Perhaps the most important moment in yesterday’s White House press conference came when CNN’s Ed Henry pressed the president to explain why he and officials in Iraq had contradictory messages on Iranian weapons being used against Americans in Iraq.
Henry asked Bush, “You saying today that you do not know if senior members of the Iranian government are, in fact, behind these explosives — that contradicts what U.S. officials said in Baghdad on Sunday. They said the highest levels of the Iranian government were behind this. It also — it seems to square with what General Pace has been saying, but contradicts with what your own press secretary said yesterday.”
Bush responded with subtle dodges and insisted “there’s no contradiction.” He was obviously wrong — on Sunday, administration officials were making a specific charge (the weapons are connect to the highest levels of the Iranian government), and on Wednesday, Bush was equally specific (we don’t know if the weapons are connected to the highest levels of the Iranian government).
Today, the White House threw military officials in Iraq under the bus.
While much of the information had previously been known, the highlight of the presentation — as reported by ABC World News — was that it was “the first time military officials…made the link to the highest level of Iran’s government.” But the briefing “offered no evidence” to substantiate that claim. After coming under intense scrutiny for an intelligence presentation that was approved by the highest levels of the administration, the White House has slowly backed off its claims of Iranian government involvement.
Today, CNN reported that the White House is now blaming the anonymous intelligence briefer who presented the information. According to CNN’s Ed Henry, the White House says the anonymous intelligence briefer went “a little too far” in stating the evidence.
Actually, this raises more questions than it answers.
First, if military briefers in Baghdad went “a little too far” on Sunday in talking to the media and providing information for the American public, why did it take until Thursday afternoon — and an embarrassing press conference exchange — to correct the record? (Answer: probably because they were happy to let the mistake linger, and wouldn’t have set the record straight at all were it not for the president’s public comments.)
Second, the Baghdad briefing had been delayed for weeks, specifically so officials could make sure every piece of information was perfectly accurate. With this in mind, how did they manage to screw up perhaps the most important accusation in the entire briefing?
And third, might this also be an explanation for why the Baghdad briefers insisted on remaining anonymous?
Post Script: Just as an aside, when pushed on exactly what he knew about the weapons’ origins, Bush said, “What we do know is that the Quds force was instrumental in providing these deadly IEDs to networks inside of Iraq. We know that. And we also know that the Quds force is a part of the Iranian government. That’s a known. What we don’t know is whether or not the head leaders of Iran ordered the Quds force to do what they did. But here’s my point: Either they knew or didn’t know, and what matters is, is that they’re there. What’s worse, that the government knew or that the government didn’t know?”
Salon’s Tim Grieve had a poignant response: (thanks to S.G. for the tip)
How does this one sound, Mr. President? What we do know is that members of the U.S. military were responsible for acts of torture at Abu Ghraib. We know that. And we also know that the U.S. military is part of the U.S. government. That’s a known. What we don’t know is whether or not the head leaders of the U.S. government ordered the U.S. personnel at Abu Ghraib to do what they did. But here’s our point: Either they knew or didn’t know, and what matters is, is that they did it. What’s worse, that the government knew or that the government didn’t know?
Good point.