Former U.N. envoy John Bolton is making the rounds of the talk shows -- including The Daily Show with Jon Stewart -- making deeply dishonest statements that include the whopper that President Bush never made the case that Iraq was an imminent threat. He's also out charging that regime change is necessary in Iran and boasting that the U.S. delayed the cease-fire between Israel and Hezbollah last year because it hoped the Jewish state would defeat the Shi'ite militant group.
Who let this guy out of his cave?
He must have a book to sell, because I thought he had slunk off into ignoble obscurity after his term at the U.N. expired and it was made clear to Bush that his re-appointment would not be approved. Apparently not.
His first statement, today, on Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, was the one that Bush never made the case that Iraq was an "imminent threat." This is an old one, and one easily disproved, for while Bush may not have uttered the words, "imminent," "threat" and "Iraq" in the same sentence, the first result on Google reveals a _Los Angeles Times" story after his 2003 State of the Union Address headlined, "Bush Calls Iraq Imminent Threat."
The Center for American Progress, a Democratic think tank, has assembled a collection of quotes from administration officials who affirmed that Iraq was, indeed, an "imminent threat."
For example:
"The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands."-- President Bush, 11/23/02"The Iraqi regime is a serious and growing threat to peace."
-- President Bush, 10/16/02"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency."
-- President Bush, 10/2/02
There are others, from such Bush administration luminaries such as Donald Rumsfeld -- "Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent ... I would not be so certain" (9/18/02) -- and official spokesman, Scott McClellan -- "This is about imminent threat" (2/10/03).
So, once again, Bolton is just wrong: deeply, profoundly wrong. And so was I. From my perch outside the United States -- I've been away for several years now -- I had the impression that the neo-cons were diminished or on the run, that the right-wing noise machine was winding down and that American television journalism had developed a least a modicum of skepticism toward the Bush administration. (Thankfully Jon Stewart's interview with Bolton -- while gracious -- was at least more hard hitting.)
Turning to Iran, he again goes on to say regime change is necessary and wanted by Iranians. In an interview with Ynetnews.com, he says:"I think there are a lot of Iranians that are unsatisfied with the regime, I think that there is more unrest there than what people believe, I think that the government is constrained because of the fall of oil prices and there is mismanagement of the oil sector of Iran's economy, they've got fewer resources to spread around to keep the populous happy.
"There's a large Iranian diaspora that know what the situation is. So, I think that there are a lot of possibilities. It won't necessarily be easy or quick, but that's not to say we shouldn't be pursuing it.
"In think it's very close to the point where Iran will have completely indigenous mastery over the fuel sites, that is to say the point in which stopping the things from the outside will not be sufficient, so I don't think we have much time. That's why all these negotiations with the Europeans have played to Iran's advantage, because time is on their side, time is not on our side."
How can the Iranian regime be toppled?
"Well, I wish we had started four years ago, but I think through internal dissent and outside pressure, those in general terms are what we have to do." (Emphasis added)
Are people in Washington still talking about changing the regime change in Iran? I mean, honestly? And listening to the Iranian diaspora? That worked so well with the Iraqi diaspora, as led by Ahmad Chalabi.
And finally, Bolton admits to what everyone in Lebanon already knew: That the U.S. dragged its feet in calling for a cease-fire -- allowing Lebanese civilians to be slaughtered -- so that Israel might have some more time to finish off Hezbollah.
As reported by the BBC, an early cease-fire, he said, would be "dangerous and misguided."
It was only when it was obvious that the Shi'ite group would be a tougher enemy to beat that initially thought did America sign on to a cessation of hostilities.
Thank goodness his time is up.
Interesting to read your analysis on John Bolton. I saw him on the daily show the other night and really didn’t like how he was presenting his side. Though obviously the Daily Show is not a … super critical news show, it still was an interview and Bolton came across to me as a prime candidate for a White House spokesman - that is, full of bull.
While I value your insights as an experienced on-the-scene observer in the ME, and check daily for your blog updates, I am having a hard time figuring out where you got the information to claim “American television journalism had developed at least a modicum of skepticism toward the Bush administration,” the implication being that they generally accept if not support the administration. Any traffic analysis of US media will show an unremitting hostility toward the administration (note I didn’t say “unfair” hostility - only Laura can still defend this administration) and suppression of any contradictory information since Nov 4 2000. Any story that might reflect positively on administration policies is caveated or undercut with contradicting stories or innuendo.
I have access to a wide variety of reports and blogs coming from Iraq and Afghanistan and it is impossible to reconcile foreign (and sometimes even Arabic) news coverage with US media coverage - are they in the same country? The US media set out from day one on the Iraq affair to “prove” to the US voting public that the US military was being defeated in Iraq - pale, unconvincing paeons to the heroism and suffering of US troops to the contrary. In 2003 and 2004, morale was sagging among embedded reporters because their stories of hospitals and schools reopened and popular Iraqi expressions of support were being spiked. Even today, there is NO coverage of the conflict between the Anbar tribes and the al Qaeda wannabees. Had CNN or MSNBC covered World War II, we would have capitulated to the Germans and Japanese in the Fall of 1942 since it was obvious that our policies of containing Naziism and Japanese militarism had failed.
Enough soap box, keep up the good work. As I said, your observations provide a clearer picture of what is happening in Lebanon than anything CBS, the Washington Post, or Nancy Pelosi will allow us access to.
Sean
Update: Just as I stated there had been no coverage of the conflict between the Anbar tribes and al Qaeda, an article appeared. Again, though, slanted: NOT “Anbar tribes fight al Qaeda” but “al Qaeda attacks Sunnis”, the wording making al Qaeda the prime actor rather than fighting for its shrinking supply and support base.
Sean, Having family that served in this war, I can say, without question, I haven’t the slightest clue what you are talking about. To even marginally conclude that current TV American journalism is and has been anti-Bush is, in a word, absurd. American TV journalism is based on one thing, money. There is no political bias to captialism when a profit is to be made. Hence, we sell weapons to Shiites, then accuse Iran of doing the same. Meanwhile, our friends the Saudis are supplying arms to the real insurgents, the Sunnis.
It took a man and an administration, and a nation, of staggering stupidity and hubris to get America into the situation it is in now in Iraq.
You are on the soapbox ENTIRELY in your argument, the only differnece being your soapbox is made of cardboard and collapses under you.
Mainstream television media in the United States is a joke, and can in no rational way be described as aggresively ANYTHING except profit and star driven.
Money rules the day. And the money behind the networks was not going to do ANYthing to keep us out of Iraq, as the wise folks like me who marched against it warned. We were right, this incompetent administration was wrong, and yet those who were right are STILL not listened to.
Bush is cruel.He makes lots of Iraqs live in horror.He could not attack Iraq because of some ridiculous cloaks.Everyone knows that he just want to get oil from Iraq!
He is the most unsuccessful leader in the whole world.The war resulted from his selfishness.He should not be forgiven!
My English is not very well.I can’t express my notion completely.
Thank for reading my comment about Bush.
I am a girl,and I come from Taiwan.
Dadler, While I respect your opinion, this isn’t the place for a one-on-one about the Bush (mis)administration. We are in agreement that poor decisions have been made and that the mainstream media is a joke when it comes to informing the American people. If the standard for pro-administration reporting is anything short of calling for armed insurrection, I guess the media could be called pro-Bush. Others have different standards based on theme, syntax and key word selection. We also agree that money determines much of what we read and hear. But, before we reflexively blame the Right, follow the money to see who really controls the media. Also, I think you will be happier in life if you get over your pique about the administration going to war without your personnel approval. It’s over, done, and the issue now is what to to next. In the end, we both come to THIS site to get a perspective that we can’t get anywhere else. Regards
I agree, Sean. Everyone has opinions about Bush and Iraq (including, apparently, Angry Teenagers from Taiwan) but the reason I make time to read Back2Iraq is that Chris has coverage and insights not available elsewhere.
That said, this post could have been blogged by anyone, anywhere with YouTube and Journalism 101 so I’m not sure there’s much point discussing it here.
What happened to your visit to Iran, Chris? That would make great reading…
I agree, Sean. Everyone has opinions about Bush and Iraq (including, apparently, Angry Teenagers from Taiwan) but the reason I make time to read Back2Iraq is that Chris has coverage and insights not available elsewhere.
That said, this post could have been blogged by anyone, anywhere with YouTube and Journalism 101 so I’m not sure there’s much point discussing it here.
What happened to your visit to Iran, Chris? That would make great reading…
Bolton is actually right. Chris, you said Bolton said, “President Bush never made the case that Iraq was an imminent threat.” And you provided no evidence to the contrary.
Bush used words like “serious and growing,” and “unique and urgent,” which are not synonymous with “imminent.” Just because you want Bush to have said imminent doesn’t mean you can bend the meanings of words he did use to fit your desires.
“imminent” means that it could happen at any moment. None of the words you quoted have that meaning, together or apart. “urgent” comes closest to that meaning, but “urgent” does not necessarily mean something could happen right now: it could instead mean that it is soon to happen, or that it has already happened. While “imminent” focuses on when something might happen, “urgent” focuses on how important that event (and its response) might be, without specifying when it might occur.
It’s simply wrong to say that those phrases are synonymous with “imminent,” and as a writer, you should know better.
If BushCo really didn’t think Iraq was an imminent threat then the decision to invade is even more of a crime.
The American/British oil barons plan to pilfer and steal Iraqi petroleum resources inorder to enrich themselves. A Jim Hightower animation addresses the issues.
http://tinyurl.com/3xgmah
imminent : ready to take place; especially : hanging threateningly over one’s head
urgent : calling for immediate attention
(Courtesy of Merriam-Webster.)
Bolton didn’t say “President Bush never made the case that Iraq was an ‘imminent’ threat.” If he had quoted Bush directly, taking it literally would be necessary. But he didn’t, so one can take the meaning of it and know that he is lying.
If I say that you are a moron, you can’t say “Miraba called me an ‘idiot.’” However, you can say “Miraba called me an idiot,” because we all know that a moron and an idiot are the same thing.
Pudge, as someone who speaks English, you should know better.