The subtext of the current controversy over the Niger forgeries is so obvious that it needs to be spelled out with much greater frequency.
Bushies and their apologists are trying to spin this as a tempest in a teapot. The real story here — and it’s profoundly missed by most people reporting it (and many people reading it) — is that this is evidence, if not ironclad proof, that the Bush administration was hellbent for war and that they weren’t going to let a little thing like the truth stop them.
That, I think, is more important than the question of whether or not the Bush adminstration is willing to lie to us about their policies, data, or basic physical laws. It amazes me that this is even under dispute. We knew this already.
No, what’s really important is whether we as Americans can cling to our tattered self-image as reluctant warriors, only engaging in “good wars”, and then only when dragged in by the sheer Hitlerian evil of our enemies. We don’t go to war merely to flex our military might. We certainly don’t go to war for partisan advantage. And we surely don’t go to war in order to annex the natural resources of other nations, such as, say, oil.
This last bit has the Bushsymps especially ostrich-like, as they ignore all evidence that shows that, well, we just overthrew a nation at least partially for mercenary reasons. Remember that Energy Task Force headed by Dick Cheney that everyone thought was stonewalling on keeping its records private because of their nefarious dealings with Enron? Turns out that it might be all that and Iraq too.
But the real question is when and where we’ll start rolling out the tanks again. There are damn few people, even among those on the side of GWB, who are entirely copacetic with the idea of heading on to Damascus, Tehran, or Pyongyang. In fact, their support of the war on Baghdad seems oddly hinged on the idea that this war was a one-off. You’d think Kabul would be fresh in their minds, but that was so 2001. So therefore it goes to reason that if our administration actually is secretly planning to hit a few more beaches, we should see some antiwar sentiment start to come from the moderates and even a few conservatives.
Which is why I was so struck by the juxtaposition of two news articles I read over the weekend. The first concerned John Bolton — who, as I’m sure we all recall, was called the “Armageddon nominee” by the Boston Globe when he was named as Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security. Seems he was supposed to testify before Congress, but his appearance was delayed. The brouhaha, according to Warren Strobel at the Miami Herald:
The CIA and other intelligence agencies said that assessment was exaggerated.
Of course, this isn’t the first time we’ve banged the war drums against Syria. Surely we’re not planning on invading anytime soon? For this, we turn to the reassuring words of Douglas Feith, undersecretary for defense policy — the #3 job at the Pentagon; and Lawrence Di Rita, special assistant to Don Rumsfeld, as quoted in the LA Times:
Still, he and other Pentagon officials said, they are studying the lessons of Iraq closely — to ensure that the next U.S. takeover of a foreign country goes more smoothly.
“We’re going to get better over time,” promised Lawrence Di Rita, a special assistant to Rumsfeld. “We’ve always thought of post-hostilities as a phase” distinct from combat, he said. “The future of war is that these things are going to be much more of a continuum.”
“This is the future for the world we’re in at the moment,” he said. “We’ll get better as we do it more often.”
Italics and boldface added, just so you wouldn’t miss what these two are saying here.
I have to admit, the one guy I feel sorry for at the moment is Scott McClellan, the new Ari Fleischer. Here he is, watching the press corps acting like lap dogs for his boss over the past two years, getting away with lines like the one pictured here (excerpted from a cartoon by Carol Lay). And now he’s stepping into the role just as the press is waking up to this fact, and looking for a little blood to mix into their newsprint.
I’ve cut down the following excerpt for brevity’s sake, but for a fuller picture of a man flopping about like a gutted trout on a hot sidewalk, check out the Talking Points Memo from whence it came:
Scott McClellan: I think the question that you asked about was that someone was insisting —
QUESTION: Durbin said, a White House official insisted —
Scott McClellan: — insisting that it be put in there in an effort to mislead the American people, I think is what —
QUESTION: You didn’t explicitly give a motive.
Scott McClellan: And I said I think that’s just nonsense. […]
QUESTION: I’m saying, does your “nonsense” statement apply to the idea that the White House wanted it in the speech and negotiated with the CIA on a way to get it in the speech?
Scott McClellan: I think that it still goes back to, these drafts go to the various agencies, it goes to the CIA, this is an intelligence matter. It was based on information in the National Intelligence Estimate. That’s the consensus document of the intelligence community, and that’s what the information was based on in that speech.
QUESTION: So what I asked you about in that speech, your “nonsense” statement —
Scott McClellan: I’m trying to walk you —
QUESTION: You’re trying to walk me out the door. (Laughter.)
Scott McClellan: I’m trying to walk you through this. […]
QUESTION: Scott, on Keith’s question, why can’t we just expect, basically what would be a non-answer, which is, of course the President is responsible for everything that comes out of his mouth. I mean, that’s a non-answer. Why can’t you just say that?