior to Bush’s invasion of Iraq, I attended a talk given by former Chief UN Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter. Ritter told his somewhat incredulous audience that Saddam had no WMD, that the invasion would quickly become an insurgency, that civil war would ensue, that the US would be there for a decade, and that, “we will lose.” He predicted the eventual withdrawal of US troops from a region that would have become far more dangerous to the security of the West.
Before the invasion, I was seeking out the opinions of people like Scott Ritter, and reading the Knight Ridder team, and finding the buried reports from the intelligence unit at the State Department. I recognized what Cheney’s OSP at the Pentagon was up to. And I watched the “opposition” and the “free press” crumple and blow away like dirty scraps of paper.
It is so infuriating that I, a middle-aged Canadian, following events in my spare time, was able to understand what was happening, while no one capable of stopping it did anything to try to. American journalism failed. Congress failed. The American people failed. Yes, after the 2004 election, I blamed the American people, too.
Bush’s response to Gibson is despicable, but no more despicable that 100 other despicable things he and his administration have done over the past eight years – including the swift-boating of Scott Ritter, by the way.
Some day this man – all these men and women of the Bush administration – they must all be held accountable for what they have done. How can we believe in anything, otherwise?
December 2nd, 2008 at 3:14 am
As long as the Democratic party is headed by weasely “go-along-to-get-along” folks [and Obama, that includes YOU], the American people — at least those of us who opposed this war — won’t get any answers.
instead we’ll be subject to the same “let’s look forward, not backward” bullshit that allows the laundry list of crimes against humanity and our Constitution to go unexamined and unpunished.
Democrats are so weak and so afraid of being called bad names that they can’t do anything that requires guts. So the Evil Republicans skate again, to return to fight another day.
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:09 am
You exagerate when you write “And both Blix and El Barradei were saying that there were no weapons stockpiles and no active WMD programs. ” El Barradei said that there were no nuclear weapons stockpiles and no active nuclear weapons programs as definitely as one possibly can when arguing for a negative.
Blix, however, did not say that there were no chemical or biological weapons stockpiles or active programs. He said none had been found, but he also said that the inspectors would have to keep inspecting for “months, not weeks or years months” to reach a definitive answer (I am quoting from memory). Now that promise makes it clear that, if no weapons or active programs were found during those months, the answer would have been no. However, unlike El Barradei, he had definitely not concluded that there was no point in searching more.
December 2nd, 2008 at 6:18 am
The post contains the extremely implausible premise that the decision by France and Germany not to invade was based primarily (if not solely) on the dearth of available intelligence regarding Saddam’s weapons programs
Well, believe it or not, sometimes democratically elected leaders actually consider what the people want. The fact that a vast majority of the French and German people were rather decidedly and vocally against the Iraq war, might have had something to do with their decision.
Mind you, Germany was actually integral to the running of the Iraq war (Ramstein etc.) and the staunch anti-war heroes Schroeder and Fischer predictably failed to even acknowledge this little detail, even though the whole operation was very likely unconstitutional.
December 2nd, 2008 at 9:03 am
And where’s Matt with his “vigorous opposition” to enlarging the wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and starting a new one in Iran? Opposition, maybe. Vigorous – not so much.
And Matt refuses to “look at the intelligence” about those countries just as much as Bush did with Iraq – at least as far as his posts so far on those countries indicate.
December 2nd, 2008 at 9:51 am
John, before I follow you any further down the rabbit hole, let me ask you something:
Do you really find it plausible that France and Germany thought that Iraq was close to acquiring a nuclear weapon, but decided not to invade (indeed, decided to block the US from gaining SC authorization to invade) because some fat cats didn’t want some contracts to be rewritten?
If you do… there’s really nothing more to talk about, because that’s not a serious position.
December 2nd, 2008 at 11:10 am
I wish the intelligence had been different, I guess.
Maybe if he didn’t want the intelligence falsified, he shouldn’t have ordered his subordinates to falsify it to support his predecided agenda, huh?
December 2nd, 2008 at 1:44 pm
I want to go on the record as an ordinary, semi-informed citizen. Just using publicly available, contemporaneous information, I correctly concluded that Iraq wasn’t a nuclear threat, and probably didn’t have biological or chemical weapons, and certainly didn’t have delivery systems capable of reaching us, or even Israel. I voiced this opinion to anyone who would listen and sent letters to the editor to no avail. Shame on the lazy, predisposed President and like-minded congresspeople who tragically let America down on the most important decision they will likely ever make. Maybe other people will forget this, but as long as I have breath, I will not let them rewrite history.
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Let’s face it, Bush and Cheney wanted to invade Iraq. It’s that simple. There were huge amounts of money to be made (stolen). So why let facts stand in the way? The treasury of this country has been looted by the invasion of Iraq and many other ventures, there’s nothing left to steal so now it’s time to go. Remember, at the time this invasion was being discussed, it was either you’re either with us or with them in the “war on terror”. You were unpatriotic for not remembering 9/11, which was linked time and time again to Iraq.
December 2nd, 2008 at 8:37 pm
Note Bush’s referral to the fact that Congress was already pushing for war on those same false pretexts before he himself even knew how to pronounce Eye-rack. He’s talking about Biden, whom we just elected as the new Cheney. Biden was more aggressive about war with Iraq than Bush was. And third-in-line Hillary was a fervent supporter, too. So if Obama ever starts to believe the things about himself that many anti-war Americans have been misled to believe, all the war party needs is a grassy knoll.
December 3rd, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Anyone remember Bush’s ghost writer Mickey Herskowitz? His contention that Bush believed he needed to be a “War President” in order to be remembered as a great president was the Iraq invasion justification. And it was a convenient target because Saddam had tried to whack his Poppy.
Cheney, Wolfowitz, Pearl and the gang went along for the easy profiteering.
January 15th, 2009 at 2:33 am
laptop battery
laptop batteries
February 8th, 2009 at 10:07 pm
laptop battery
March 1st, 2009 at 5:11 am
viagra
Incredible site!
March 11th, 2009 at 4:21 am
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
March 14th, 2009 at 5:03 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
xanax
March 22nd, 2009 at 5:58 am
tramadol
I want to say – thank you for this!
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:02 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 5:03 am
Excellent site, It was pleasant to me. viagra
April 19th, 2009 at 8:18 pm
RVJrX7 pjteduowznzv, [url=http://ytarekeugwcz.com/]ytarekeugwcz[/url], [link=http://rwzegzuyxiez.com/]rwzegzuyxiez[/link], http://seuycardapnw.com/