We know that, of course, but many in the press would like you to forget it, and to believe that before George W. Bush came into office, no one had ever mentioned “Iraq” and “WMD” in the same breath.
Robert Kagan begs to differ. Quite rightly. And, as he points out, Judy Miller was not the only journalist writing such reports.
A quick search through the Times archives before 2001 produces such headlines as “Iraq Has Network of Outside Help on Arms, Experts Say”(November 1998), “U.S. Says Iraq Aided Production of Chemical Weapons in Sudan”(August 1998), “Iraq Suspected of Secret Germ War Effort” (February 2000), “Signs of Iraqi Arms Buildup Bedevil U.S. Administration” (February 2000), “Flight Tests Show Iraq Has Resumed a Missile Program” (July 2000). (A somewhat shorter list can be compiled from The Post’s archives, including a September 1998 headline: “Iraqi Work Toward A-Bomb Reported.”) The Times stories were written by Barbara Crossette, Tim Weiner and Steven Lee Myers; Miller shared a byline on one…
…
The Times was not alone, of course. On Jan. 29, 2001, The Post editorialized that “of all the booby traps left behind by the Clinton administration, none is more dangerous — or more urgent — than the situation in Iraq. Over the last year, Mr. Clinton and his team quietly avoided dealing with, or calling attention to, the almost complete unraveling of a decade’s efforts to isolate the regime of Saddam Hussein and prevent it from rebuilding its weapons of mass destruction. That leaves President Bush to confront a dismaying panorama in the Persian Gulf,” including “intelligence photos that show the reconstruction of factories long suspected of producing chemical and biological weapons.”
This was the consensus before Bush took office, before Scooter Libby assumed his post and before Judith Miller did most of the reporting for which she is now, uniquely, criticized. It was based on reporting by a large of number of journalists who in turn based their stories on the judgments of international intelligence analysts, Clinton officials and weapons inspectors. As we wage what the Times now calls “the continuing battle over the Bush administration’s justification for the war in Iraq,” we will have to grapple with the stubborn fact that the underlying rationale for the war was already in place when this administration arrived.
Call it: What we all believed, and when we all believed it.
Read the whole thing. It’s a must-read. Send it around.
Btw, I can’t be the only person who remembers this magazine cover from 1998, when President Clinton, (and lots and lots of Democrats) concerned about Iraq and WMD, made a lot of noise about possibly invading Iraq, before doing nothing.
Remember…before George W. Bush came into office, there was no debate - anywhere - as to whether or not Iraq had WMD. No one doubted it. Hmmmm…I guess it really does make a difference whether someone has a D or an R after their name, after all.
UPDATE: Sigmund helpfully provides a link to President Clinton’s remarks on Saddam and WMD, 1998
October 25th, 2005 at 11:58 am
[...] intel pre-dated Bush Rosa Parks, RIP Milbank/Pincus write wrong Witchy Cotillion Conservative choices to rule the world Tolerate us ad nauseum, please…Kissing and making up? I’m Rich! I’m comfortable! Why do we do this? Our Lady of Good Counsel Plame round-up In praise of square-ness: Self-respect is not prudery Schumer dirty tricks all but forgotten It’s always 1973! I blame Bush! I am neutral on the Miers nomination Jeanette and Newton have an exclusive! Varifrank makes Plame connections The single greatest play, ever A Smart Breakdown on Chavez [...]
October 25th, 2005 at 12:01 pm
Two things- this is a must read re WMD’s. It is a statement made by Bill Clinton on Dec 16,1998.
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html
Secondly, the TIME cover is outrageous.
The trial of the Iraqi dictator is not a face off between Saddam and Mr Bush. It is a faceoff between freedom and tyranny. For TIME to politicize the the ideals of freedom, to make it appear as if the trial of Saddam were somehow tainted because Mr Bush is the president, is another outrage.
Saddam was a tyrant, in the image of Hitler. Would the victory over those tyrannies and facism be less so had Mr Bush been the president that prosecuted that war?
Screw TIME.
October 25th, 2005 at 12:05 pm
The TIME cover is from 1998 - and that is President Clinton pointing to him.
This was when the press was rallying behind Clinton while he was making “invasion” noises.
October 25th, 2005 at 12:12 pm
My apologies- I thought it was a current issue.
That said, it was not Mr Clinton vs Saddam.
October 25th, 2005 at 12:16 pm
My bad - I wasn’t clear enough.
October 25th, 2005 at 1:31 pm
It certainly is true that Clinton and countless others referred to WMDs before Bush. Nonetheless, it is highly embarrassing for America that not one vial was found - and that it’s quite possible we were “had” by Mr. Chalabi.
October 25th, 2005 at 2:32 pm
Bottom line is that if Bush had not gone in and Iraq had done anything with WMD anywhere in the world, the media would have shown the Clinton 1998 warning over and over and over. The NY Times would have pointed out their many repeated warning articles. We would have been talking about the Bush wimp factor. I do not know today that Saddam did not have things to hide and that they are not now still somewhere in hiding, maybe in Syria.
October 26th, 2005 at 1:41 pm
[...] Buster goes Andrew Heyward Resigns UK is losing itself piece by piece An Unexpected Complication Outrageous photo manipulation A riddle, an enigma The left wets itself in glee… “Tell the Truth About JoeWilson” America Thanked. WH Press Ignores WMD intel pre-dated Bush Rosa Parks, RIP Milbank/Pincus write wrong Witchy Cotillion Conservative choices to rule the world Tolerate us ad nauseum, please… Kissing and making up? I’m Rich! I’m comfortable! Why do we do this? Our Lady of Good Counsel Plame round-up [...]
November 2nd, 2005 at 11:27 am
[...] This Iraq/WMD talk began in 1998. [...]
August 8th, 2006 at 6:02 pm
[...] She goes on to think out loud if you will, and in doing so, gives voice to what many have felt but could not articulate. Something happened after that, though, and I have often wondered if the devolution of the press in general and the mainstream broadcast media in particular didn’t have to do with the fact that a year after 9/11, President Bush’s poll numbers were still in the stratosphere. I began noticing that his more visionary speeches, such as his commencement address at West Point and this one at Whitehall went under-covered, with major networks actually cutting away from Whitehall in mid-speech, and (C-Span never replaying it), and I thought that was pretty interesting - and troubling. Broadcast media’s coverage of all things regarding Bush, the War on Terror and the issue of WMD’s underwent remarkable changes between the years 2002 and 2006, particularly re WMD, which the press suddenly seemed content to pretend no one had ever mentioned, prior to President Bush. [...]
May 10th, 2007 at 9:56 pm
[...] growth and activities of OBL and Al Qaeda, and since President Clinton was the man who, in 1998, told us - along with his entire administration - that Saddam Hussein had WMD and would certainly someday [...]
May 10th, 2007 at 9:56 pm
[...] WMD intl pre-dated Bush The Anchoress pinged back with I’m fuzzy on this ‘namecalling’ thing [...]
May 24th, 2007 at 3:02 pm
[...] (including - again - the NY Times) testify - under oath - that when they were telling the world - from 1998 right up to the Iraq invasion - that Saddam Hussein “had WMD” and given half a chance would “use them,” and that the [...]