Daniel Froomkin Visits Bush's Alternate Reality

He is shrill:

Bush's Alternate Reality: President Bush on Wednesday said something demonstrably false and inflammatory about Iran -- asserting that the Iranian government has "declared they want to have a nuclear weapon to destroy people." The Iranians have never done any such thing -- and for Bush to say so at a time of great tension between the two countries is bizarre at best. So why did he say it? Was he actively trying to misrepresent the situation? Was it just a slip of the tongue? Or does he believe it, despite the abundant evidence to the contrary?

It seems unlikely that Bush would choose this particular venue to launch a disinformation campaign: His comment came midway through a softball interview with an obscure U.S.-funded Farsi-language radio station, on the occasion of Persian new year. And the Iranian audience knows best that what he said is untrue. Such a blatant distortion only strengthens the Iranian government's position that Bush is a liar. So did Bush just misspeak? The White House certainly suggested that yesterday, with a spokesman insisting that Bush had simply spoken in "shorthand," combining Iranian threats against Israel with concerns about Iran's nuclear program.

And yet, as disturbing as the third possibility is -- that Bush is operating in an alternate reality -- it's supported by this simple fact: He's said almost exactly the same thing at least once before. As Olivier Knox of AFP pointed out on Aug. 6, Bush said at a joint press conference with Afghan President Hamid Karzai that day: "It's up to Iran to prove to the world that they're a stabilizing force as opposed to a destabilizing force. After all, this is a government that has proclaimed its desire to build a nuclear weapon." Then, as now, there was no official retraction.

Washington wisdom has it that whatever military action against Iran Bush and Vice President Cheney might have been hatching was shelved after a national intelligence estimate released late last year concluded that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program four years earlier. But a variety of reports have indicated that neither Bush nor Cheney were persuaded.... It's worth getting Bush on the record about exactly how he understands the facts here....

Here's the exchange in question, from Bush's interview with Parichehr Farzam of Radio Farda:

Farzam: "Mr. President, as you and your allies launched a global initiative to combat nuclear terrorism, what do you think is your most important challenge to expose and stop the secretive ambition of Iran's government to enrich uranium, while assuring its citizens that their happiness and prosperity and peace is a benefit within their reach?"

Bush: "Sure, absolutely. Well, one thing is, is to reiterate my belief that the Iranians should have a civilian nuclear power program. It's in their right to have it. The problem is the government cannot be trusted to enrich uranium because one, they've hidden programs in the past and they may be hiding one now, who knows; and secondly, they've declared they want to have a nuclear weapon to destroy people -- some in the Middle East. And that's unacceptable to the United States and it's unacceptable to the world."

William Branigin was first to break this story yesterday, writing on washingtonpost.com that, contrary to what Bush said, "the Iranian government has not publicly declared a desire to obtain such weapons. In fact, Iranian leaders have said the opposite, repeatedly insisting that they do not want nuclear arms and asserting that their nuclear program is intended only to generate electricity. . . . "

"Asked to explain Bush's comment, White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe said he spoke in 'shorthand,' combining Iranian threats against Israel with concerns about Iran's nuclear program. 'The president was referring to the Iranian regime's previous statements regarding their desire to wipe Israel off the map,' Johndroe said. 'The president shorthanded his answer with regard to Iran's previously secret nuclear weapons program and their current enrichment and ballistic missile testing'"...

Comments

[Paul G. Brown]

I'm shocked ... Shocked! ... to learn that President Bush is a warmongering liar.

Hitherto I'd judged him to be merely a lying warmongerer.

[Neal]

The madness of King George continues.

[Robert the Red]

Why don't the NYT and WashPost headline their articles on this "Bush: Liar or Deluded?" Instead of burying the 'controversy' on their inside pages?

[jerry]

I heard that and was stunned that no one else seemed to think it important.

I was also disappointed (but not really surprised) that neither of our candidates decided it was important to speak of. (Have you seen the clip of Pat Buchanan saying that John McCain will make Dick Cheney look like Gandhi?)

[Shelby]

"shorthanded" as a verb? That's almost Bushian itself.

[Shelby]

"shorthanded" as a verb? That's almost Bushian itself.

[kharris]

Just for fun, consider the possibility that he knows exactly what he is doing (of is being advised by somebody who does). During the initial stages of our war with the Taliban, Iran helped. The US and Iran were working together with other countries in the region on innocuous issues like regional water management. The US and Iran were, very slowly, reducing distrust and finding common ground. Moderates (by Iran's standards, if not the standards of US punditry) had a fairly strong position inside Iran. Then, Bush called Iran evil. Back to snarling and circling each other with fangs on display. No more nicey-nicey.

Now, as Bush is preparing to leave office, he has fired a military leader who spoke out publicly against going to war with Iran, and has told a stupid, inflammatory lie about Iran's declared nuclear intentions in a way that is likely to be heard more loudly by Iranians than anyone else.

If Iran's leaders respond to the provocation with heated speech, and the US press picks up the heated speech without noting the provocation, then mission accomplished.

[kharris]

By the way, Bush has an expression to describe the sort of behavior I am suggesting. He calls it a "game-changer". The "game-changer" is part of his behavioral repertoire, just as requiring that every one and every nation be either a good guy or a bad guy is part of his emotional repertoire. The two traits work perfectly together.

[bakho]

Why are the presidential candidates not calling him on it? It seems to me that they have a huge education mission trying to refute 8 years of misinformation. Shouldn't they try to get a head start?

[Barkley Rosser]

There could be a lot more to this than has been suggested so far, although mostly it is not good, not good at all. A few days ago on Juan Cole, he put up a column by William Polk, who argues that the administration may well be gearing up for war with Iran, despite everyone believing the contrary since publication of the NIE report. One piece of evidence is the already mentioned firing of anti-war-with-Iran, Admiral Fallon as Centcom commander. Another is that apparently there has been a large, but mostly unreported buildup of US naval forces in the Persian Gulf recently. Also, Cheney quietly visited Oman, at the Straits of Hormuz, a country to have on board if one is contemplating war with Iran.

Polk also posed a theory that seems less likely, that the Israeli attack on Syria was to check out their air defenses so Israel could fly over Syria to bomb Iran, this theory based on a report by Seymour Hersh. However, there does seem to be evidence that North Korea was involved in helping to build some sort of reactor at the site that was bombed, even if this does not necessarily rule out the first theory, with the quietness over all that being due to the Israelis wanting to negotiate with Syria. Who knows on that one?

However, the theory is that the US, maybe with the assistance of Israel, would bomb the nuclear sites of Iran, those that are known, coupled with some kind of ground incursion to finish off at those sites what the air attacks could not finish. Nobody seems to be suggesting that the US would attempt to overthrow the government in Tehran, which would be truly insane.

[Maurice Lanselle]

"Another is that apparently there has been a large, but mostly unreported buildup of US naval forces in the Persian Gulf recently"

There have been some reports of the massing of boats just out of sight off Syria and Lebanon -- by the Russian press. [http://fr.rian.ru/analysis/20080313/101237268.html]

It could be shorthand meaning "we look like we're threatening you, but that is as untrue as the pretext." In other words, Syria is gonna get it.

[kusaka]

Well, see, its very simple. If US did not have nuclear weapons, it would be building them and if it had them, it would use them (as it did, against civilian targets). Surely, the others (including Iranians) are no better than us?

[sm]

It's time for the Democratic candidates to start running against Bush and McCain. If HRC won't BHO could and should.

[christofay]

It's Washington, levy onto Washington what is Washington's.

Clinton voted for Bush's pocket Iran war resolution. Her husband this weekend called that only McCain and his wife are suitable to become God's conduit on earth. Ms Clinton also called that Greenspan should be appointed to a special inflation bank bail-out panel 'o experts which is fine to have the prime architect of the disaster serving as the head fixer.

When we talk of Washingtonian Democrat or Republican, we only talk of the difference in decline.

[Organic George]

SHRILL IS GOOD

We know Bush wants war with Iran

They just fired the last General who was against attacking Iran

Do you honestly think Bush will not take military action if he thinks he can get away with it?

[christofay]

And that admiral they just fired was hired cause they thought he could be depended on to be hawkish.

Hillary Clinton has declared war on the economy, "We need a president who is ready on day one to be Commander-in-Chief of our economy."

It's time to corral Washington by limiting it's infinite capacity to spend money.

[christofay]

Clinton, "That's why I'm proposing an Emergency Working Group on Foreclosures. It could be led by a distinguished, non-partisan group of economic leaders like Alan Greenspan, Robert Rubin, Paul Volcker. It's the kind of proactive step that would help re-establish confidence in our economy by showing that the President and the Administration was taking our economic crisis seriously."

One of those three is useful and non-partisan, can you choose?

Greenspan has already declared he's a libertarian Republican, a liger, and no matter how bad the Republican candidate he'll vote for him.

Rubin was brought on board at Citigrope for a special purpose, if it's bail out time he gets rolled out to plead for relief. He did it when Enron evaporated and now he's prominent in that organization again. Ten million dollars a year to serve as a special purpose vehicle to mau mau Washington.

Volcker, now he accomplished something in his day setting the ground work for the long stretch of prosperity. And after he was done he went away unlike his predecessor forever in the press alternating announcements of more inflation banks tossing him cookies and his speeches regaling us with how he didn't do it.

[tom f]

First of all, can someone confirm that the "Iranian speed boats made dangerous and threatening maneuvers at a US ship in the Gulf" story was a hoax.

Secondly, we should remember that those in the know -Juan Cole, for instance, believe that "wiping Israel off the map" was a mistranslation.

So, potentially, we're dealing with 1 and a half Tonkin's already. Bush's lie counts as another half-Tonkin. So we're up to two. 2 then being a reading that can be used as a proxy to measure the effect the information age has had in restraining the Empire...for now.

[christofay]

I'm counting up who has signed onto the Kyl/Lieberman we must nuke them before they nuke us resolution, did Obama sign on? McCain/Clinton are definitely in the war on Iran kampf. The situation has to be manipulated with more finesse to paint Clinton into the attack now corner, that's all.

[christofay]

Actually our problem is greater, Bush has a separate reality within the United States' larger sphere of a separate reality.

[bigTom]

You guys are getting carried away on an unsubstantiated (but scary) tangent! Whew, that wasn't so hard to say... Now can someone just convince me I'm right.

[Adrian Smith]

"Secondly, we should remember that those in the know -Juan Cole, for instance, believe that "wiping Israel off the map" was a mistranslation."

Those in the know? It's not like Farsi is some super-secret code language understood by hardly anyone. "The regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time" or some such.

[Anderson]

"it is a state as close to hitler's germany as could ever be imagined"

You have a pretty poor imagination, for one thing.

[tom f]

Adrian Smith:

Farsi was super secret to me + 99.9% of the population, and the mainstream media amplified the establishments mistranslation without expert countertranslations. Therefore, you had to consult dissident media sources to get the truth -not an unusual situation.