KAGAN: Well, I want to get to that point in just a second. But to me, it sounds like when you say this came from an earlier part of the interview. Are you saying it was taken out of context?
TANNENHAUS: Oh, no. Actually, what I'm about to say is that the secretary's comments are as striking as the way the article presents them, if not more so because what he goes on to say is, after citing that as a very important attribute, a benefit of the war, he then goes on to say, when I asked him if that had been part of the strategic thinking all along, yes, the truth is for these questions of bureaucracy, we agreed on weapons of mass destruction, that was the one issue everyone could agree on, which means they didn't agree on the others.
KAGAN: You're standing by what is in Vanity Fair there and in your article?
TANNENHAUS: Absolutely.KAGAN: We have that. We also have more. Jamie mentioned in his piece that the Pentagon posted the transcripts.
TANNENHAUS: Yes.
KAGAN: So we actually have that we can put up, too. This is how the Pentagon says. They say it was like this: "The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on, which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason" -- I think we have more up there -- "but there have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism and the third is criminal treatment of the Iraqi people."
It doesn't show up like that in Vanity Fair.
TANNENHAUS: No, although what the piece says is that there are several reasons and the trouble is actually what this transcript says is that there were many reasons when, in fact, what we were told that many thought, particularly in Europe, the countries that signed onto this despite opposition from their own people was that there was compelling evidence of weapons of mass destruction.
Now, turn the clock back a few weeks ago, to when I spoke with the deputy secretaries, May 10 was when this long interview occurred. What was he trying to do? He was trying to explain how, even though no smoking gun had surfaced, this was a war still worth fighting. Why? Because other benefits accrued.
Hence, he says the truth is weapons of mass destruction were not the sole compelling reason.
KAGAN: So in your eyes he seemed comfortable with the idea, well, yes, we said that, but really, the greater good has taken place. You've seen the U.S. military moving. They're moving out of Saudi Arabia. The fall of Saddam Hussein. This is all taking place, it's all kind of happening like it was supposed to.
TANNENHAUS: Not only in my eyes. If you look also at the Defense Department's link (excerpt and link provided below), where transcripts are reproduced, you'll see an earlier interview he did with a "Washington Post" reporter who was picking up on my story.
There, the "Washington Post" reporter quoted precisely as I worded it the phrase about bureaucracy and the deputy has not backed down from it at all. It was only after this became a scandal, a concern in Europe that the Defense Department realized that the deputy secretary had been too candid and that's always a price to pay.
Why the inspectors actually left Iraq and showing the Administration feeding fear and a sense of urgency to the public through the media:
This is where Sec. Rumsfeld's unequivocal statement (about "no war") becomes important. First consider the following timeline:
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
