http://www.amconmag.com/2007/2007_01_15/article1.html
January 15, 2007 Issue
Copyright © 2007 The American Conservative
Selective Amnesia
The pundits who sold the Iraq War change their tune and bury their
records.
by Glenn Greenwald
When political leaders make drastic mistakes, accountability is
delivered in the form of elections. That occurred in November when
voters removed the party principally responsible for the war in Iraq.
But the invasion would not have occurred had Americans not been
persuaded of its wisdom and necessity, and leading that charge was a
stable of pundits and media analysts who glorified President Bush’s
policies and disseminated all sorts of false information and baseless
assurances.
Yet there seems to be no accountability for these pro-war pundits. On
the contrary, they continue to pose as wise, responsible experts and
have suffered no lost credibility, prominence, or influence. They have
accomplished this feat largely by evading responsibility for their
prior opinions, pretending that they were right all along or, in the
most extreme cases, denying that they ever supported the war.
Michael Ledeen, a Freedom Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute
and a contributing editor to National Review, chose the boldest option.
In response to a Vanity Fair article about the swarms of
neoconservatives abandoning the administration and the war as both
become increasingly unpopular, Ledeen emphatically denied that he
backed the invasion in the first place. Writing on National Review’s
blog, The Corner, Ledeen claimed, "I do not feel ‘remorseful,’
since I had and have no involvement with our Iraq policy. I opposed the
military invasion of Iraq before it took place."
It is difficult to overstate the audacity-and the mendacity-of
Ledeen’s claim. In August 2002, he wrote a scathing article in
National Review following an appearance by Brent Scowcroft on "Face
the Nation," in which the former national security adviser argued
against the invasion. Ledeen devoted his entire column to mocking
Scowcroft’s concerns:
It’s always reassuring to hear Brent Scowcroft attack one’s
cherished convictions; it makes one cherish them all the more. … So
it’s good news when Scowcroft comes out against the
desperately-needed and long overdue war against Saddam Hussein and the
rest of the terror masters.
Declaring that "Saddam is actively supporting al Qaeda, and Abu
Nidal, and Hezbollah," Ledeen wrote, "the Palestinian question can
only be addressed effectively once the war against Saddam and his ilk
has been won." In response to Scowcroft’s concern that invading
Iraq could "turn the whole region into a caldron and destroy the War
on Terror," Ledeen retorted, "One can only hope that we turn the
region into a cauldron, and faster, please. If ever there were a region
that richly deserved being cauldronized, it is the Middle East
today."
On countless occasions, Ledeen called for the invasion to start as soon
as possible. In an August 2002 interview with FrontPage Magazine, when
Jamie Glazov asked when the war should begin. Ledeen answered,
"Yesterday."
He appeared on MSNBC’s "Hardball" on Aug. 19 to complain again
that the war had not started: "I think that if President Bush is to
be faulted for anything in this so far, it’s that he’s taken much
too long to get on with it, much too long."
The following month, in the Wall Street Journal, Ledeen wrote,
"Saddam Hussein is a terrible evil, and President Bush is entirely
right in vowing to end his reign of terror. If we come to Baghdad,
Damascus and Tehran as liberators, we can expect overwhelming popular
support. [I]t is impossible to imagine that the Iranian people would
tolerate tyranny in their own country once freedom had come to Iraq.
Syria would follow in short order."
While it is difficult to be more dishonest than Ledeen, it is difficult
to be more wrong than Charles Krauthammer. Prior to the invasion,
Krauthammer used his various media platforms-his column at the
Washington Post and his almost daily appearances on Fox News-to warn
that Iraq was rapidly building up its WMD capabilities and that the
U.S. risked running out of time if it did not invade immediately. He
assured Americans that the war would pay for itself with oil revenues
and that Iraqis would greet Americans as liberators.
In an Aug. 26, 2002 Time column, Krauthammer crystallized the issue at
the heart of the Iraq discussion: "The growing debate on invading
Iraq hinges on Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction." In
his Washington Post column of Oct. 7, Krauthammer argued, "Hawks
favor war on the grounds that Saddam Hussein is reckless, tyrannical
and instinctively aggressive, and that if he comes into possession of
nuclear weapons in addition to the weapons of mass destruction he
already has, he is likely to use them or share them with terrorists."
According to Krauthammer, the WMD threat was so imminent that, as he
argued on Fox News on Nov. 8, 2002, waiting a matter of months could
mean that Saddam obtained nuclear capability: "Under this Resolution,
if Blix does not have to report back to the Security Council for 105
days, do the math. That’s the 21st of February. That is a very long
time away. And it could be at the end of our window to attack." In
his Nov. 15, Post column, Krauthammer rang the alarm yet again:
"We’ve been given time, but so has Hussein. Time to hide his
weapons. Time even to distribute them through Iraqi agents-aka
diplomats using diplomatic pouches-into the heart of the enemy. (We
still don’t know where last year’s anthrax came from.) Time to give
the stuff to terrorists who, as Osama bin Laden’s tape suggests, are
now prepared to make common cause with Hussein."
Now, as the war he demanded lies in ruins, Krauthammer uses his Post
column to revise his record: "Our objectives in Iraq were twofold and
always simple: Depose Saddam Hussein and replace his murderous regime
with a self-sustaining, democratic government." His hysterical
obsession with WMD has been whitewashed from his pundit history, and in
its place is a goal that Krauthammer barely mentioned prior to the war.
As recently as Oct. 28, 2005, he mocked foreign-policy realists for
their belief that democracy could not take root in Iraqi culture,
insisting that "the overwhelming majority of Iraq’s people have
repeatedly given every indication of valuing their newfound freedom."
But now, Krauthammer claims that the war he urged is failing because
Iraqis are incapable of understanding what freedom is about:
[T]he problem here is Iraq’s particular political culture, raped and
ruined by 30 years of Hussein’s totalitarianism. Is this America’s
fault? No. It is a result of Iraq’s first democratic election. It was
never certain whether the long-oppressed Shiites would have enough
sense of nation and sense of compromise to govern rather than rule. The
answer is now clear: United in a dominating coalition, they do not.
That the failed war is the Iraqis’ fault has become a leading
neoconservative excuse. On Nov. 3, Paul Mirgenoff of the Powerline blog
blamed the Iraqis for electing the wrong prime minister- "The
Iraqis voted in the Shia-militia-friendly Maliki government, thereby
making it difficult, if not impossible, for the U.S. to work with the
current government to curb sectarian violence." But in April,
Mirgenoff lavished the Iraqis with praise for that very choice, with
his "acknowledgement that the selection of Jawad al-Maliki to be
Iraq’s prime minister is good news" because Iraqis were
"resisting Iranian pressure to back Ibrahim al-Jafari" and thus
"stood up for a unified Iraq."
This is common practice in the world of punditry: most war advocates
continue to parade around as foreign-policy experts even though, with
the rarest exception-an Andrew Sullivan here or there-virtually
none has acknowledged his error.
The dynamic is also evident among former Bush supporters now trying to
distance themselves from the unpopular president. Many who loyally
supported and even venerated Bush when he was riding high now pretend
to have recognized his flaws all along.
In her Oct. 26, 2006 Wall Street Journal column, Peggy Noonan tried to
demonstrate how intellectually honest she is by claiming that
well-connected Republicans thought the GOP deserved to lose the midterm
election. For the party’s woes, she blamed the president: "They
want to fire Congress because they can’t fire President Bush."
Trying to explain Republican dissatisfaction, she wrote:
Republican political veterans go easy on ideology, but they’re tough
on incompetence. They see Mr. Bush through the eyes of experience and
maturity. They hate a lack of care. They see Mr. Bush as careless, and
on more than Iraq-careless with old alliances, disrespectful of the
opinion of mankind. ‘He never listens,’ an elected official who is
a Bush supporter said with a shrug some months ago.
Along the way the president’s men and women confused the necessary
and legitimate disciplining of a coalition with weird and excessive
attempts to silence Republican critics. They have lived in a closed
system. They now want to open it but don’t know how. Listening is a
habit; theirs has long been to suppress.
But in early 2004, when arguing for President Bush’s re-election,
Noonan employed her trademark effusiveness to glorify the president’s
character and pay homage to his humility and great sense of
responsibility:
Mr. Bush is the triumph of the seemingly average American man. He’s
normal. He thinks in a sort of common-sense way. He speaks the language
of business and sports and politics. You know him. He’s not exotic.
But if there’s a fire on the block, he’ll run out and help. He’ll
help direct the rig to the right house and count the kids coming out
and say, ‘Where’s Sally?’
He’s responsible. He’s not an intellectual. Intellectuals start all
the trouble in the world. And then when the fire comes they say, ‘I
warned Joe about that furnace.’ And, ‘Does Joe have children?’
And ‘I saw a fire once’ …
Bush ain’t that guy. Republicans love the guy who ain’t that guy.
Americans love the guy who ain’t that guy
So in just over two years, Bush went from being a diligent Everyman to
a know-it-all tyrant who listens to no one, stamps out dissent, and is
irresponsible with his duties. Noonan now depicts Bush in this way
while pretending that she never oozed praise.
But her reversal isn’t as brazen as the pro-war, pro-Bush pundits who
have begun advocating the very views they spent the last three years
demonizing. Ever since the U.S. invaded, those who pointed out that we
were achieving little more than mass death, destruction of American
credibility, conversions of moderate Muslims into extremists, and a
serious weakening of our military were vilified as America-hating
terrorist allies who wanted us to lose. Those who simply pointed out
that the war effort wasn’t going according to promise were derided as
cut-and-run "defeatocrats" who lacked the intestinal fortitude to
fight.
Yet pundits who equated dissent with treason are now declaring the war
to be a failure and are advocating withdrawal without bothering to
reconcile their current views with their previous allegations.
New York Post columnist Ralph Peters wrote in November 2005 that a
failure to see the mission through to completion would tell the world
that "Americans are cowards who can be attacked with impunity." He
further argued that "a U.S. surrender would turn al Qaeda into an
Islamic superpower" and that "[i]f we run away from our enemies
overseas, our enemies will make their way to us. Quit Iraq, and far
more than 2,000 Americans are going to die."
But on Nov. 2, 2006, Peters wrote a column in USA Today announcing,
"Iraq is failing. No honest observer can conclude otherwise. If they
continue to revel in fratricidal slaughter, we must leave." The same
columnist who warned just a year ago in the most alarmist tone that
withdrawal would gravely endanger the U.S., now claims that "Contrary
to the prophets of doom, the United States wouldn’t be weakened by
our withdrawal, should it come to that."
All of these self-proclaimed super-patriots who spent the last three
years shrieking that anyone who criticizes the war is a friend of the
terrorists are now being forced to admit that the war is unwinnable.
But rather than acknowledging their reversal, they seek to erase the
public record, both to salvage their reputations and to obscure the
intensity of their attacks against those who were right. Such vitriol
against critics muted debate in the first place and ensured that we
stayed in Iraq, pretending all along that things were going great.
There is nothing wrong with acknowledging one’s errors and changing
one’s mind. When genuine, this should be encouraged. But these
pundits are not doing that. They know that they were on the wrong side
of the most vital issue of the last decade, and in trying to reverse
their predictions reveal themselves to be deeply flawed not only in
judgment but also in character.
_______________________________
Glenn Greenwald is author of How Would a Patriot Act? Defending
American Values From the Bush Administration.
January 15, 2007 Issue
have a look