Here's what I thought you'd like to hear about today:

1. Why did we go into Iraq?
2. The President Answers Questions in Cleveland
3. The President Answers Questions in D.C.

Listen
Subscribe
Add Wizbang Podcast to iTunes

Why did we go into Iraq

Jay Tea, one of the longest running Wizbang bloggers, had a great post, called "Speaking Truth to Pinheads" this week that questioned the media's conventional wisdom on why we went into Iraq. He summarized the way that this media conventional wisdom gets into the minds of Americans. I'm going to read Jay's post, and include the audio clips that he refers to to show how this process is working.

With the anniversary of the war in Iraq (or, as I like to call it when I'm feeling formal, the Iraq Campaign of the War on Terror), I think it's long overdue time to actually LOOK at some of the anti-war crowd's charges and give them the slightest shred of credence, for at least long enough to rip them to pieces.

I don't recall the original source of the statement "if you repeat a lie often enough, people will eventually believe it," but it's a fair observation of human nature. The anti-war crowd has taken that concept and proven it beyond their wildest dreams: they've chanted their mantras so often that they're accepted as gospel by their compatriots (I heard Liane Hansen of NPR repeat the two following as factual on Sunday). But as they say in sports, let's go to the tape:

1) President Bush claimed that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) prior to the invasion, and that was the primary reason for the attack.
2) Bush told the American people that Iraq posed an imminent threat to the US.

Listen to this clip from NPR's Weekend Edition. It starts off with Liane Hansen of NPR stating those two items as fact. She goes on to interview a think tanker who repeats these canards. I'm only going to play a few seconds of the clip now, since my focus is Jay's shredding of the media conventional wisdom, not its perpetuation.

Play clip.

Jay goes on to say that President Bush did not restrict the reasons for going to war in Iraq to WMD:

Thanks to the ever-worthy Rob Port (my former colleague here at Wizbang!), we have this excerpt from a New York Times account from February 26, 2003 -- almost a full month before the invasion:

President Bush sketched an expansive vision last night of what he expects to accomplish by a war in Iraq. Instead of focusing on eliminating weapons of mass destruction, or reducing the threat of terror to the United States, Mr. Bush talked about establishing a ''free and peaceful Iraq'' that would...

Obviously, I don't feel like forking over $3.95 for the full article. But that was enough to find the actual transcript of Bush's speech, as delivered to the American Enterprise Institute. The sole mention of the threat Iraq posed is contained in one paragraph:

In Iraq, a dictator is building and hiding weapons that could enable him to dominate the Middle East and intimidate the civilized world -- and we will not allow it.

Listen now to the President's explanation, from before the war, on why we needed to liberate Iraq from Sadam. Thanks to Whitehouse.gov for the audio.

Play clip.

Jay goes on:

The rest of the discussion on Iraq was on how the rebuilding of Iraq would take place, and his vision of freedom blooming in the Muslim world. And as far as WMDs being found -- at least one artillery shell containing sarin has been used in an IED, as well as one containing mustard gas -- the latter being one of over 1,000 mustard gas weapons, totalling over 80 tons of mustard gas -- that was never accounted for in 12 years of Saddam's "compliance."

And never, NEVER forget that no one was obligated to prove Saddam was out of compliance with the 1991 surrender. Under its terms, the onus was solely on him to prove his compliance, and he deliberately and willfully failed to comply. Like a parolee required to undergo regular drug screening, he was presumed guilty until he proved his innocence -- and failure to cooperate nullified his parole.

What Bush does say later in the talk, is that he had tremendous hope for Iraq.

And don't forget the second of Liane's canards:

2) Bush told the American people that Iraq posed an imminent threat to the US.

Once again, let's go to the tape. More specifically, President Bush's 2003 State of the Union address, delivered almost three months before the invasion:

Play clip from SOU speech

What WAS imminent was the collapse of the sanctions on Iraq, fed by Saddam's bribery through the Oil For Food program and other means. Our ears were being filled with the tales of the thousands of Iraqi children dying daily because of the sanctions, and the pressure to "ease up" and "allow Iraq to rejoin the community of nations" were growing more and more intense. The threat of Iraq being able to renew its quest for WMDs -- which it had possessed and used in the past, both on its own people and its neighbors -- was there.

3) Bush lied when he said Iraq possessed WMDs.

First, let's break out the dictionary on this one. To lie means to knowingly and willingly state a falsehood as truth. There is a mountain of difference between lying and being mistaken. For centuries, folks said the earth was flat. Others said that the sun revolved around the earth. Nobody says they were liars, they were simply speaking what they believed was truth.

Likewise, Saddam DID possess WMDs -- so far discovered in far smaller quantities than expected. But the assumption was an eminently fair one, considering several indisputable facts:

• In the 12 years between the first and second wars, Saddam was supposed to account for and destroy all his nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, along with all research and development materials. Literally TONS of contraband was never accounted for properly, with a great deal of it being covered by Saddam's "we burned it, but we lost the receipt" excuses.


• Saddam was trying to balance two competing interests against each other: convincing most of the world that he indeed had not WMDs, in accordance with the 1991 ceasefire, and convincing some of his neighbors (mainly Iran and Israel) and certain elements of his own people (mainly the Kurds and Shiites) that he did, and was willing and able to use them against those people if necessary. He thought he could count on his bought-and-paid-for allies in Fance, Germany, Russia, Great Britain, and the UN to provide enough cover to block the US from rigorously enforcing the 1991 terms -- a miscalculation that proved in the post-9/11 world to be fatal.


• Saddam's own generals and forces thought they would have access to WMDs for any possible US-led invasion. Captured battle plans referred to using chemical weapons against the invaders, and several key units had protective gear on hand.

Yes, there were flaws in the intelligence before the invasion. But intelligence is not a precise science. Based on the best information available, and the existing legal state (the repeated violations of the 1991 ceasefire, and the Congressional authorization of the use of force), the invasion of Iraq and deposal of Saddam was the least worst of the available options. And those who wish to rewrite history based on their own lies and prejudices need to be confronted and defeated with the most powerful weapon available:

The truth.

The President Answers Questions in Cleveland

Bush gave great speech at the City Club in Cleveland Monday. He spent about 20 minutes on the underreported success in Iraq, especially the experience of "clear, hold, and build" in Tal Afar, where Al Qaeda was driven out of a city of 200,000 in Northern Iraq. The text is here, with audio. I'm going to play a short clip from the speech, near the beginning. Then, I'll play some of the moonbat questions from the audience. Many republicans were nervous about the president taking questions from a potentially hostile crowd. His previous "town hall" gatherings have had s carefully selected "cherry picked" audience. But they need not fear. After last week's speech and questions from the National Newspaper Association, which I covered in a previous podcast, we can see that he is at his best with a confrontational audience. Especially one that is full of conspiracy theorists like these. First the speech, then the questions.

Play clips.

I think that might be the first use of the word "kerfuffle" by the President. Someone alert James Taranto of Best of the Web. He comments today:

If Nedra did less pickling and more digging, she might have discovered what blogress Bridget Johnson already knows:

We'd like to congratulate Opinion Journal's James Taranto, though, for obviously having the president's ear, for having a regular reader in the commander in chief, for perhaps having shared a pint (O'Douls for the prez) recently. One doesn't just start saying "kerfuffle" without influence.

For the record, we haven't had any personal contact with Bush since he became president, and we know not if he is among our readers--though some of his aides are. The White House has not confirmed whether there is any connection between our campaign to popularize "kerfuffle" and Bush's employment of the word, but we are grateful to him all the same.

The President Answers Questions in D.C.

Another reporter who loves to repeat falsehoods about why we went into Iraq is Helen Thomas, the crazy aunt in the attic of the white house press corps. She decided that she should repeat them at today's press conference. As Byron York in the Corner noticed:

Bush's news conference has been fascinating. His exchange with Helen Thomas shows that he should engage in adversarial exchanges about the war in Iraq more, not less, often. He was powerful, optimistic, frustrated, passionate, determined, and a man with his back to the wall -- all at the same time. ... overall his performance was quite strong. He said frankly that he is spending his political capital on the war. Going face-to-face with his critics is one of the best ways to make his argument.

Listen to this exchange, and then a later one where Bush refers to what the prospect of success in Iraq would have to reform in the middle east. Thanks to C-SPAN for the video.

Play clips.

That's it for now, podcatchers!