White House acknowledges deception in build-up towards war

Just as a rule, you know you’re in trouble when the sentence begins, “We were not lying, but…”

In the months of build-up towards war in Iraq, the White House seemed to have trouble maintaining a consistent argument as to why the invasion was necessary. First, the administration hinted that Iraq was somehow involved in the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Then administration officials said Hussein had, or was close to having, nuclear weapons. This was followed by a description of Iraq’s massive weapons program with chemical and biological weapons. The argument shifted again to say war was necessary because Iraq wasn’t following the resolutions of the United Nations. Later, we heard we should invade for humanitarian reasons. Finally, America was told we could democratize the entire Arab world if only we had the will to “liberate” Iraq.

The constant shifting of arguments and emphasis did little to instill confidence in those who were skeptical about the need for a full-scale invasion. The administration’s failure to keep its story straight also hurt diplomatic efforts to recruit allies for the war.

Nevertheless, by the time war was imminent, Bush had made Hussein’s government look pretty scary. In his State of the Union address in January, Bush persuaded a lot of Americans to back the war by telling the world that Hussein had a dangerous arsenal that included 25,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent, 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents, several mobile biological weapons labs, and an advanced nuclear weapons development program.

Now that the war is finished, and those weapons of mass destruction are proving to be quite elusive, White House officials are embracing a new tack: the administration was spinning all along.

According to a report from ABC News (that I found via Atrios), the administration admits it was not entirely forthcoming when it came to laying out the reasons for war.

“To build its case for war with Iraq, the Bush administration argued that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, but some officials now privately acknowledge the White House had another reason for war — a global show of American power and democracy,” ABC reported. Officials inside government and advisers outside told ABC News the administration emphasized the danger of Saddam’s weapons to gain the legal justification for war from the United Nations and to stress the danger at home to Americans.”

“We were not lying,” one official told ABC. “But it was just a matter of emphasis.”

Those same officials now also acknowledge that the huge WMD arsenal may be found, or it may not. Maybe the weapons were destroyed in advance, perhaps Iraq never had the weapons at all.

Regardless, I guess the administration believes the ends justify the means. We flexed our muscle, 150 U.S. soldiers died, and we’ve brought freedom to a country that increasingly seems anxious for us to leave them alone.

I remain troubled, though, by the duplicity. Remember the Lewinsky scandal? Clinton said a lot of things to try and get out of trouble; some were true while others were less true. Ironically, his defense ultimately was, “I wasn’t lying, but it was just a matter of emphasis.”

Seems to me that wasn’t quite good enough for his critics in the GOP three years ago.