Truth, Lies & War

Rod Dreher has an interesting post about intelligence officials who distorted information to justify the Bush Administration's policy goals. In other words, they lied. I'm sure you are shocked to think that your heroes may not have been entirely truthful. Maybe they actually believed themselves to be telling the truth, but I have no problem believing the government would lie to the people. I've seen it happen. Here is a story you will not read anywhere else.

In 1990 I was a junior officer in an Army Reserve military intelligence unit. In August of that year, Iraqi forces under Saddam Hussein invaded and captured Kuwait. President Bush vowed "this will not stand" and ordered U.S. forces to defend Saudi Arabia in an operation called Desert Shield.

It was an interesting time to be a reservist. Many units were mobilized and there was a lot of confusion about who would go and who would stay. We were alerted several times to get ready and then told to stand down. We worked hard to be ready just in case. In the end I never went anywhere, Kuwait was liberated, and Saddam stayed in power.

During this time I was, as you might imagine, paying close attention to the news coverage. Back then that meant CNN. Fox News didn't exist yet and the web was still a dream. CNN was quite accurate about some things, and totally wrong on others. I knew this because I had access to classified intelligence information as part of our mission. It was amusing to contrast the "official" news with what was on TV.

In late 1990 I saw top secret reports about an event that had just occurred in the Middle East. I must be vague because I think it may still be classified. I've still never seen it mentioned in any open source, at least. Suffice to say that this event was highly relevant to U.S. military plans at the time.

Daily press briefings from the Pentagon were a regular feature on CNN during this period, with various generals and admirals answering questions from reporters. So one day I almost fell out of my chair when a general was asked about this very hush-hush event. I don't have a transcript, but the exchange went something like this.

Q: General, we heard a rumor that ________ earlier this week. Can you confirm this?

A: No, that's not true. No such thing happened.

The reporter dropped it and they went on to other matters. Now as a young officer maybe I was a bit idealistic, but it had never occurred to me that generals could lie. But that's what he did. What the reporter said was true, and the thing he mentioned did happen.

The general could have said "We don't comment on intelligence matters." He could have said "We can't confirm that." He could have used one of the many other artful dodges that they frequently employed when asked awkward questions. He didn't. Instead he lied, plain and simple, to the press and the American public.

Was he wrong? Maybe, maybe not. The nature of this information was such that if it had become public knowledge, some innocent civilians probably would have died. The general may have felt he needed to shoot down the question and make sure it didn't come back up. I'm not second-guessing him here. I am making the point that government lies from the highest levels are nothing new.

There's more. This particular general had four stars at the time and became very well-known to the public. He retired a couple of years later and there was a lot of speculation about whether he might have a political future, maybe even a run for the White House. His political appeal was, ironically, based largely on his reputation for prudence and honesty.

The general decided against seeking elective office, but did go on to become a key cabinet officer in the second Bush Administration. Once again, he began appearing on the news regularly to talk about Iraq. Every time I saw him, I had to wonder if he was speaking the truth or not. The lie I saw was smooth and convincing. What else might he be holding back?

This brings us to the whole debate about what the Bush Administration knew about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and what the public was told as justification for the invasion in 2003. I am well aware that intelligence agencies have to protect their sources and methods. There are things the public should not know. With that understanding, we trust our elected officials to be as open with us as they can. We certainly don't expect to be actively misled. Yet there's a lot of evidence that this administration did so in regard to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

If so, did they mislead us with malicious intent? It is one thing to cover up the truth when lives are at stake. It is quite another if the goal is to achieve political gain. Yes, yes, politicians lie all the time. We've come to expect it, and we're wise to be skeptical of their self-serving rhetoric. We expect truth on the big things, though. Things like, say, "why should the country go to war?"

After 9/11, I think Bush wanted to invade Iraq for reasons entirely different than what we were told. Maybe they were legitimate reasons, but whatever the real plan was Bush knew that Congress and the public would probably not like it. So he had his administration offer other justifications, such as Hussein's alleged possession of WMD and links to Al Qaeda, that were more palatable. It worked. Congress authorized the war and public support was initially very high.

Lies and partial truths, however justified they seem at the time, usually come back and bite those who tell them. When no WMD were found and Iraq deteriorated into chaos the Bush Administration had no credible defense for its policies. We are now left with the current untenable situation.

What would have happened had Bush simply leveled with us in 2002-2003? We'll probably never know. Maybe we would still have invaded Iraq and still be right where we are now. But I think we would be better able to make the best of a bad situation. Instead, we're left with a critical loss of confidence between the American people and their government, as well as a loss of trust within the branches of government.

Our political system is built on trust. We put our cards on the table, debate the issues, and eventually shake hands on an agreement. When one side negotiates under false pretenses, the next debate will not go nearly as smoothly. Repeat the process a few times and it degenerates into the bitter paralysis that now prevails, not just about the war but about everything.

The story of George Washington and the cherry tree may or may not be true, but it's important. It's important because it illustrates what we expect from our presidents. Now, thanks to the deceptions of Bush, Clinton, Nixon, Johnson, FDR and probably others, our expectations are permanently lower. It makes me wonder how long the "American Experiment" can survive.

Who do we blame? Look in the mirror. We expect the president to be just like "one of us." Knowing our own faults, this means we don't expect much. We have what we asked for.

Bad Move by Bush

President Bush is on the attack against opponents of the new immigration plan.

GLYNCO, Ga., May 29 — President Bush today accused opponents of his proposed immigration measure of fear-mongering to defeat it in Congress, and took on his own conservative political base as he did so.

“If you want to scare the American people, what you say is the bill’s an amnesty bill,” Mr. Bush said this afternoon at a training center for border enforcement agents located in this town in Georgia’s southeastern corner. “That’s empty political rhetoric, trying to frighten our citizens.”

The president used some of his toughest language yet as he began an effort to build support for the bill in the Senate. The measure hews closely to his long-sought goal of a new immigration system with three components: tighter seals on the nation’s borders, a guest-worker system for noncitizens who want to work here, and a path to citizenship for some 12 million illegal immigrants already in the country.

The bill, the product of a compromise struck by Republican and Democratic leaders two weeks ago, has encountered stiff resistance from the left and right. Liberal opposition taking aim at the proposal for shifting the system for awarding permanent residence status to give more weight to education and skills and less to family reunification, while conservatives have derided the plan for allowing illegal aliens to legalize their status.

It was the conservative opponents whom Mr. Bush seemed to address most forcefully in his remarks here today — a rare example of the president crossing swords with key members of the political coalition that helped him attain the Oval Office and then keep it four years later: The same conservative radio hosts, writers, bloggers, and legislators who killed an attempt at compromise immigration legislation last year. MORE

This is a big mistake, and doubly sad because Bush has made it before. Remember the Harriet Miers Supreme Court nomination? The Dubai Ports World deal? In both cases, Bush faced serious opposition from his own base and was eventually forced to back down.

Bush seems to have a real problem with what he perceives as "disloyalty." The problem is he can't fire the American people, like he does with staff who disagree too loudly. Yet instead of addressing their concerns, he lashes out at the same folks who would like to be his allies on other issues. This is not the way to win friends and influence people.

The immigration deal was already on shaky ground and this may be enough to kill it. Whatever support Bush ever had with grassroots conservatives is gone. The strange thing is he doesn't seem to mind. It's enough to make you wonder if he is a liberal at heart.

True Beauty

So last night we watched the Miss Universe pageant on TV. My lovely & talented wife picked Miss Japan as the winner early on, and as usual she was right. Congratulations to Riyo Mori.

I am not generally a fan of these events but it did bring back some memories. Way back in the 1970s, beauty pageants were annual events on the liturgical calendar of network TV. (For younger readers, this was before we had “cable.” All TV programming came from a strange-looking antenna on the roof. On a good night we were lucky to have five clear channels. Somehow we survived.)

Back then it was also not common to see scantily clad women displaying themselves for all to see. That being the case, the televised swimsuit competitions were eagerly anticipated by at least half the viewing audience. Now, of course, male Americans can hardly escape the onslaught of young things writhing and undulating before us. This may explain why beauty pageants are no longer a ratings bonanza for the networks. This year Miss Universe was surpassed by a rerun of something called Two and a Half Men. Beautiful young girls prancing on stage? Yawn.

In fact, the contestants would probably argue that they are more than just pretty faces/bodies; they have minds, too. I believe them, but the sad fact is it doesn’t matter anymore. The feminist quest to “empower” women by using sexuality as a weapon has had the opposite effect. For men, the mystery is gone. We’ve seen it all. The secret pleasures we longed for as teenagers have lost much of their allure because they are now everywhere.

Young ladies are well aware of this, and their response is to become even more audacious and revealing. Last year's “accidental” view of the nether regions of Britney Spears was, I fear, a sign of things to come. The bikini-clad Girls Gone Wild videos provide an even better example, consisting as they do not of professional models but of otherwise undistinguished college students who think in a drunken fog that flashing their breasts to an anonymous male audience is fun and exciting. Then they wonder why it is so hard to find a man who will view them as more than an object.

Do I mean we should go back to the days of head-to-toe coverage, or Islamic veils for women? No. All I’m saying is that Miss Universe was a reminder of a different time, and in some ways a better time.

The 1970s were not an age of innocence by any means. Nonetheless, it is hard to argue that the increasingly open sexuality of our culture is a positive development for anybody. Far from being “empowered,” women are trying more desperately than ever to extract money and security from men, using their bodies as the medium of exchange. The fact that they can now do this voluntarily is nice, but their real goal remains elusive.

Men share the blame for this state of affairs, of course. We give in too quickly to our adolescent impulses. We run from responsibility and commitment. This needs to change, too. Someday it will - but probably too late for the last generation or two. They don't know what they are missing.

Beauty, we are told, is in the eye of the beholder. I'm not sure that is true. Last night I watched a group of the supposedly most "beautiful" women in the world. Yet none of them were remotely comparable to the woman I've given my life to. I have my own Miss Universe, and I love her more every day. I can't imagine anything better.

Some Gave All

Memorial Day always seems to be cloudy and wet where I live. This is appropriate for the day we set aside to honor those who gave their lives in service to the country.

In wartime, people die in many ways, and for many reasons. Some never saw it coming. Others know where they are going, and do it anyway. All should be honored.

With the draft long gone, too few people today understand what it means to serve. I was a soldier once, and the memories are (unfortunately, sometimes) all too close. One thing you learn very quickly in the Army is that you cannot survive alone. Soldiers learn to depend on each other, to help each other, to take care of each other - and sometimes to die for each other.

We say that fallen veterans died for America. In fact, most did not. When death is coming and sacrifices must be made, soldiers rarely think about the flag. They don't give their lives for their country, their general, or their captain. They don't die for their families, either. The patriotism that surrounds Memorial Day is mainly for the benefit of the living.

The truth is soldiers die for other soldiers. They give their lives for their friends, because they know their friends would do the same. This is what defines a hero. They did what we all - having lived together, worked together, laughed together, and cried together - hope we could do.

Their moment came, and they proved themselves worthy. This is why we honor them. Never forget it.

Immigration Overload

As I noted in Border Insanity a few days ago, "we need to know who is here and have at least some assurance that they are not dangerous." Details of the new immigration bill are beginning to emerge and they are not at all reassuring.

AT the center of the bill is the massive "Z visa" amnesty - whereby virtually all of the 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens in the country could become lawfully present, able to renew the visa indefinitely until they die.

To qualify, an alien must have entered before Jan. 1, and have remained in the United States ever since. Each applicant must also have a job or be the parent, child or spouse of someone who does.

Many of the bill's advocates claim the amnesty doesn't take effect until some future date - after the measure's border-security goals are met. Not true - at least, not in effect. The amnesty starts immediately - with the issuance of probationary Z visas.

And that qualifier means little: The probationary visa is nearly as good as the non-probationary one, giving the alien immediate lawful status, protection from deportation and work authorization the alien to work. He or she can exit and re-enter the country (with advance permission).

It will extremely hard for the government to prevent criminals and terrorists from getting these probationary visas. The bill allows the federal government only one business day to do a "background check" on each applicant.

The bill's authors seem ignorant of what this means in practice... MORE

Here's what Bush, McCain, Kennedy, and others want to do. ALL illegal aliens currently in the U.S. will be given full legal status, with no practical effort to weed out criminals, terrorists, or other undesirables. It's a blanket amnesty, in effect, and not only for those already here. New entrants will have little trouble finding the "documents" necessary to prove they were here on Jan. 1st.

See now why they wanted to ram this through the Senate quickly with no debate? Fortunately they are being caught, and this bill will probably die a quick and well-deserved death. We've learned something useful, too. All the Bush Administration talk about "defending America" is just so much talk. If they really think the terrorist threat is so dire, why are they trying to open our borders to everyone who wants in? It makes no sense.

What does make sense is that the construction, agriculture, and restaurant industries need cheap labor. They have political power. Money talks in Washington. National security is being sold out for cold, hard cash.

Giuliani, Abortion, and Morality

To amplify on yesterday's post, Rudy Giuliani likes to say that he "hates" abortion, he thinks it is immoral, and he would always recommend pregnant women consider adoption instead. His political position, however, is that abortion is a matter of private choice for each woman.

Rudy is not the only one with this kind of logic. Think through it, though, and it makes no sense. We do not think this way in other life-related matters. If Rudy said "I hate murder, it's immoral, I always recommend people find other ways to resolve their differences, but ultimately it's up to each potential murderer to decide," we would all think he was insane.

Moral questions can never be "private" because they always affect other people. Even if you assume a fetus is not truly alive, what about the father's rights? Why must he be ignored? There are also potential grandparents, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles? Don't we all have a stake in each other's existence?

Abraham Lincoln had a different attitude. Suppose he had said "I hate slavery, I think slavery is immoral, but ultimately it is up to each slaveowner to decide whether to free his slaves or not." This was the position taken by many politicians of the time.

Fortunately for black Americans, Lincoln disagreed. He said "I hate slavery, slavery is immoral, and I'm going to do something about it." With the 13th Amendment, he set out to impose his morality on the rest of the country. We are a better nation because of it.

If you think there is nothing immoral about abortion, then you have at least taken a logically consistent position in opposing legal restrictions on it. To say, as Giuliani does, that abortion is immoral but that neither federal nor state governments should do anything about it, makes no sense at all. It reveals an intellectual schizophrenia that leaves one morally confused, at best.

We've had enough morally confused people in the White House. Presidents make moral decisions for other people all the time. We need someone who can think clearly when doing so.

Another view