www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,176728,00.html
FOXFAN CENTRAL Should Congress Investigate Misleading Prewar Intelligence? Friday, November 25, 2005 By Timothy Lynch ARCHIVE Washington is in high dungeon these days over the events leading up to th e Iraq war. Democrats charge President Bush with misleading the Congress and the elec torate over prewar intelligence. John Kerry said Mr Bus hs handling of the war was one of the great acts of misleading and dec eption in American history. Bristling at the charge, Vice President Dick Cheney rejoined that such at tacks are among the most dishonest and reprehensible charges that have ever been aired in Washington. If anything good comes out of this heated debate, it is perhaps the conse nsus that on the momentous decision of war or peace, presidential decept ion is repugnant. Can this principle of presidential honesty and candor find an enduring place in our politics? The Democrats who are condemning President Bush hope that we will forget about their passive role on the US military mission in Bosnia. Much to their chagrin, however, this month marks the tenth anniversary of the B alkans undertaking so it is worth recalling how that mission got under way. President Clinton announced the deployment of troops in a nationall y televised address. Mr Clinton said this mission would be precisely d efined with clear realistic goals that could be achieved in a definite period of time.
Advertise Here What kind of time frame did the president have in mind? Mr Clinton assur ed skittish viewers that this mission should and will take about one ye ar. The White House and the State Department then went to work to sell the mission to a skeptical Congress. Throughout the 1996 election year, the Clinton administration led voters to believe that it would adhere to the one-year deadline. Even on the ev e of the election, in late October 1996, State Department spokesperson N icholas Burns adamantly denied that there were any changes in the Clinto n plan to withdraw 15,000 American soldiers from Bosnia that December. A s far as the voters were concerned, Bosnia was a non-issue especially since the Republican presidential candidate, Bob Dole, failed to express any interest in prolonging the military mission. A few weeks after securing his re-election, however, President Clinton su ddenly announced a change. Quite frankly, the president declared, the rebuilding process was tak ing longer than anticipated. And because of that unexpected delay, thous ands of US troops would have to remain in Bosnia not just for a few extra weeks, not just for another year, but for an additional 18 months. And, note well, that Mr Clinton did not dismiss his secretary of defen se because of poor planning. Mr Clinton spoke matter-of-factly and made it seem as if this lamentable extension of the mission resulted from an honest error in his own judgment. We now know that our intervention would last nine years, not one. To defl ect attention from the misleading prewar intelligence, one can expect so me partisan activists to trot out the line, Well, when Clinton lied, no body died. Thankfully, hostile action killed no American or NATO personnel in Bosnia , but watch that misleading spin. Scores of people died during NATOs bo mbing raids, including civilians. The salient point i s that Mr Clinton and his national security team did not think the Amer ican people would accept a long-term intervention in the Balkins, so the y packaged the mission as a one-year affair, after which our troops woul d quickly come home. Some scholars take the view that if a presidents aims are worthy enough, deception can be justified. Professor Thomas Bailey of Stanford Univers ity examined the foreign policies of Franklin D Roosevelt in the months preceding our entry into World War II and concluded that he repeatedly deceived the American people. The Japanese assault on Pearl Harbor was, to be sure, a vicious surprise attack, but contrary to his paeans for peace, FDR was anxious to get Ame rica into the war. That FDR was deceptive about his intentions seems ind isputable. The controversy among scholars is whether some of his secret intentions and provocations were justified. Because the mass es are notoriously shortsighted and generally cannot see danger until it is at their throats, our statesmen are forced to deceive them into an a wareness of their own long term interests, writes Mr Bailey. President s must therefore act like physicians, who must sometimes tell lies for the patients own good. Bush and Cheney responded to the re cent Democratic attacks by saying, Yes, we did lie about Iraq, but it w as for the good of the country? Ted Kennedy would doubtless call f or impeachment proceedings. If there is to be a co ngressional investigation into the prewar intelligence on Iraq, let us h ave an investigation into the Bosnia mission as well. If there is no sto mach for this double endeavor, Congress ought to establish some neutral criteria for prewar representations regarding future conflicts, criteria that can lay down markers for all presidents in all circumstances. Does an impeachment proceeding for deception depend upon which political party controls the White House? Does honesty and candor about war depend upon the particular war aims of the president? Does impeachment for dec eit depend upon how well the war is going? Or is candor on such a fundam ental matter simply indispensable to the proper functioning of a constit utional republicin all circumstances? Lets put some neutral criteria to a vote so that we can get some of these opportunistic and hypocritical politicians on the record.
|
http://csua.com/feed/