President as Misleader?

In the 830 class on Friday 3/31, we were discussing President Bush's departure from international law (critics call it violation, defenders say "everything changed after 9/11") to begin a preemptive war.

One argument offered to support the war was that Saddam did not let the weapons inspectors in. I said that on that matter, the president was lying.

From the Washington Post, almost three years ago, and several months after the war began:

The president's assertion that the war began because Iraq did not admit inspectors appeared to contradict the events leading up to war this spring: Hussein had, in fact, admitted the inspectors and Bush had opposed extending their work because he did not believe them effective.

In the face of persistent questioning about the use of intelligence before the Iraq war, administration officials have responded with evolving and sometimes contradictory statements. The matter has become increasingly charged, as Democrats demand hearings about Bush's broader use of intelligence to justify the Iraq war.

As you are well aware, the hearings never took place. To hold hearings prior to a reelection would be problematic for a same-party congress. And this July 15 2003 article was before the insurgency took hold: criticism of the war today is often countered by the claim that we harm America, we harm the troops, to question the president during wartime.

Two stories from last week also speak to the president as misleader, and they have recieved surprisingly little attention. Either they are true, and should receive lots of attention, or they are false, and should be debunked:

1) New York times, Monday March 27: Bush Was Set on Path to War, British Memo Says By Don Van Natta Jr.

But behind closed doors, the president was certain that war was inevitable. During a private two-hour meeting in the Oval Office on Jan. 31, 2003, he made clear to Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain that he was determined to invade Iraq without the second resolution, or even if international arms inspectors failed to find unconventional weapons, said a confidential memo about the meeting written by Mr. Blair's top foreign policy adviser and reviewed by The New York Times....

The memo also shows that the president and the prime minister acknowledged that no unconventional weapons had been found inside Iraq. Faced with the possibility of not finding any before the planned invasion, Mr. Bush talked about several ways to provoke a confrontation, including a proposal to paint a United States surveillance plane in the colors of the United Nations in hopes of drawing fire, or assassinating Mr. Hussein.

2) PREWAR INTELLIGENCE
Insulating Bush

By Murray Waas, National Journal

Karl Rove, President Bush's chief political adviser, cautioned other White House aides in the summer of 2003 that Bush's 2004 re-election prospects would be severely damaged if it was publicly disclosed that he had been personally warned that a key rationale for going to war had been challenged within the administration. Rove expressed his concerns shortly after an informal review of classified government records by then-Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen J. Hadley determined that Bush had been specifically advised that claims he later made in his 2003 State of the Union address -- that Iraq was procuring high-strength aluminum tubes to build a nuclear weapon -- might not be true, according to government records and interviews.

Some would argue that presidents effectively have to lie -- surely they could not tell the truth about everything. When is misleading necessary? understandable? regrettable? despicable? In thinking about these quesgtions, Eric Alterman's book, When Preidents Lie might be a place to start.