PAUL KRUGMAN
Standard Operating Procedure
Tue Jun 3 01:29:47 2003
208.152.73.139

June 3, 2003

Standard Operating Procedure
By PAUL KRUGMAN - krugman@nytimes.com
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/03/opinion/03KRUG.html

The mystery of Iraq's missing weapons of mass destruction has become a lot less mysterious. Recent reports in major British newspapers and three major American news magazines, based on leaks from angry intelligence officials, back up the sources who told my colleague Nicholas Kristof that the Bush administration "grossly manipulated intelligence" about W.M.D.'s.

And anyone who talks about an "intelligence failure" is missing the point. The problem lay not with intelligence professionals, but with the Bush and Blair administrations. They wanted a war, so they demanded reports supporting their case, while dismissing contrary evidence.

In Britain, the news media have not been shy about drawing the obvious implications, and the outrage has not been limited to war opponents. The Times of London was ardently pro-war; nonetheless, it ran an analysis under the headline "Lie Another Day." The paper drew parallels between the selling of the war and other misleading claims: "The government is seen as having `spun' the threat from Saddam's weapons just as it spins everything else."

Yet few have made the same argument in this country, even though "spin" is far too mild a word for what the Bush administration does, all the time. Suggestions that the public was manipulated into supporting an Iraq war gain credibility from the fact that misrepresentation and deception are standard operating procedure for this administration, which — to an extent never before seen in U.S. history — systematically and brazenly distorts the facts.

Am I exaggerating? Even as George Bush stunned reporters by declaring that we have "found the weapons of mass destruction," the Republican National Committee declared that the latest tax cut benefits "everyone who pays taxes." That is simply a lie. You've heard about those eight million children denied any tax break by a last-minute switcheroo. In total, 50 million American households — including a majority of those with members over 65 — get nothing; another 20 million receive less than $100 each. And a great majority of those left behind do pay taxes.

And the bald-faced misrepresentation of an elitist tax cut offering little or nothing to most Americans is only the latest in a long string of blatant misstatements. Misleading the public has been a consistent strategy for the Bush team on issues ranging from tax policy and Social Security reform to energy and the environment. So why should we give the administration the benefit of the doubt on foreign policy?

It's long past time for this administration to be held accountable. Over the last two years we've become accustomed to the pattern. Each time the administration comes up with another whopper, partisan supporters — a group that includes a large segment of the news media — obediently insist that black is white and up is down. Meanwhile the "liberal" media report only that some people say that black is black and up is up. And some Democratic politicians offer the administration invaluable cover by making excuses and playing down the extent of the lies.

If this same lack of accountability extends to matters of war and peace, we're in very deep trouble. The British seem to understand this: Max Hastings, the veteran war correspondent — who supported Britain's participation in the war — writes that "the prime minister committed British troops and sacrificed British lives on the basis of a deceit, and it stinks."

It's no answer to say that Saddam was a murderous tyrant. I could point out that many of the neoconservatives who fomented this war were nonchalant, or worse, about mass murders by Central American death squads in the 1980's. But the important point is that this isn't about Saddam: it's about us. The public was told that Saddam posed an imminent threat. If that claim was fraudulent, the selling of the war is arguably the worst scandal in American political history — worse than Watergate, worse than Iran-contra. Indeed, the idea that we were deceived into war makes many commentators so uncomfortable that they refuse to admit the possibility.

But here's the thought that should make those commentators really uncomfortable. Suppose that this administration did con us into war. And suppose that it is not held accountable for its deceptions, so Mr. Bush can fight what Mr. Hastings calls a "khaki election" next year. In that case, our political system has become utterly, and perhaps irrevocably, corrupted.

Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

==========================================================

http://www.thescotsman.co.uk/international.cfm?id=617602003

First post-Saddam elections cancelled by British

JACK FAIRWEATHER IN UMM QASR, The Scotsman, 06/03/03

BRITISH forces in the Iraqi port of Umm Qasr yesterday cancelled what would have been the first democratic elections in post-war Iraq.

Amid disorder at polling booths, allegations of rampant corruption in the choosing of candidates, and locals barely aware of a vote taking place, the elections have been "postponed indefinitely".

The embarrassment follows criticisms that the armed forces should wait for professionals to organise elections in the chaos of post-war Iraq.

Captain Emma Welch, part of the British force in Umm Qasr overseeing the ballot, said: "We really want these elections to take place and know the Iraqis are eager to take the running of the port into their own hands. But we don’t want to rush things though until proper democratic foundations are laid."

British forces were attacked for handing power over to an interim administration in Umm Qasr too quickly. The council has been riddled with corruption and accused by Iraqis of embezzling funds.

Council members either nominated themselves or family members to stand for election, while only a small proportion of the town’s 45,000 inhabitants had registered to vote. "It doesn’t bode well for the future," said one British soldier on patrol.

"There seems to be a political will to get elections going which doesn’t reflect the situation on the ground. We’ve got to be careful not to get their hopes up."

At Umm Qasr’s town-centre market, few locals even knew an election had been proposed. Mohammed Sardoun, a stallholder, said: "I am not concerned about elections. They are something to think about after we have food and running water. These are more important than democracy. It’s a good idea but doesn’t mean much."

Two months after the liberation of Umm Qasr, electricity and water supplies are intermittent and crime rife on the streets at night.

And the election campaign of one current member of the council suggested few things would change in Umm Qasr.

Salim al-Kanaan drove regally around the town centre in his car. "That’s my cousin who is in charge of law and order," said one man. "I will be voting for him whatever happens because he will give me a job."

Mr al-Kanaan said: "I don’t have to do much because everyone knows who I am. Of course democracy means I may not be elected but I don’t expect that to happen. This is how we do things."

The US administration that governs most of Iraq is struggling with similar problems.

After two chaotic attempts to fashion a national assembly, Washington yesterday unveiled its plans to appoint members to a ruling council instead.

In Baghdad, thousands of former Iraqi soldiers swarmed US headquarters demanding to be paid, after the Iraqi military was ordered to be dissolved in favour of a new "Iraqi Corps" while a group of tribal leaders warned the Americans they could face war if they did not leave soon.