The Clare Luce Democrats

WSJ REVIEW & OUTLOOK

November 3, 2005; Page A12

Harry Reid pulled the Senate into closed session Tuesday, claiming that
"The Libby indictment provides a window into what this is really all
about, how this Administration manufactured and manipulated
intelligence in order to sell the war in Iraq." But the Minority
Leader's statement was as demonstrably false as his stunt was
transparently political.

What Mr. Reid's pose is "really all about" is the emergence of the
Clare Boothe Luce Democrats. We're referring to the 20th-century
playwright, and wife of Time magazine founder Henry Luce, who was most
famous for declaring that Franklin D. Roosevelt had "lied us into war"
with the Nazis and Tojo. So intense was the hatred of FDR among some
Republicans that they held fast to this slander for years, with many
taking their paranoia to their graves.

We are now seeing the spectacle of Bush-hating Democrats adopting a
similar slander against the current President regarding the Iraq War.
The indictment by Patrick Fitzgerald of Vice Presidential aide I. Lewis
Libby has become their latest opening to promote this fiction,
notwithstanding the mountains of contrary evidence. To wit:

· In July 2004, the Senate Intelligence Committee released a
bipartisan 500-page report that found numerous failures of intelligence
gathering and analysis. As for the Bush Administration's role, "The
Committee did not find any evidence that Administration officials
attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their
judgments related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction," (our
emphasis).

· The Butler Report, published by the British in July 2004, similarly
found no evidence of "deliberate distortion," although it too found
much to criticize in the quality of prewar intelligence.

· The March 2005 Robb-Silberman report on WMD intelligence was
equally categorical, finding "no evidence of political pressure to
influence the Intelligence Community's pre-war assessments of Iraq's
weapons programs. ... analysts universally asserted that in no instance
did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of their
analytical judgments. We conclude that it was the paucity of
intelligence and poor analytical tradecraft, rather than political
pressure, that produced the inaccurate pre-war intelligence
assessments."

· Finally, last Friday, there was Mr. Fitzgerald: "This indictment's
not about the propriety of the war, and people who believe fervently in
the war effort, people who oppose it, people who are -- have mixed
feelings about it should not look to this indictment for any resolution
of how they feel or any vindication of how they feel."


In short, everyone who has looked into the question of whether the Bush
administration lied about intelligence, distorted intelligence, or
pressured intelligence agencies to produce assessments that would
support a supposedly pre-baked decision to invade Iraq has come up with
the same answer: No, no, no and no.

Everyone, that is, except Joseph Wilson IV. He first became the
Democrats' darling in July 2003, when he published an op-ed claiming
he'd debunked Mr. Bush's "16 words" on Iraqi attempts to purchase
African yellowcake and that the Administration had distorted the
evidence about Saddam's weapons programs to fit its agenda. This Wilson
tale fit the "lied us into war" narrative so well that he was adopted
by the John Kerry presidential campaign.

Only to be dropped faster than a Paris Hilton boyfriend after the
Senate Intelligence and Butler reports were published. Those reports
clearly showed that, while Saddam had probably not purchased yellowcake
from Niger, the dictator had almost certainly tried -- and that Mr.
Wilson's own briefing of the CIA after his mission supported that
conclusion. Mr. Wilson somehow omitted that fact from his public
accounts at the time.

He also omitted to explain why the CIA had sent him to Niger: His wife,
who worked at the CIA, had suggested his name for the trip, a fact Mr.
Wilson also denied, but which has also since been proven. In other
words, the only real support there has ever been for the "Bush lied"
storyline came from a man who is himself a demonstrable liar. If we
were Nick Kristof and the other writers who reported Mr. Wilson's facts
as gospel, we'd be apologizing to our readers.

Yet, incredibly, Mr. Wilson has once again become the Democrats'
favorite mascot because they want him as a prop for their "lied us into
war" revival campaign. They must think the media are stupid, because so
many Democrats are themselves on the record in the pre-Iraq War period
as declaring that Saddam had WMD. Here is Al Gore from September 23,
2002, amid the Congressional debate over going to war: "We know that he
has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons
throughout his country."

Or Hillary Rodham Clinton, from October 10, 2002: "In the four years
since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam
Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons
stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has
also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al
Qaeda members..."

Or Senator Jay Rockefeller, the Democratic Vice Chairman of the
Intelligence Committee, who is now leading the "Bush lied" brigades
(from October 10, 2002): "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam
Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will
likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years... We also
should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has
made in development of weapons of mass destruction." If Mr. Bush is a
liar, what does the use of the phrase "unmistakable evidence" make Mr.
Rockefeller? A fool?

The scandal here isn't what happened before the war. The scandal is
that the same Democrats who saw the same intelligence that Mr. Bush
saw, who drew the same conclusions, and who voted to go to war are now
using the difficulties we've encountered in that conflict as an excuse
to rewrite history. Are Republicans really going to let them get away
with it?

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT The Clare Luce Democrats from the Wall Street Journal
    ... >intelligence in order to sell the war in Iraq." ... >Clare Boothe Luce Democrats. ... >change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons>of mass destruction," ... The Butler Report, published by the British in>July 2004, similarly ...
    (alt.autos.toyota)
  • Re: Hillary Clinton to Threaten Iraq? (Video)
    ... funded terror and was seeking WMD, and you say no threat? ... Yes Saddam was thought to have some chemical weapons, ... invasion of Afghanistan and the Iran-Iraq war both began when Carter ... Various Democrats on WMD: ...
    (alt.politics)
  • Socialist Demmies Soiling Their Panties in Fear of Positive Iraq Report
    ... Democrats are warily anticipating a September report on the Iraq war, realizing that opponents will use any upbeat assessment to portray them as defeatists just as glimmers of hope appear. ...
    (alt.politics)
  • Re: Im Voting Republican!
    ... Two years later, however, Romney -- ... not only recanted his support for the war but claimed ... approved a report acknowledging that it "did not find ... If Democrats wish to contend they were "misled" into war, ...
    (alt.guitar.amps)
  • Re: The lie that Bush "lied" about WMDs in Iraq
    ... prosecution of that war was deficient in any way. ... President Clinton claimed Iraq had WMDs in order to get unanimous ... there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass ... report that the labs were not for biological weapons. ...
    (soc.retirement)