ANOTHER EMPTY VICTORY FOR COGNITIVE DISSONANCE
The Chicago Tribune in its December 28 edition attempted to justify its support for the administration's decision to go to war. A representative sample of the Trib's in-house investigation, titled "Judging the Case for War," follows:
"THE ROAD TO WAR: THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION'S NINE ARGUMENTS
Biological and chemical weapons
WHAT THE WHITE HOUSE SAID
The Bush administration said Iraq had stockpiled weapons of mass destruction. Officials trumpeted reports from U.S. and foreign spy agencies, including an October 2002 CIA assessment: "Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons, as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions."
WHAT WE KNOW TODAY
Many, although not all, of the Bush administration's assertions about weapons of mass destruction have proven flat-out wrong. What illicit weaponry searchers uncovered didn't begin to square with the magnitude of the toxic armory U.S. officials had described before the war.
THE VERDICT
There was no need for the administration to rely on risky intelligence to chronicle many of Iraq's other sins. In putting so much emphasis on illicit weaponry, the White House advanced its most provocative, least verifiable case for war when others would have sufficed.
Iraq rebuffs the world
WHAT THE WHITE HOUSE SAID
In a speech that left many diplomats visibly squirming in their chairs, President Bush detailed tandem patterns of failure: Saddam Hussein had refused to obey UN Security Council orders that he disclose his weapons programs--and the UN had refused to enforce its demands of Hussein.
WHAT WE KNOW TODAY
Reasonable minds disagree on whether Iraq's flouting of UN resolutions justified the war. But there can be no credible assertion that either Iraq or the UN met its responsibility to the world. If anything, the administration gravely understated the chicanery, both in Baghdad and at the UN.
THE VERDICT
Hussein had shunted enough lucre to enough profiteers to keep the UN from challenging him. In a dozen years the organization mass-produced 17 resolutions on Iraq, all of them toothless. That in turn enabled Hussein to continue his brutal reign and cost untold thousands of Iraqis their lives."
Short version: We supported the war, and we know a lot of you think we got duped. However, our own investigation proves we were not duped.
But did you notice anything missing? I did.
One of the most crippling deceits in this column, the one that's most responsible for it being a failure, is the fact that it addresses only the administration arguments in the lead up to war. The structure (What they said—What we know today—The verdict) completely ignores the fact that there were dissenting opinions before the war, and that those dissenting opinions were cast aside with extreme prejudice. It ignores the fact that what they said was being undercut by dozens of prominent voices.
That is, the Tribune's sloppy Monday-morning "matrix" analyzes only information given to justify the war, without exploring what happened to information that knocked down those justifications. The structure itself implicitly supports the Bush & Co. spin that "everyone thought Hussein was a threat," a premise which even King Bush's most loyal subjects must know is demonstrably false.
So the same media that ignored dissent in the run-up to war now — brace yourselves — ignores the fact that such dissent ever existed!
To only investigate how "what we know today" counters "what they said" might make the Trib editorial board sleep better at night, but it hardly addresses the full array of beefs war critics have with the administration.
The Tribune, in essence, is giving an easy answer to a complicated question, while conveniently ignoring the one aspect of the story which would prove most damning to its chickenhawk editorial board. How they could have ignored such an important piece of the puzzle is beyond me. I mean, such a glaring oversight couldn't be intentional and self-serving, could it? Unthinkable!
Chalk up another gem for your Liberal Media.