There’s a tired old cliche: “Hey, don’t confuse me with the facts.”
But that seems to be becoming the motif of the Bush administration. The first solid sign was Bob Woodward’s influential book last year which revealed an administration in which Iraq policy was essentially made via bravado-laced self-affirmation — not by the usual process that’s taught in universities (or described in history books) where key policy-making players stand back, coolly look at the facts, lay out all options, pick the most realistic, attainable options and carefully weigh — and prepare for –any consequences.
And yesterday, the seeming belief that if you restate something repeatedly you can eventually sell it (even if others have said it is either a weak argument or an outright wrong one) seemed on display when President George Bush delivered a defiant speech in which he again asserted that the U.S. is fighting 911-linked Al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq. Many experts dispute that. (It has also been a big journalistic issue. Re-read THIS POST.
One report also noted that once again Mr. Bush suddenly changed his argument — about Al Qaeda, a device often used by Mr. Bush who can usually rest assured that many of his followers will then adjust their own arguments accordingly, as if his old assertions never happened (ahhh….but there is video tape).
And Bush also referred to what was billed as newly classified material — which officials refused to detail. This fits another administration motif: it declassifies intelligence tidbits that it feels bolsters its case, but locks up other information so its actual value in terms of accuracy (except for talk show hosts) is highly questionable or suspect:
President Bush sought anew on Tuesday to draw connections between the Iraqi group Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia and the terrorist network responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks, and he sharply criticized those who contend that the groups are independent of each other.
At a time when Mr. Bush is trying to beat back calls for withdrawal from Iraq, the speech at Charleston Air Force Base reflected concern at the White House over criticism that he is focusing on the wrong terrorist threat…..
“The facts are that Al Qaeda terrorists killed Americans on 9/11, they’re fighting us in Iraq and across the world and they are plotting to kill Americans here at home again,†Mr. Bush told a contingent of military personnel here. “Those who justify withdrawing our troops from Iraq by denying the threat of Al Qaeda in Iraq and its ties to Osama bin Laden ignore the clear consequences of such a retreat.â€
Note the use of “ignore.” That assumes what Mr. Bush is asserting is itself beyond debate and people are just pretending it doesn’t exist. But it’s more accurate to say that Bush and war critics (on the left, center and those on the right) may disagree over the consequences or degree of the consequences. No one is “ignoring” a proven argument at this point.
……Democratic lawmakers accused Mr. Bush of overstating those ties to provide a basis for continuing the American presence in Iraq. The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, said Mr. Bush was “trying to justify claims that have long ago been proven to be misleading.â€
The Iraqi group is a homegrown Sunni Arab extremist group with some foreign operatives that has claimed a loose affiliation to Mr. bin Laden’s network, although the precise links are unclear.
In his speech, Mr. Bush did not try to debunk the fact — repeated by Mr. Reid — that Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia did not exist until after the United States invasion in 2003 and has flourished since.
His comments also reflected a subtle shift from his recent flat assertion that, “The same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq were the ones who attacked us in America on Sept. 11.â€
Note that this argument has been repeatedly used by administration supporters in and out of the administration, on talk radio and elsewhere. Now that he (seemingly) shifted, as if the original comments were never made, will they shift as well?
The overall thrust of the speech was that the administration believes that Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia has enough connections to Mr. bin Laden’s group to be considered the same threat, that its ultimate goal is to strike America and that to think otherwise is “like watching a man walk into a bank with a mask and a gun and saying he’s probably just there to cash a check.â€
Mr. Bush referred throughout his speech to what his aides said was newly declassified intelligence in his effort to link Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia and the central Qaeda leadership that is believed to be operating from the Pakistan-Afghanistan border region. Although the aides said the intelligence was declassified, White House and intelligence officials declined to provide any detail on the reports Mr. Bush cited.
To all but those who totally trust the administration and solidly back its policies, the new declassified information will therefore be seen as useless. That’s the price of a (growing) credibility gap.
FOOTNOTE: The Washington Post reports: “With 18 months left in office, he [Bush] is in the running for most unpopular president in the history of modern polling.”
RELATED: Blogger Michael Totten offers original reporting HERE on the surge.
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.