Just Tell the Truth

A recent flap over what assistant defense secretary Paul Wolfowitz recently said about the reason for the iraq war doesn't much matter: there are plenty other sound reasons to be skeptical about the Bush admistration's veracity. Just telling the truth is damning enough.

Just Tell the Truth
(755 words)

By STEPHEN SWECKER
Editor, Zions Herald
A Journal of Opinion, News & Reflection for 21st Century Christians

Copyright © 2003 by Zions Herald. Permission to Publish Granted
with Statement of Intent: editor@zhworld.net. Credit: Zions Herald.
File can be e-mailed in Word format upon request.

William Kristol, editor of the influential neo-conservative journal, The Weekly Standard, and I share little in common philosophically and politically. For starters, Mr. Kristol is in league with the club of current administration officials who, in 1997, under the rubric of the Project for the New American Century, advocated what is now the U.S. policy of preemption. Basically, this means hitting first and asking questions later. He supports the policy; I dont. He gets invited to the White House; I dont. You get the idea.

So, you can imagine my shock when I found myself agreeing recently with one of Mr. Kristols editorials titled, "What Wolfowitz Really Said." His subject was a widely-publicized interview appearing in Vanity Fair magazine in which Paul Wolfowitz, the hawkish assistant U.S. defense secretary, apparently made a politically embarrassing admission.

According to the interview, Mr. Wolfowitz indicated that administration officials calculatingly used the threat of "weapons of mass destruction" as the justification for war on Iraq simply because it was the one thing officials could agree on. In other words, according to Mr. Kristol, the threat of WMDs was made out to be "little more than a propaganda device, a piece of self-conscious and insincere political manipulation."

Using unedited transcripts of the interview and some additional context-- credibly so, it seemed to me--Mr. Kristol persuaded me that such was not the case. The transcript was consistent with Mr. Wolfowitzs published track record. It included his stated belief that Iraq had/has WMDs and that others in the administration agreed with him that the weapons presumed existence was the strongest argument for the war. That, in essence, is what he "really said," plain and simple. This hardly is news to those who know the mans position on the subject, and it certainly does not alter the picture of what actually occurred.

Hence, Mr. Kristol rightly deplored the interviews apparent misuse of Mr. Wolfowitzs words. He concluded that "distorting an on-the-record interview with a Bush administration official in order to create a quasi-conspiratorial narrative of deceit and deception at the highest levels of the U.S. government is a disgrace."

I absolutely agree. After all, sufficient reasons exist on uncontested grounds to entertain the possibility of "deceit and deception." Its quite unnecessary to distort Mr. Wolfowitzs words to create doubt about the administration's veracity. With each passing day of unanswered questions about the war's legitimacy, suspicion billows like a poisonous cloud out of the swamp of uncertain information, conflicting assertions and competing points of view.

What is certain is the public's growing skepticism regarding the official rationale for turning Iraq into rubble. Even if solid evidence of WMDs is found, it seems increasingly unlikely that they could have posed an imminent threat to our national security and justified the killing of 5,000 Iraqi civilians. If the reality of such a threat is ever proved, I hope that we who have severely challenged our government for its actions will be forthright enough to admit we were wrong. For now, though, we feel misled and deceived. Mr. Wolfowitz himself recently deepened our misgivings by saying that the real motive for war actually was Iraqi oil after all, according to two German newspapers reporting on a speech he gave in Singapore. Yipes!

But, I thank Mr. Kristol for calling the media up short when any of its members practices distortion and the careless use of words -- the very sins that many in the media and elsewhere claim against this administration. If it turns out that a basis exists in reality for that claim, any sloppiness by the media will make it that much harder to convince people inclined to believe their elected leaders and disposed not to trust the press. The New York Times, for one, is sadly aware of this.

A lesson implied by all of the above applies not only to the media. It holds for any of us who would play the needed but perilous role of critic in these confusing and divisive times. The lesson: It's OK to be bold, but stay grounded; damning facts dont need twisting. "Just tell the truth, and theyll think its hell," Harry Truman liked to say.

Now, if only Bill Kristol and I could reconcile our differing worldviews and see the rest of life with the crackling clarity of ol Harry. But, who knows? Maybe one day well run into each other at Harrys former residence and hit it off.

For starters, I suspect we both would like to corner Paul Wolfowitz and have a chat.