(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)
The American newspaper Washington Post has printed excerpts from star reporter Bob Woodward's book Plan of Attack the last week. The book will be in store next week, and its content, which will be based on interviews with a total of 75 centrally located sources in the US administration and intelligence, has been a well-kept secret so far.
Woodward – best known for his role in the Watergate revelations – joins the ranks of high-profile critics of Bush's Iraq line. From before, this includes the UN chief of weapons inspectors Hans Blix and former anti-terrorism chief in the CIA Richard Clarke. In addition, Thomas Power's utterances have similar concerns in The New York Review of Books April 1st. He has studied the intelligence system in the United States for a lifetime and has previously published books such as Intelligence Wars: American Secret History from Hitler to al-Qaeda, and is therefore worth listening to.
The main accusation, also by Bob Woodward, is that the "evidence" presented to the world before the war was a commissioned work – the president had already made his decision to go to war and started planning the large-scale military operation before it was presented to him. . Yes, he was actually disappointed that the CIA could dish up so little concrete information about Iraq's possible weapons of mass destruction.
But Woodward's book also contains more, we must believe the excerpts that have been printed. It describes the inner life of the administration and the security cabinet in the last 16 months before the war in Iraq. It seeks to explain how and why the decision to plan war fell as it did – just 72 days after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, and how and why it became increasingly clear to Bush that he was approaching “the point of no return ”in the months that followed. After a meeting of the National Security Council, Bush is said to have told Rumsfeld on a December day in 2001: "What have you got in terms of plans for Iraq? What is the status of the war plan? I want you to get on it. I want you to keep it a secret, ”Woodward writes.
That is how it turned out, but the president was still in doubt and kept the diplomatic track open for a long time – until the beginning of January 2003, according to the author. He was then pressured or persuaded by Vice President Dick Cheney, assurances that this was a narrow case from CIA chief George Tenet and the attitude of the few people he had consulted – Condoleezza Rice and a trusted press adviser.
Others were excluded – yes, the government is even said to have received $ 700 million for the preparations without the knowledge and approval of Congress. Even Saudi Arabia's ambassador Prince Bandar bin Sultan was informed of the final decision before Secretary of State Colin Powell. According to Woodward, the latter was the only one who was centrally located and at the same time had reservations about going to war. When he was finally called into the oval room to receive the message, he still said, "Im with you." An old soldier obeys his president, must know.
It all puts the official rationale for the war in relief. It is not known exactly what motives they eventually cast shadows for. But it is certain that the President of the United States is fighting to be believed these days. Powel has been at odds with his president, denying Woodward's claims that he and Cheney are no longer on speaking terms due to disagreements over the Iraq war. Bush has held one of his rare press conferences to try to provide some answers, and Rice testified at the September 11 hearings at Easter.
In the last issue of New York Review of Books Brian Urquhart – former UN Secretary-General – writes about these efforts, both in the United States and in the aftermath of the Kelly case in England. He concludes: "Blaming the Iraq war's questionable rationale on bad intelligence will not conceal the fact that it was primarily a political choice.
If, as the President implies, we are still in a war situation, will intelligence again be tailored for political purposes? ”
It will again be a political choice. Unfortunately.
