One aspect of the missing explosives[1] story _ought_ to be a shock at the fact that the Department of Defense was aware of them but all this time has kept a lid on the news, unwilling to share it with the IAEA or even the American people. Only a fledgling Iraqi government, starting to flex its muscles, was willing to let the IAEA know. But it’s not a shock, because if you’ve been paying attention, this is only the latest in a long string of examples of this Administration putting political expediency and self-preservation above sound policy, above the war on terror, above honesty, even above their own ideology.
Or maybe not. But the alternative to that viewpoint is something along the lines of “everybody is out to get George Bush,” with the understanding that “everybody” includes, most significantly, the Liberal Media, which is, in coordinated fashion, working as a _de facto_ extension of the Kerry campaign. We’re left with that choice: EITHER the situation in Iraq has turned out badly due to not only a lack of planning but a complete lack of _interest_ in planning on the part of Bush’s inner circle, OR the Liberal Media has it in for Bush and is harping on all the lousy news to make him look bad.
From “The American Conservative”:http://www.amconmag.com/, via “Kevin Drum”:http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_10/004994.php, we have a scene from a Cheney briefing:
The [CIA Counter Terrorism Center] concluded that Saddam Hussein had not materially supported Zarqawi before the U.S.-led invasion and that Zarqawi’s infrastructure in Iraq before the war was confined to the northern no-fly zones of Kurdistan, beyond Baghdad’s reach. Cheney reacted with fury, screaming at the briefer that CIA was trying to get John Kerry elected by contradicting the president’s stance that Saddam had supported terrorism and therefore needed to be overthrown. The hapless briefer was shaken by the vice president’s outburst, and the incident was reported back to [newly appointed CIA director Porter] Goss, who indicated that he was reluctant to confront the vice president’s staff regarding it.
In this case, EITHER the whole story is a fabrication from that cornerstone of the Liberal Media, _The American Conservative_, OR the CIA is making stuff up to try to get Kerry elected, OR Dick Cheney is (and has been) completely off his rocker.
What boggles my mind is the sheer scope of the conspiracy that must exist, in the media and beyond, to exonerate this Administration. Those wily left-wingers have not only misreported on Iraq, but they’ve managed to turn nonissues like Abu Ghraib and the outing of Valerie Plame into “scandals,” and they’ve coopted figures as diverse as Richard Clarke and Paul O’Neill. Plus the whole CIA. In order for Bush to be right, all those people, from the policymakers and Cabinet officials to the reporters and reporters’ bosses, must either be mistaken or deliberately wrong.
Belief in a conspiracy like that is out there, and may not even be all that uncommon. It is buttressed by good old-fashioned ignorance — The “Program on International Policy Attitudes reports”:http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/html/new_10_21_04.html#1 that “75% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda.” (That’s only one of a laundry list of literally astounding statistics in their report.) I don’t think it’s too far out of line to suggest that these two things — habitual distrust on the media based on an assumption of systemic bias, and ignorance of basic facts about recent history — are related.
George Bush will be judged harshly — certainly by history, or sooner if he’s elected to a second term and must lie in the bed he’s made. At that point many of his supporters will admit, if only to themselves, that they were wrong. That is never an easy thing to do. People are extremely good at perceiving the world in ways that justify their decisions and confirm their assumptions, and adjusting that perception is often a painful process. Hopefully — for the good of the country and the world — enough of his former supporters can make that adjustment before November 2.
fn1. (Josh Marshall has been all over it — start “here”:http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_10_24.php#003777 and keep reading up for a synthesis of the whole situation and the subsequent reporting thereof).

7 comments
October 26, 2004 at 10:45 pm
nate
Is it poor form to be the first one to comment on one’s own post?
Two points to head off potential cavillers:
1. I am painfully aware that, in talking about others’ misguided perceptions, EITHER I am right OR, ironically, it’s me whose perceptions are askew. I try to examine my own lenses regularly, and continue to find them, at the very least, less out of focus than the other guys. Which means either I’m in good shape, or I’m really, really askew. And so on, ad infinitum.
2. I realize that most situations, including the ones I describe, may have other explanations that don’t fall neatly into an either/or dichotomy. It’s an artifact of the piece. It’s only in times like this, when one of only two men will be elected President, that it sometimes helps to boil things down to a this-or-that.
October 27, 2004 at 9:38 am
Ana
I had a very distressing conversation with my mother along these lines. She was horrified to find out that we weren’t voting for Bush,and asked me why. I then prattled on for a good while on all the failures of the adminstartions and the bald-faced lying that I just can’t stomach, to end with her basically stating that to her mind all the allegations have been refuted and that she just can’t vote for Kerry. I told her it was okay, that she can go ahead and vote for Bush if she felt she could trust him, but that I couldn’t not after all I have read.
I nearly had her moving over on healthcare, but Abortion always rears its ugly head.
October 27, 2004 at 11:41 am
nate
Ana: That ‘abortion’ point is telling. I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone say “Bush has been a very poor President overall, but abortion is such an important issue to me that I’m going to vote for him anyway.” If you’re inclined to support Bush on abortion, human nature dictates that you’ll want to think the best of him and will color your perceptions accordingly.
And I’m sure you could replace ‘Bush’ and ‘abortion’ with other leaders and issues throughout history, too.
October 27, 2004 at 12:58 pm
Anonymous
Good post Nate. Don’t worry, Bush’s days are numbered. Why do I think that? Because I have voted Republican in every presidential election since I was old enough to vote and still find myself unsatisfied with how I plan to vote – which will likely be Bush for reasons which I have previosuly enumerated. That said, I am not happy about it. I can’t bring myself to not vote (or vote for Nader which basically amounts to the same), and I just can’t pull the trigger on Kerry. But, back to my point…if I am wavering, then countless others that lean Republican are and such an outlook will likely not favor the incumbent in such a close race, especially as the anti-Bush (not pro-Kerry) votes are so passionate.
Given the current state of affairs, I think that the below song written by The Who years ago is still relevant. I’d like to say that when Kerry takes office, things will be visibly better, but call me a pessimist…
We Won’t Get Folled Again – The Who
We’ll be fighting in the streets
With our children at our feet
And the morals that they worship will be gone
And the men who spurred us on
Sit in judgement of all wrong
They decide and the shotgun sings the song
I’ll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I’ll get on my knees and pray
We don’t get fooled again
The change, it had to come
We knew it all along
We were liberated from the fold, that’s all
And the world looks just the same
And history ain’t changed
‘Cause the banners, they are flown in the next war
I’ll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I’ll get on my knees and pray
We don’t get fooled again
No, no!
I’ll move myself and my family aside
If we happen to be left half alive
I’ll get all my papers and smile at the sky
Though I know that the hypnotized never lie
Do ya?
There’s nothing in the streets
Looks any different to me
And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye
And the parting on the left
Are now parting on the right
And the beards have all grown longer overnight
I’ll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I’ll get on my knees and pray
We don’t get fooled again
Don’t get fooled again
No, no!
Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!
Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss
October 27, 2004 at 2:15 pm
eric
I’ve been a bit too angry in my anti-Bush rhetoric, which once again tells me I should stop reading the letters to the editor in the Grand Rapids Press (which, incidentally, endorsed Bush this year, for among other reasons, “If Mr. Bush wins a new term, we look for him to be more the healer in the mold of his years as governor of Texas. We would hope and expect him to shift more to the center, befitting the compassionate conservatism that again has become a Bush mantra.”)
Back on topic…why do the letters make me so angry? Because I live in a conservative corner that seems to be an accurate representation of Bush’s base. Bush is viewed as moral, God-fearing man of integrity because 1) he opposes abortion 2) he opposes gay marriage 3) he talks openly about his faith 4) he frames his arguments as “good vs. evil.” But that strikes me as such a caricature of the Christian faith. Are we to believe that Jesus would really approve of the distortions and downright lies in the campaign ads? Is he looking down happily on the state-sanctioned torture of prisoners because they are allegedly terrorists? What about all shams that his friends in Enron and Halliburton have pulled, bilking the little guy out of life savings?
And then there is No Child Left Behind, billed as the savior of our schools because it “makes teachers and schools accountable.” Does that mean that they are to accept the blame when things don’t go well? What I wouldn’t give to have the same rules apply to our government!
See…I just finished the letters to the editor again.
October 27, 2004 at 3:33 pm
Ana
“And then there is No Child Left Behind”, A yes, I tried to bring this one up to my mom, but as a teacher in a Public School in Florida, she still counts this as one of his wins. She believes that he put the fear of God into the school systems and states, and made them pay better attention to Latino students. She is not troubled by the lack of fuding because “many of the inciatives didn’t need funding, and only need implemenatation of rules”. Can win against someone who refuses to see.
November 7, 2004 at 5:33 am
poker online
2502 http://www.top-online-poker.info
poker online