Here is an excerpt from the book, published in the WSJ today:
Quote:
|
I still like and admire George W. Bush. I consider him a fundamentally decent person, and I do not believe he or his White House deliberately or consciously sought to deceive the American people. But he and his advisers confused the propaganda campaign with the high level of candor and honesty so fundamentally needed to build and then sustain public support during a time of war. Had a high level of openness and forthrightness been embraced from the outset of his administration, I believe President Bush's public standing would be stronger today. His approval ratings have remained at historic lows for so long because both qualities have been lacking to this day. In this regard, he was terribly ill-served by his top advisers, especially those involved directly in national security.
|
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121198457525625977.html
The author says he does not think Bush intended to "lie" to the American people. He further suggests that the real problem was not with the war itself but with communication and that the President was not well served by his advisors.
Here is more:
Quote:
|
An even more fundamental problem was the way his advisers decided to pursue a political propaganda campaign to sell the war to the American people. It was all part of the way the White House operated and Washington functioned, and no one seemed to see any problem with using such an approach on an issue as grave as war. A pro-war campaign might have been more acceptable had it been accompanied by a high level of candor and honesty, but it was not. Most of the arguments used – especially those stated in prepared remarks by the president and in forums like Powell's presentation at the UN Security Council in February 2003 – were carefully vetted and capable of being substantiated.
|
Here he is saying initially statements made publicly were capable of being substantiated. He feel that later that changed.
Here is more:
Quote:
|
To this day, the president seems unbothered by the disconnect between the chief rationale for the war and the driving motivation behind it, and unconcerned about how the case was packaged. The policy is the right one and history will judge it so, once a free Iraq is firmly in place and the Middle East begins to become more democratic.
|
I agree and I am not concerned with how the "case was packaged". I agree it was the right thing to do. the author is a "PR" guy and it seems his focus is on "PR" not on the actual evidence to support the action.
Here is a good one for you:
Quote:
Bush clung to the same belief during an interview with Tim Russert of NBC News in early February 2004. The Meet the Press host asked, "In light of not finding the weapons of mass destruction, do you believe the war in Iraq is a war of choice or a war of necessity? "
The president said, "That's an interesting question. Please elaborate on that a bit. A war of choice or a war of necessity? It's a war of necessity. In my judgment, we had no choice, when we look at the intelligence I looked at, that says the man was a threat."
I remember talking to the president about this question following the interview. He seemed puzzled and asked me what Russert was getting at with the question.
This, in turn, puzzled me. Surely this distinction between a necessary, unavoidable war and a war that the United States could have avoided but chose to wage was an obvious one that Bush must have thought about in the months before the invasion. Evidently it wasn't obvious to the president, nor did his national security team make sure it was. He set the policy early on and then his team focused his attention on how to sell it. It strikes me today as an indication of his lack of inquisitiveness and his detrimental resistance to reflection, something his advisers needed to compensate for better than they did.
Most objective observers today would say that in 2003 there was no urgent need to address the threat posed by Saddam with a large-scale invasion, and therefore the war was not necessary. But this is a question President Bush seems not to want to grapple with.
|
I can understand Bush's confusion, in my view we were already at war. The suggestion of "necessity" would strike me as odd if I thought people understood we were at war. Saddam historically was a threat to peace in the ME, that was a constant. I and many others felt he should have been removed from power during the first Gulf War. Many believed he was repositioning himself to take future military actions in the region.
It seems the author makes assumptions about what Bush did and did not give thought to, I am not sure how he does that.
This next one is confusing to me. If the war was unnecessary how could it ever be considered a success, "...good for America, good for Iraq and good for the world" to the point where untruths would be ignored? Perhaps you can help me with this.
Quote:
|
All the president can do today is hope that his vision of Iraq will ultimately come true, putting the Middle East on a new path and vindicating his decision to go to war. I would welcome such a development as good for America, good for Iraq, and good for the world. Bush knows that posterity has a way of rewarding success over candor and honesty.
|
In direct answer to your question, you have to understand my position. One way to look at it, sure the war in Iraq was unnecessary, but we were already at war prior to our invasion of Iraq. In my view Iraq is a front in the broader war. I see invading Iraq similar to the invasion at Normandy during WWII. We certainly did not need to invade France at Normandy but it was a part of a military strategy, just like the invasion of Iraq in my opinion. If you don't understand that, you can not understand my view on the question. I do think the administration failed in communicating the invasion of Iraq the way that I do, I think thoughtful people would get it and the general public would have accepted it. But I have been known to be wrong from time to time.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ratbastid
So, if it's not those three things, why DO you think we initially went to war?
|
As Bush suggested many times, it is better to fight in Iraq than in New York. And a benefit of invading Iraq was getting Saddam out of power. If democracy takes root in Iraq, Iraq will serve has an ally in the region. Iraq is strategically positioned in the region, controlling Iraq is key to future peace in the region. I have a long-term view on this issue.