An (Ad Hoc) Interview with Bill Clinton on War, WMDs and Wolfowitz
While I was tussling with rightwing activist Grover Norquist this morning on NPR’s “Diane Rehm Show,” Norquist did what many conservatives do when confronted by the charge that George W. Bush dishonestly hyped the WMD threat in Iraq. He referred to Bill Clinton. The 42nd president, Norquist maintained, supported Bush’s invasion of Iraq because he (Clinton, that is) also believed there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
The subject of the show was Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11, and this point did not get fully explored. We had to stick to the film. My take on F9/11–thanks for asking–was that the movie is brilliant when it actually documents matters: civilian casualties in Iraq, the attitudes of American GIs there, the horrific costs paid by US soldiers, the anguish felt by relatives of dead Iraqi citizens and dead American GIs, and Bush’s seven minutes of do-nothing silence after being informed a second airliner had crashed into the World Trade Center. But the film is problematic and self-defeating when it offers overly conspiratorial connect-the-dot explanations: Bush attacked Afghanistan to benefit cronies who wanted to develop a pipeline there; Bush invaded Iraq to preserve the power of his ruling class and feed the ever-hungry war machine; the Bush clan’s too-tight relationship with the Saudis was to blame, somehow, for most things. But I noted that the film strongly–if briefly–made the case that the WMD argument for war had been a crock. That’s when Norquist brought Clinton into the picture.
As it happened, that same fellow was scheduled to be a guest on the show after we were done. And when Norquist and I left the studio–with Norquist complaining that Clinton had recently been attacking only two conservatives by name, Kenneth Starr and himself–there was the famous author entering the station. Clinton glad-handed his way around. A dozen or so security people clogged the hallway. So I stood and waited for the whirlwind to pass.
But as Clinton walked by Norquist and me, he shook our hands and said, “You guys did a good job,” referring to our hour-long segment….
Lame. You touted your inside scoop on D. Rehm as something bigger than it really is. Was this only to get people to your site?
Comment by slack — 7/6/2004 @ 5:36 pm
David, While I applaud your thoughtful comments on NPR this morning, I think you do not give enough credit to the Carlisle group-Bush & Co. connection (at least symbolically speaking) in influencing decisions to go to war. While I agree Bush & Co made decisions on “national security", particularly in the context of 9/11, there are some points that must be discussed. First, why not focus on Saudi Arabia- who knowingly harbor terrrorists, have a much less than stellar human rights records, and have a sizable number of “schools” teaching hatred, particularly toward that of the U.S. Second, Wolfowitz & other idealogues (Cheney, Feith, Libby , AEI, PNAC) have been championing attacking Iraq ever since the Gulf War- which, ideologically speaking- points to recreating sovereign nations intoAmerican type democracies (and ultimately- because of the connections leads us right to the control of oil). Third, power relationships that conflate monied interests and political power grease the wheels of many, if not, most decisions- particularly given the political and economic climate of the US in 2001 (economic decline, 9/11). Why not Iran or North Korea who knowingly have nuclear weapons. Why spend so much time building “support", especially when their was plenty of evidence to suggest that they most likely knew there were no WMD’s even though Bush & Co continue to insist Saddam was a threat. And not to be conspiratorial- given the fact that the CIA had this knowledge beforehand (per NYT today), which would render Saddam a ruthless, but not a truly world threating tyrant, the lack of military capability would make him an easy target. Thus, perhaps economic interests of the power elite did not “directly” influence the decisions, indirectly (as in deciding which country to “attack” next after Afghanistan) they seem to very well be situated in the economic/Straussian ideology/WMD overstatement trifecta. Lastly, given the economic interests and ties to big oil and neoconservative ideologies, they had to have an apriori idea of the money that would be made in terms of reconstruction and sweetheart deals. While Moore might have been misguided in the way he tried to “connect the dots", one really cannot ignore the influence of money in the decision making process (look at the FCC and environmental decisions in the past 3 years).
Comment by John Reitzel — 7/6/2004 @ 5:36 pm
I, too, felt that Michael Moore was a bit too conspiiritorial and tried to guess what was going on inside Bush’s head. Moore is the first one to acknowledge that his film is anything but objective. Yet, I can’t help feel that if he were a little less melodramatic with some of his “mind-reading", he could withstand the scrutiny of the right.
I think that David’s analysis of F-9/11 is, as always, fair and balanced. It shows that he takes a reasoned look and distills out the hype from the fact. It’s necessary to remove the hype whether you are a supportor or opponent of Moore and examine the more serious (and documented) allegations.
Good going, Dave, for being the voice of reason (again)!
Comment by steve — 7/6/2004 @ 9:13 pm
Much as I am always glad when you are on Diane Rehm, as I have read your book, I was disappointed today when you, like many, did not pick up on Norquist’s comment about Hussein “gasing his own people". Every time that is given as a reason/excuse, I wish someone would point out that happened back in 1984, when he used the helicopters that Rumsfield delivered to him and the gas that Reagan and his veep, Bush I, arranged for him to have. Boondocks from yesterday, July 4, pointed it out so well. I had thought you, of all people, wouldn’t let that one pass you by.
Comment by Barbara — 7/6/2004 @ 10:35 pm
Two very satisfying moments on the Diane Rehm show: (1) Norquist acting like he’d never heard of the Rush Limbaugh show. (2) Norquist coming oh-so very close to calling Bush a mere figurehead during the discussion of the “crucial 7 minutes.” And here I thought he was a strong and steady leader. When you have a good day, Mr. Corn, the political left has a good day as well.
Comment by Daniel Pucca — 7/7/2004 @ 5:00 am
Come on guys - you really believe this stuff? Is Bush slow to action or is he a cowboy? Did the Saudi’s make us go into Iraq or did we ruin our relationship with them? This website says so much that it says nothing, or better said everything. And as long as it says somethinb bad against Bush you all believe it. If I were a conspiry theorist myself I would guess that this whole forum was created by the Republican party just to get Democrats speaking to themselves about nothing. But then again, to some of us the truth is more important.
Comment by Adam S. — 7/7/2004 @ 6:29 am
I listened to the show at midnight here in the Seattle area. I was struck at the difference between your and Norquist’s framing of comments and answers to questions.
Like many Dems, you were quick to get into the arcana of policy and the details of who did what or said what and when. Norquist repeatedly took each opportunity to answer in sweeping terms that framed the debate - using terms like “string of lies” and “bankruptcy of the democrats".
After the show was over I had no trouble remembering the essence of Norquists stinging assertions and his reinforcing of the myths that his party has so successfuly planted in the public conciousness. But, expectedly, I am at a loss to remember much of your detail-rich rebuttals.
I guess it is a liberal burden to bear - exemplified by most of Al Gore’s campaign four years ago. But I sure wish we could find some PR guru capable of issuing coherent value-rich talking points and a few lessons on communications to our pundits on the left.
I understand that liberal philosophy is focussed on finding reasoned answers to difficult questions - and that “salesmanship” is anethema to our mindset. But every salesperson worth a damn learns to “sell the sizzle” and that’s just what our enemies are doing so well. Why else would millions of Americans vote consistently against their best interests?
Maybe if our pundits just viewed some videos of Bill Clinton’s speeches before going on the air, that would help.
Comment by Margi — 7/7/2004 @ 9:10 am
Slack, sorry you felt misled. On the Diane Rehm show I had said that I took the Carlyle story seriously and had written about it. And in the piece (posted in the item below), I reported that Bush the Elder was making nice to the Saudis to win business for Carlyle–a matter that should not be ignored when contemplating the Bush administration’s dealings with Saudi Arabia. John, money and politics do go hand in hand, which is why I think the Carlyle connection merits close scrutiny. But I do not believe it is why Bush sought war in Mesopotamia. Steve, much appreciated. Barbara, sorry you were disappointed. On these programs, one cannot answer all the disingenuous or false statements of the other sides. I did so on several occasions, but not on every one. Thankfully, smart listeners like you can see through much of the phony rhetoric without my help. Daniel, you picked up on my favorite moments as well. How astute. Thanks for the kind words. Adam, please consider anti-literalism therapy. Actually, one can be slow to act in some circumstances and too much of a cowboy in another. Life–and political criticism–is not all black or all white. And if the Republicans set up this forum, then I wish they were paying me more. Margi, I am not a propagandist or a PR-master. I try to make solid and easy-to-absorb points in clear language without manipulating words and meaning. Next time, try listening earlier than midnight.
Comment by David Corn — 7/7/2004 @ 2:16 pm
During “some” program, your name, David Corn ,and the phrase “call out” [call-out? callout?] was mentioned several times, but I can find no reference. Aidez-moi!
Comment by Ruth Kahn — 7/8/2004 @ 4:30 pm
I have just finished Mr. Corn’s book and am struck by a troubling view that what used to be a moderating force - the 4th Estate - can no longer be counted to act as a further check and balance for our democracy.
Most troubling was the last section of the book that covered questions as to why other reporters were not asking hard questions of the administration or at least questioning innacurate statments by the administration. Is this because corporate behavior is part of the media culture - protecting access to people or officials.
BLOGs can be a good meeting place for the exchange of similar of opposition ideas, but unless they can find a way to bring the entrenched positions on the right and left back to middle ground there will never be an attempt towards compromise.
Mr. Corn has provided a good picture of the character of Bush and his admistration, but unless We the People can propel these ideas into a forum the compels organizations like the media or Congress to search for truth we will continue to face gridlock and partisan posturing.
Comment by Joseph Barnas — 7/15/2004 @ 6:39 am
You state in your article on the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report that no whistleblower has come forward to speak about the pressure the administration put on the intelligence community. Yet, one analyst has written a book on the pressure applied by Cheney and company. Check out the story published on Thursday, July 1, 2004 by the Los Angeles Times
CIA Felt Pressure to Alter Iraq Data, Author Says
Agency analysts were repeatedly ordered to redo their studies of Al Qaeda ties to Hussein regime, a terrorism expert charges.
by Greg Miller
Comment by Michael Mitchell — 7/16/2004 @ 7:21 am