When Stories Collide

by hilzoy

John Bolton, meet the Downing Street memo. From the AP:

"John R. Bolton flew to Europe in 2002 to confront the head of a global arms-control agency and demand he resign, then orchestrated the firing of the unwilling diplomat in a move a U.N. tribunal has since judged unlawful, according to officials involved.

A former Bolton deputy says the U.S. undersecretary of state felt Jose Bustani "had to go," particularly because the Brazilian was trying to send chemical weapons inspectors to Baghdad. That might have helped defuse the crisis over alleged Iraqi weapons and undermined a U.S. rationale for war. (...)

After U.N. arms inspectors had withdrawn from Iraq in 1998 in a dispute with the Baghdad government, Bustani stepped up his initiative, seeking to bring Iraq and other Arab states into the chemical weapons treaty.

Bustani's inspectors would have found nothing, because Iraq's chemical weapons were destroyed in the early 1990s. That would have undercut the U.S. rationale for war because the Bush administration by early 2002 was claiming, without hard evidence, that Baghdad still had such an arms program.

In a March 2002 "white paper," Bolton's office said Bustani was seeking an "inappropriate role" in Iraq, and the matter should be left to the U.N. Security Council where Washington has a veto.

Bolton said in a 2003 AP interview that Iraq was "completely irrelevant" to Bustani's responsibilities. Earle and Bohlen disagree. Enlisting new treaty members was part of the OPCW chief's job, they said, although they thought he should have consulted with Washington.

Former Bustani aide Bob Rigg, a New Zealander, sees a clear U.S. motivation: "Why did they not want OPCW involved in Iraq? They felt they couldn't rely on OPCW to come up with the findings the U.S. wanted." "

Heaven forfend there might have been more chemical weapons inspectors looking around Iraq and trying to gather accurate information about Saddam Hussein's WMD capabilities; inspectors from an organization we did not fully control. Hans Blix was bad enough, but this? Imagine the possible consequences: they might have found WMD, in which case our claim that Saddam had them would not have rested on our word alone. They might have established that he didn't have any, in which case we could have saved a lot of lives. And they might not have established anything conclusive one way or the other, in which case we would have gotten more accurate and up-to-date information on the sites they had inspected. It's all just too ghastly to contemplate.

Meanwhile, another gesture of concern about the prospect of weapons of mass destruction falling into the hands of terrorists:

"The White House on Friday played down a report in which U.N. weapons inspectors documented additional materials missing from weapons sites in Iraq. (...)

In a report to the U.N. Security Council, acting chief weapons inspector Demetrius Perricos said that satellite imagery experts had determined that material that could be used to make biological or chemical weapons and banned long-range missiles had been removed from 109 sites, up from 90 reported in March.

The sites have been emptied of equipment to varying degrees, with the largest percentage of missing items at 58 missile facilities.

For example, 289 of the 340 pieces of equipment to produce missiles, or about 85 percent, had been removed, the report said."

You just can't make this stuff up.

Comments

[CaseyL]

If the Bush Admin's intent had been to make the world a more dangerous place; if the Bush Admin's intent had been to put weapons into the hands of America's enemies; if the Bush Admin's intent had been to help, rather than hinder, terrorism...

... then the Iraq strategy is perfect.

[otto]

The reaction to Bustani sounds about right. Is it just my poor perception, or did Blix, after he was initially much applauded in the US media, really fall off the radar screen when he started saying things contrary to the Administration’s agenda for Iraq?

I also remember hearing somewhere that Bolton was put up to cause a stir and thus deflect attention from Negroponte’s appointment as Director of National Intelligence, a potentially more controversial nomination. I seem to recall that just prior to Negroponte’s appointment he got about a day’s worth of TV news coverage that was entirely laudatory without any (that I can remember) mention of his role in funding the Contras or covering up torture and death squads in Honduras. Or was Bolton supposed to be a swap? I am trying to understand the 98 to 2 Senate vote that confirmed Negroponte.

[Anarch]

Is it just my poor perception, or did Blix, after he was initially much applauded in the US media, really fall off the radar screen when he started saying things contrary to the Administration’s agenda for Iraq?

Has anyone else read Stephen R Donaldson's Gap Cycle? Does anyone else think of the phrase "contrary to established reality" when hearing about this sort of thing?

[Barry]

Look back to the Watergate writings that we've seen pointed out recently (Brad DeLong has some linked and demolished). Look at what the people who were adults in those times, like Ben Stein and William F. Buckley are saying. They're flat out lying, and have no problem with any and all crimes Nixon & Co. ever did.

There's a pattern here, and we see it continued with the Bush administration and Iraq: Lie about the truth, deliberately, then lie more (deliberately and repeatedly) about those who tell the truth.

This has long since ceased to be a matter of interpretation or 'a few bad apples' or one or two unconfirmed reports. It's a standard practice.

[freelunch]

It strikes me that these problems arise because the the rich and powerful feel a childish sense of entitlement caused by a culture that indulges unearned wealth. It is a sick parody of the Calvinist idea that those who are wealthy or powerful deserve to be so, so it is wrong to question what they do. Meanwhile, there are master manipulaters who only recognize value in power and do their amoral best to wield it.

President Bush is not a competent leader, but he is still indulged by the courtiers who try to make his every whim a reality. No sensible president would have nominated John Bolton to be ambassador to the UN, but this one not only nominated him, but doesn't even know when to withdraw the nomination. Will any Republicans stand up against him and start to bring reality back into discussions in Washington? Democrats aren't being listened to and the Washington Post editorial page, like the Wall Street Journal's before it, can't be bothered to read its own paper.

[Gary Farber]

"I also remember hearing somewhere...."

...that that's an extraordinarily bad premise for an argument. :-)

But, hey, take my (non-existent) sister-in-law's nephew's cousin's friend's word for it.

;-)

[otto]

Gary Farber,

Yes it is. I was hoping someone might have heard about this (I could not remember the source) . . . ?

[Gary Farber]

"Yes it is. I was hoping someone might have heard about this (I could not remember the source) . . . ?"

Can't help you, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on tv coverage on the day of Negroponte's nomination. All I can say is that I've been pointing out Negroponte's background on El Salvador, death squads, and the like, well, since that day in the early Eighties when I had to ask someone to remind me what "¡NO PASARAN!" meant. And thus I wrote stuff such as this and this.

I tried to use my insidious liberal wiles to get Kinzer mass-market publication back in the Eighties, but my power was almost as limited as it is today. Woe.

:-)

[liberal japonicus]

otto I have a memory of that kind of discussion, especially when Garner was replaced by Bremer, as well as the subsequent hearings. Here's some links that might help

Jay Garner, the US general abruptly dismissed as Iraq's first occupation administrator after a month in the job, says he fell out with the Bush circle because he wanted free elections and rejected an imposed program of privatization.

link

Here's another interesting interview with Garner , especially in regards to the police situation.

Another lead might be something to do with Tom Warrick and the Future of Iraq project.

There was also a TNR article that pops up (unfortunately subscriber only)

There was also this WSJ article, but none of these have the 'yeah, that's it' feeling.

[Gary Farber]

"There was also a TNR article that pops up (unfortunately subscriber only)...."

I'd not have thought I still had a working bugmenot password there (and I'm pretty sure I don't, so far as I can tell), but I still see the whole article, for what that's worth.

[Gary Farber]

"...(unfortunately subscriber only)"

Wondering if you need some part reprinted here? Since it doesn't seem to be subscriber-only on my end, nor particularly whatever.

[liberal japonicus]

Wondering if you need some part reprinted here?

Well, the title was descriptive enough for me ('Federal Reserve: The State Department's anti-democracy plan for Iraq') though I thought it had a lot about Chalabi's manipulation (thus tying into your points about diversion of funds), in reading various posts, it was amazing how well things were going back then, and the big argument was whether Bremer's appointment was the state department winning over Defense. Can't believe that I'm thinking how much better things were in 2003.

[liberal japonicus]

Sorry, I've got too many open windows. Your point about diversion of funds in another thread.

[Gary Farber]

Wondering if you need some part reprinted here?

Well, the title was descriptive enough for me....

Okay, now wanting a payoff for not actually quoting....

[Gary Farber]

"...Well, the title was descriptive enough for me...."

Um, I really want to feel kindly here. My mild suggestion is that it's not actually good to suggest reading stuff you aren't sure people won't read, let alone that one hasn't actually read, since it's likely they, in fact, will read it. This can be less helpful than one hopes.

[liberal japonicus]

Gary
I'm glad your vacation hasn't altered you in one bit. Otto said that he had a memory (which I shared) and I was posting those links in hopes of jogging his memory (having searched for something that might jog my memory and having failed).

Obviously helpfulness is in the eye of the beholder. I would think that making a snarky comment about relying on a non-existent relative would be pretty low on the helpfulness spectrum, but hey, that's just me.

[Nell]

I think the revelation of Bolton's connection with the firing of Bustani isn't so much stories colliding as it is a vivid snapshot of the Big Picture: The war on Iraq was always going to happen, and the facts were going to be manipulated to support it.

The manipulation took all kinds of forms: purely made-up stuff (Niger uranium); poorly sourced thin intel beefed up to sound ominous; facts twisted to the desired analysis (Energy Dept. and DIA dissents on the aluminum tube purposes suppressed, promotion of CIA analysts who gave the "right" answer); discrediting and suppression of alternative points of view, especially informed points of view (vilification of Scott Ritter, firing of Bustani); suppression/minimization of news reports that would give away the game (e.g. the stepped-up air strikes from May 2002)... It's a long list, by no means exhausted by these off-the-top-of-my-head examples.

Bolton specialized in the "kill the messenger" forms of manipulation, although he also wasn't above just making stuff up in the non-Iraq realm (the Cuba bioweapons charges timed to disrupt former Pres. Carter's visit there in spring 2002).

[otto]

Gary Farber and Lberal Japonicus,

Thank you both for your gregarious responses.

Gary Farber,

Thanks for the Negroponte stuff. I didn't know you had a blog. I'll check it out in the future. Also the links you have to Osama bin Laden are very helpful to me.

Liberal Japonicus,

I was aware of the PBS interview with Garner (it was from here that I began really exploring the past century of Western involvement in Iraq as the result of Garner's comment that Iraq will serve the same purpose in the Middle East as the Philippines served in the Pacific: a "coaling station" for purposes of regional power projection) but not with the other or the Future of Iraq Project. Many thanks.

[Gary Farber]

Gary Farber,

Thanks for the Negroponte stuff. I didn't know you had a blog.

I'm sure a lot of folks are grateful I've never mentioned that here before.

:-)

[Nell]

One more bit on the Bustani firing: I was reminded by a post at Under the Same Sun of a George Monbiot article I saved myself back when it appeared -- just before the U.S.-engineered 'coup' at the U.N. The most interesting point in the article in retrospect is that the efforts to get rid of Bustani began in January 2002.

The data points have piled up pretty thickly; the most recent being Bush's denial at yesterday's press appearance with Blair.