Correcting the record on the Iraq War: why it’s preaching to the choir
Gabriel Malor at Ace’s has written a post attempting to correct the NY Times‘ latest fable about the Iraq War, the lead-up to it, and what Bush’s argument for the commencement of the war was based on.
Malor does an excellent job and my hat is off to him. But I have a problem with his post, one that’s not in the least his fault.
Who is motivated to read it? People who know these things already. Who else would even try to read it? No one I know except the already-convinced. Even if others were to urge them to read it, I doubt they would, if my liberal friends and acquaintances are typical (and I believe they are).
Malor points out that although the NY Times is flat-out lying about what Bush said before the war, intelligent people who ought to know better are swallowing that lie hook line and sinker:
I am flabbergasted at the number of people who immediately repeated this lie on Twitter who I know were alive and well and watching the run-up to the Iraq War, just like me.
So, why don’t people remember the facts? I can think of plenty of reasons. They reject facts that don’t conform with their political viewpoints. And/or they probably didn’t follow the details closely in the first place: BOR-ING. Or, if they did follow them closely at the time, they don’t remember much, like the content of a course they took years ago. Maybe they even crammed for the final, but they forgot almost all of it when the final was over and they didn’t need to know it anymore. And then, ever since that final, imagine that they’ve also been crammed full of information that contradicted what they originally had learned for the test. Then they would be even less likely to remember correctly. In fact, the later information would probably crowd out the earlier.
This happens very frequently. That’s why the press is so extraordinarily important. Most people tend to read it receptively rather than critically. That’s why the press is such an excellent vehicle for propaganda. That’s why a commitment to honesty and truth in the press is essential for a free and informed citizenry.
Because most people will make the minimum effort at informing themselves. Life just contains too much else that’s more fun, or that gives them more rewards, or that is a time-consuming and necessary obligation, or that tires them out. Learning the details of Bush’s speeches and his rationale for the Iraq War just isn’t one of the most compelling things for most people, nor is remembering what they’ve learned, and it won’t ever be.
That’s not to say that efforts such as Malor’s should not be undertaken. They should, and must. But bridging that attention gap is much harder than a mere presentation of facts, however convincing they might be.
“Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof — the smoking gun — that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.” George W. Bush, October, 2002
Victor Davis Hanson has written extensively on the reasons for the Iraq War. NYT won’t publish him.
NYT is a political broad sheet and arm of the Dem party.
Neo,
I offer that Malor’s article is not a futile effort because it attempts to correct the “truthy” facts (as you, yourself note). I have gone on record numerous times writing that it is important to get the information out there.
The futility is in its location. Who’s reading Ace of Spades? Ben Affleck? Bill Maher? Alan Dershowitz? It’s preaching to the choir because of where it is not what it does.
This should show up in COSMO, Rolling Stone, Foreign Affairs and other such venues. No, not many would read it there, either, but at least it would be within their reach.
The solution is that wealthy conservatives should begin buying such popular media with an eye to their own Gramscian march.
In admitting that some suffered from the effects of materials which the apologists for the left insisted were not there to any detectable degree, they must come up with a new rationale.
T:
Well, of course.
If it were published in Times for example, it would be more effective.
But the point is that it can’t be published in the Times, or the Times wouldn’t be the Times.
In my drafts folder is an email that I am thinking of sending to my liberal friend (like family) who is a avid NYT reader. Before the post, I wrote this:
“I would be interested in hearing what you have to say about this. Because I would agree with what was written here, 100%. I know you are busy, and so am I, but my contempt for the NY Times flared once again and I want to discuss it (via email…and no rush!) with one of their subscribers. (Oh…and love to you and Janice & family!)”
Not sure I’m going to send it yet. But he is the patriarch of a large segment of well-meaning liberals. I do think that post should be seen by more than “the choir”.
Everyone knows the media have voluntarily turned themselves into Pravda for the democrats. They are simply corrupt. I let my subscription to the WAPO expire years ago because there was no difference between the front pages and the editorial pages.
Same thing for me Ray. I grew up in a home that received 2 papers a day and 3 on Sunday. When Obama was elected I sent a letter to the LA Times and Daily News terminating my subscription and told them what I thought of the pre-election “reporting”. I haven’t looked back.
A few years back, I spent and enormous amount of time researching and writing up blog arguments on the “16 words” accusation as well as the Plame affair.
I mean down loading Senate documents with CIA memos, and the British investigations and the Duelfer report, charting timelines against Corn and Kristof articles and accusations and etc etc etc.
Eventually … well you know the story yourself … the “16 words” justification accusation is a transparent canard; Plame’s CIA memos of the recommendation she made are on record; Wilson was caught brazenly lying in his book; Plame and Wilson plotted with Kristof over breakfast during a Demo Senate campaign strategy session as how to drop Wilson’s “bomb”; and Armitage who worked for Powell was the gossip who outed our brave non-covert covert agent, and not the evil Darth Cheney.
It was like playing whack-a-mole.
Eventually, you find out that the very facts that are being argued are not the issue with the ones throwing them up. For just as when when you dispose of one falsehood, another accusation another leaps up to take it’s place; once you discredit an entire issue, another matter entirely arises as the motivating grievance.
He didn’t seek … well he did seek but didn’t get.
He didn’t get … well he did get but he couldn’t use.
He didn’t use … well he used certain types but not the important ones.
And rockets are not weapons of mass destruction, so there.
So it’s, ‘F*ck Bush anyway. Iraqi children and Republican guardsmen died, and who are we to interfere in the affairs a sovereign nation anyway; and Kuwait was just getting what it deserved, and April Glaspie made him do it. And Joe Wilson is a hero and Buck Fush again’
They never tire of it. It’s their lives. It’s about building the world they dream or envision or whatever … not reporting the truth.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/10/13/gruesome-photos-may-show-isis-using-chemical-weapons-on-kurds-says-report/
Now we know WHY the NY Times released their opinion shaping piece. ^^^^^
“The pictures, obtained by the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA), show the bodies of Syrian Kurds who appear to have been gassed by ISIS in the besieged Kobani region this July.”
So this story actually has been bubbling in the backround for months on end.
Talk about controlling the narrative!
The NY Times waited until the very last to publish. That institution HAD to have been sitting on this egg for quite some time.
DNW, Plame even outed herself in Who’s Who — which is largely a vanity publication. Virtually all of its content is generated BY the identified souls, themselves!
This aspect of Who’s Who is generally unknown/ unacknowledged.
Novak admitted he found her in Who’s Who — immediately after putting the phone down!
(From Armitage, that is, who, almost certainly, mentioned her blurb there. It would be in this manner that Armitage side-stepped ANY blame for outing her. I mean, just how public can anyone get? )
Yet, no matter how many times Novak mentioned that Plame was listed, straight up, in Who’s Who as CIA, the MSM dropped his allegation.
(FYI Who’s Who is published locally as well as nationally. So, I’m guessing that Plame was listed in the DC version.
And, yes, you’re required to pay-up to have your blurb in Who’s Who, — unless you’re REALLY somebody.)
I just used the facts in the Gabriel Malor piece to take down a liberal commenter on “The Hill” over the whole WMD destruction was the whole purpose of the War in Iraq. The guy was kind of annoying because when stumped he resorted to name calling and mere assertion. So are, I have not heard back from him.
Liberalism is just another word for “hypocrisy and lies.”
Maybe based on DNW’s comment, I should add the adjective “shameless” in front. Such as Liberalism is just shameless hypocrisy and shameless lies.
😉
I never understood why anybody thought it was a bad thing that Sadaam didn’t have any usable, effective WMD’s when we invaded. (I mean, anybody on our side; of course it must have been a disappointment for Sadaam’s henchmen.) I was relieved that he didn’t have them, and I imagine our troops were too.
What am I missing here? Sadaam has WMDs in the past, right? And he would have had them again given the chance? And we invaded just when he was out of WMDs? Sounds like perfect timing to me. Was our intelligence that good, or were we just lucky?
I’ve heard a lot of complaints (!) about the pitiful state of Sadaam’s WMDs at the time of the invasion. I haven’t heard much talk about what kind of WMDs he’d have by now if we hadn’t invaded.
Setting the record straight on OIF is a hobby horse of mine. Primary sources that are easily accessed on-line provide a straightforward explanation for OIF, yet I find that most supporters – let alone opponents – are unfamiliar with them.
Basic essentials for understanding OIF in the proper context include the 1990-2002 UNSC resolutions for Iraq (at minimum, see UNSCRs 687, 688, and 1441), Public Law 107-243 (the 2002 Congressional authorization for use of military force against Iraq), Public Law 105-235 (“Iraqi Breach of International Obligations”, 14AUG98), President Clinton’s announcement of Operation Desert Fox (the penultimate military enforcement step that set the baseline precedent for OIF), President Bush’s September 2002 remarks to the United Nations General Assembly and excerpts from the 2003 State of the Union, the April 2002 UN Commission on Human Rights situation report on Iraq pursuant UNSCR 688, the UNMOVIC Cluster Document pursuant UNSCR 687 that triggered Bush’s final decision for OIF, and the Iraq Survey Group’s Duelfer Report.
Saddam, thanks to his allies in the West, had plenty of time to evacuate hid Chemical weapons. What he could not get out, he buried . The intel was there, the obvious nose thumbing evacuations were also obvious unless one is a Commiecrat or an enabler of the same.
Fascinating that Red Lady has suddenly decided that all the obstruction by Left side, by the hate fest on the Hudson is somehow, W’s fault.
Gotta love whatever medications they’re on
Gabrial Malor says Nowhere in his speech will you find a claim that Hussein had an “active weapons program,” as the NYTimes writers would now have you believe. Rather Bush talked about finding Hussein’s old weapons and deterring his hope to once again restart his weapons programs:
But you find it in Bush’s Cincinnati speech. Link at the bottom.
Direct quote
The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons.
Another line from the same speech
And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons
rebuilding for what? An active weapon’s program.
After eleven years during which we have tried containment, sanctions, inspections, even selected military action, the end result is that Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more.
Increasing is allusion to an active program.
Here’s the link below. So you’re saying the NYtimes is lying about Bush’s claim for an active weapon’s program?
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html
If I am not clear on what the poster is saying, he clarifies
Gabriel Maylor -“Let me emphasize what is not present, if that’s possible, in either of these speeches: the claim that Hussein had an active weapons of mass destruction program. ”
Clearly Bush has claimed an active program. And if so, why would he want to leave it out anyway.
Actually, I find it funny that you think the public was convinced to go to war without an active weapon’s program.
Apparently if he didn’t bring it up in two speeches, it never happened. Talk about blind stuipidity.
What was Colin Powell trying to show in that hearing, if not an active program.
DNW hit on it:
The left is not discussing this to know the truth. They don’t care about the truth, if they believe it even exists. What they care about is their narrative and feeling good about themselves.
The NYT would like to have ignored the story, but it was becoming inconvenient to have ISIS keep using chemical weapons (I’d heard of the attack at least 3 weeks ago, in the Kurdistan Tribune: http://kurdistantribune.com/2014/doctors-confirm-isis-use-of-chemical-weapon-kobane/ ).
So they put out this article to spin the narrative, and pooh-pooh all the relevant facts.
That allows liberals to continue to feel good about themselves and the “Bush is evil” narrative.
The Left’s not a choir, if ever it was. They’re a zombie army by now, with necros resurrecting old topics like this for new evils and corruptions.
alrightythen,
I agree that Gabriel Malor missed the mark.
What Malor should have done was highlight that Bush was consistent throughout that all the questions in the Iraq enforcement pivoted on whether Saddam proved compliance with the UNSC resolutions of the Gulf War ceasefire.
The enforcement procedure for the Gulf War ceasefire that Clinton passed onto Bush, Saddam’s established and presumed guilt in the enforcement of the UNSC resolutions, compounded by Saddam’s active belligerent noncompliance that deepened his guilt over the decade-plus following the Gulf War, and the pre-war intel are what they are.
The problem is Bush and his officials wavered in calibrating their public message on the Iraq enforcement. At times – as Malor points out – they presented the case against Saddam properly. At times – as you point out – their calibration was off. It’s an error that they shouldn’t have made given that Clinton had already finished and modeled the how-to of the public presentation of the case against Saddam.
I explained the discrepancy of presentation between Clinton and Bush in the prologue for a term paper.
Let’s also bring the spotlight back onto the issue of terrorists possessing and using chemical weapons. That has been a strict red line since Clinton, but Obama apparently is unmoved by it.
FYI, Iraq was required to do both. UNSCR 687 is clear that Iraq was mandated to declare and destroy all proscribed weapons, including as-of-Gulf-War weapons, under international supervision and permanently eliminate its WMD programs:
On March 7, 2003, the UNSCR 1441 inspection period concluded when UNMOVIC presented the Cluster Document to the UN Security Council confirming “Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687” (UNSCR 1441):