by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright December 17, 2005
All Rights Reserved.

onfessing that prewar intelligence on which he ordered the Iraq War was flawed, President George W. Bush proved his deputy chief of staff Karl Rove still calls the shots behind the scenes. Bush's apparent admission attempts to change the subject from regrets about the war to unshakable resolve on the eve of Iraq's parliamentary elections. “It's true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong,” said Bush, taking responsibility for the costly war that has claimed 2,154 U.S. lives. Bush's admission ignores credible reports in the New York and Los Angeles Times that the White House and Pentagon were warned by British, French and German intelligence that Saddam's weapons of mass destruction couldn't be verified. Bush's recent admission amounts to the latest smokescreen, ignoring evidence that the White House juiced up intelligence to make its case for war

      Shifting excuses for war have included (a) Saddam's arsenal of WMD, (b) Iraq's support of terrorism, (c) enforcing U.N. sanctions, (d) democratizing the Middle East and (e) liberating Iraq's oppressed people. “My decision to remove Saddam Hussein was the right decision,” said Bush, whether or not Iraq posed a threat to U.S. national security. Calling Iraq “the central front in the war on terror,” both Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have repeatedly stressed a linkage between fighting terrorists in Iraq and reducing a terrorist threat on American soil. Since Sept. 11, intelligence experts agree that Iraq had nothing to do with terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. “Saddam was a threat and the American people, and the world is better off because he is no longer in power,” Bush told a polite audience in his fourth speech defending the war at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.

      Admitting mistakes attempts to stem a slide in the polls, leaving Bush hovering around 40%. Most Americans have reservations about the Iraq War, finding it difficult to justify ongoing carnage and drain on the U.S. treasury. Bush talks about victory in Iraq when the new government is no longer threatened by a violent insurgency plunging the country into civil war. Toppling Saddam April 9, 2003 only took three weeks but winning the peace, namely, rebuilding the country, has proved lengthy and most costly. “Victory will be achieved by meeting certain objectives: when the terrorists and Saddamists can no longer threaten Iraq's democracy, when the Iraqi security forces can protect its own people and when Iraq is not a safe haven for terrorists to plot attacks against our country,” said Bush, establishing ambitious, nearly impossible, criteria for bringing troops home.

      For Bush to achieve his mission, countless tax dollars and numbers of U.S. lives will be lost. There's little doubt the U.S. can prevail in Iraq. It's always been a matter of at what price. Iraq's Dec. 14 parliamentary elections legitimize Iraq's sovereignty but don't deal with infiltration by insurgents into Iraq's fledgling military and security services. Bush's current definition of victory offers little hope to U.S. troops currently embarked on the biggest nation-building project in U.S. history. Proponents of the war believe the sacrifices are worth creating a new democracy in the Middle East. Before Iraq's security forces can defend its new government, the problem of infiltration and loyalty to insurgents must be addressed. Expected reductions in U.S. troops will only empower insurgents to bolder action. There's no evidence that Iraq's insurgents or even foreign terrorists threaten U.S. national security.

      Taking responsibility for flawed intelligence means more than pointing fingers at the Pentagon or CIA. U.S. authorities must acknowledge, as former Iraqi exile Ahmed Chalibi once said, that the U.S. overlooked obvious intelligence problems to hype its case for war. Chalibi, whose brother-in-law named “Curveball,” was responsible for phony intel about Saddam's mobile germ labs, offered no apologies, indicating it was the White House's responsibility to verify prewar intelligence. Though discredited by German Intelligence, Cheney still insists that Saddam's missing WMD will be eventually found. While Bush thinks ending Saddam's reign was a good thing, he can't bring back the lives of U.S. troops, reverse the disabling injuries or repay the U.S. treasury. Admitting only that he got bad intelligence doesn't tell the whole story of what really went wrong with prewar intelligence.

      There's a difference between public relations stunts, like Bush's four speeches on Iraq, and admitting that he misled the country to satisfy his obsession with toppling Saddam Hussein. Bush's criteria for ending U.S. involvement give little reassurance of when the American public can expect an exit strategy. Keeping ground forces in Iraq will only lead to more deaths and injuries. “The president still hasn't stated how long his administration believes the (war) will take and how much it will cost in terms funding and in terms of the commitment of American military and civilian personnel,” said Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), not reassured by Bush's victory plan. Insurgents and foreign terrorists currently threaten Iraq's sovereignty, unless the new government cracks down with sufficient force. Under Bush's current plan, U.S. troops have no way to engineer a way out.

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2005 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.