Managing Editor Scott Wright has been with The Post since 1998. He is a two-time winner of the Society of Professional Journalists' Green Eyeshade Award for humorous commentary. He is also the author of "A History of Weiss Lake" and "Fire on the Mountain: The Undefeated 1985 Sand Rock Wildcats."  He is a native of Cherokee County.

The Wright Angle
June 21, 2010

There's no comparing tar balls and WMDs

By Scott Wright

Share |

As many of the people who read this column already know, President George W. Bush was a first-class fool, as far as I am concerned. He proved it time and again in a multitude of ways during his time in office… often simply by speaking.

There are many pieces of evidence to support my beliefs regarding the former "decider-in-chief", a multitude of which are laid out in great detail in (shameless plug alert) the Wright Angle archive at The Post Online.

Apparently, though, there is a more-than-sufficient supply of Post readers who were somehow able to overlook (or possibly ignore) eight years of ever-mounting evidence of Dubya's diminished mental capacity who, inexplicably, now consider themselves experts at detecting similar deficiencies in President Obama's intellect.

One Obama hater, whom I'll call Marly, sent me the following email a few days ago:

“During Obama's first trip to the Gulf Coast, he said that the oil spill would be stopped in a 'few days.' Well, obviously, he was listening to faulty intelligence – the BP lies and propaganda. I guess President Bush fell victim to similar circumstances. How come you are not holding President Obama to the same standards and criticisms as President Bush? Fair is fair.”

First of all, let's assume for a moment that Dubya was interested in the truth about whether or not there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (he was not). The information he was getting from CIA satellite imagery analysts and other expert sources at the outset was, I think all Americans can agree, the nation's very best attempt to determine whether or not Saddam Hussein possessed WMDs.

On the other hand, regarding the Gulf oil spill, the information the government is receiving from BP changes drastically, and almost every day. This is a known fact which common sense dictates (to me, at least) should necessitate a certain amount of day-to-day flexibility. President Obama can only respond to the truth as he knows it; whenever the intelligence information changes, his response must be adjusted accordingly. This is what he has done so far.

That level of flexibility is exactly what Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, to name a few, did not apply to the question of the existence of WMDs. The Bush administration decided in late 2002 that they were going with the story that both chemical and nuclear weapons programs existed in Iraq and that there was going to be a war to end them. In the ensuing years, we have all learned that there were no WMDs, and that Bush knew as early as November 2002 — four months before the invasion began — that the story he was peddling about Iraq's weapons capabilities was a heaping load of hooey.

In 2006, political columnist Frank Rich wrote a book about Bush's push for war entitled “The Greatest Story Every Sold.” Among the facts Rich unearthed: When Dubya heard something he didn't like about the absence of WMDs in Iraq, he simply ignored it. When Cheney heard facts he couldn't refute, he either buried them or questioned the patriotism of whoever had the courage to espouse them — or both. In many ways, truth was the very first casualty of America's second war with Iraq.

So to answer your question, Marly, Barack Obama's message has indeed changed throughout this crisis, specifically because he is interested in the truth; when the truth changes, so do his efforts to deal with the disaster. We can argue all week long whether George W. Bush willfully ignored the changing perspective on the existence of WMDs or just flat-out lied to the American people.

Either way, he was unfit for the job.

Is President Obama fit for the job? I admit that, at the present, I have some doubts. He has wasted a lot of time in the two months since an oil rig exploded, 11 people died, and millions of others along the Gulf coast have seen their lives changed forever.

Regardless, the first 60-odd days of this disaster have proven that this president is interested in obtaining the best information available before making a decision while remaining flexible enough to alter that decision when new facts say he should. His predecessor, on the other hand, never cared very much about the truth. All he wanted was a war.

As you said in your email, Marly, "fair is fair."