From the Washington Post ...

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Who's Got the Wrong Values Now?


By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Tuesday, July 13, 2004; Page A15

It's notable that in a week when the major reasons the administration
offered for the war in Iraq were undercut by a Senate intelligence
committee report, our presidential candidates devoted themselves to
talk about "values."

The idea that our country fought a war on false premises is
astonishing -- and it has a lot to do with the "values" of this
administration.

President Bush's government was unrelenting in trying to convince
Americans that Saddam Hussein posed an immediate threat to us, that he
had scary weapons, that he was tied to al Qaeda and thus to the
attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. It is wholly inadequate to shuck all this
off on the CIA. The president was determined to scare the hell out of
the country and make the case for war by whatever means necessary.

"Chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are
not easily contained," Bush said in a speech to religious broadcasters
in February 2003. "Secretly, without fingerprints, Saddam Hussein
could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists or help them
develop their own. Saddam Hussein is a threat. He's a threat to the
United States of America."

This was the president talking, not the CIA. Note that he's not
telling us we should wage war against the evil Hussein for
humanitarian reasons -- that was not the central rationale then,
though it is now -- but because Hussein posed a threat to us that we
have learned he did not. Yesterday, Bush defended his decision to go
after the nation that "once had the worst government in the Middle
East." And he implied that Libyan disarmament was a byproduct of his
actions in Iraq. Even if that's true, Bush's current argument is a
much-revised version of his original case for war.

It wasn't the CIA but the president's closest advisers who resorted to
the most purple and incendiary rhetoric to make sure we'd support the
war. And the administration's talkers were especially eager to use
their fiery rhetoric in the run-up to the 2002 midterm elections.

"We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud," declared
national security adviser Condoleezza Rice on Sept. 8, 2002. The same
weekend, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said: "Imagine a Sept. 11
with weapons of mass destruction. It's not 3,000; it's tens of
thousands of innocent men, women and children." And Vice President
Cheney spoke with utter certainty about Hussein: "We know we have a
part of the picture, and that part of the picture tells us that he is,
in fact, actively and aggressively seeking to acquire nuclear
weapons."

Again, was it the CIA at fault here or was the administration
determined to do all it could to get us to buy into a war it was
already determined to fight? What "values" freed it to exaggerate the
flimsy evidence it had ("we know we have part of the picture") to get
Americans thinking that Saddam Hussein could turn one of our cities
into a Hiroshima or Nagasaki?

Did the phony claims influence the course of the debate on the war? Of
course they did. Listen to Sen. Pat Roberts, the loyal Republican from
Kansas, in response to Tim Russert's question on "Meet the Press" as
to whether what Roberts knows now would have led him to change his
vote on the war.

"I don't know if I would have or not," replied Roberts, the
intelligence committee chairman. "I think the whole premise would have
changed, I think the whole debate would have changed, and I think that
the response would have changed in terms of any kind of military
plans." As for his colleagues' votes for the war, Roberts said: "I
doubt if the votes would have been there."

Bush gave a powerful speech in York, Pa., last week describing his
"values." He declared: "The culture of America is changing from one
that has said 'If it feels good, do it, and if you've got a problem,
blame somebody else' to a culture in which each of us understands we
are responsible for the decisions we make in life."

That's a great idea. Applying it to the president means that he, not
the CIA, is responsible for the case that was made for the war in
Iraq. By the president's own logic, he can't blame a bunch of
bureaucrats ("if you've got a problem, blame somebody else") for his
administration's eagerness to offer the most lopsided picture possible
of the threat Hussein posed.

"If it feels good, do it." Bush is absolutely right that this is an
inadequate approach to the decisions we face in life. The "values"
that lead Bush to reject this concept should pertain especially to
decisions to start wars and to the methods used to sell them.

From the Washington Post ...

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Who's Got the Wrong Values Now?


By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Tuesday, July 13, 2004; Page A15

It's notable that in a week when the major reasons the administration
offered for the war in Iraq were undercut by a Senate intelligence
committee report, our presidential candidates devoted themselves to talk
about "values."

The idea that our country fought a war on false premises is astonishing --
and it has a lot to do with the "values" of this administration.

CIA, is responsible for the case that was made for the war in Iraq. By the
president's own logic, he can't blame a bunch of bureaucrats ("if you've
got a problem, blame somebody else") for his administration's eagerness to
offer the most lopsided picture possible of the threat Hussein posed.

"If it feels good, do it." Bush is absolutely right that this is an
inadequate approach to the decisions we face in life. The "values" that
lead Bush to reject this concept should pertain especially to decisions to
start wars and to the methods used to sell them.