[cross posted from Frameshop --JF]
At some point in 2002, President Bush planned and launched a massive PR campaign to convince the country that a nuclear attack by Iraq on America was inevitable.
It is in this context that Americans must view the current scandal unfolding in the White House, the so-called "Leakgate" or "Rovegate." The scandal is about much more than whether or not Karl Rove technically broke the law, or which law he broke and when. The scandal is about whether or not the President of the United States convinced the public that the threat of nuclear attack from Iraq was imminent, all the while knowing that there was no such threat at all.
Frameshop is open...
It is difficult to exaggerate the emotions that most Americans felt as a result of that PR campaign by President Bush. A nation that was still in pain from the deaths of thousands of innocent citizens on 9/11 was suddenly overwhelmed by the fear of a radical dictator with nuclear bombs aimed at America--aimed at our cities, aimed at our towns, aimed at our schools, aimed at our homes, aimed at our families.
Prior to this PR campaign about the threat of nuclear attack, the plan on President Bush's desk to set up an American puppet regime in Iraq was way too confusing for most Americans to support. It was a plan hatched by professors and intellectuals, by foreign policy "wonks." It was a plan based on vague ideas about a shift in global power relations since the fall of the Soviet Union. Even in the wake of September 11, it did not seem likely that Americans would support an invasion of Iraq based on that plan.
But the idea that the U.S. needed to invade Iraq to prevent a nuclear attack--this was a way to explain the project in simple, emotional terms. Either we invade Iraq, or nuclear bombs rain down on America. It was simple and it was clear.
And it worked. In fact, the PR campaign worked so well, that it caused a series of unexpected changes.
By March 2003 when President Bush announced that the invasion of Iraq had begun, the fear of a nuclear attack from Iraq had effectively crippled any form of dissent from Congress. Senators or Representatives who might otherwise have questioned the President's plan, were unsure of themselves. Their constituents seemed truly afraid of a nuclear attack. And odds seemed good that the U.S. would turn up at least some evidence that would prove this fear to be based in truth. Maybe they were exaggerated claims, but who thought they could turn out to be 100% baseless? After all, Colin Powell had been the person to present evidence of the nuclear threat to the UN, and Powell was universally trusted.
The anti-War movement amongst the grassroots had also been crippled by the nuclear attack PR campaign.
At first, the protests were large and passionate, attracting millions to urban marches across the globe. But slowly, more and more anti-War activists began to admit that they, too, were nervous about the prospect of a nuclear attack from Iraq. Some on the Left were so nervous about Iraq's nuclear bombs, that they became Republicans overnight. But most were just nervous enough that their passion for the anti-War movement dissipated. Even if there were still protests, the nuclear attack PR campaign from the White House effectively killed the anti-War movement.
More importantly, perhaps, the nuclear attack PR campaign had a profound impact on the way the White House began to plan for success in the 2004 re-election campaign.
Whereas President Bush had reached the White House on a "straight talk" and "Christian values" campaign in 2000, the success of the nuclear attack PR campaign gave the President's political advisers a new idea: re- election would come on the backs of a successful campaign in Iraq. The logic to take into 2004 would be that President Bush had looked the threat of nuclear attack square in the face and had brought down a dictator to prevent the worst of all horrors. In May 1, 2003, by the time President Bush landed on the U.S.S. Lincoln to declare victory in the "war" to save America from a nuclear attack, the White House political team must have been convinced that a re-election victory in 2004 was already a sure thing. Having crippled the Congress, the opposition grassroots and the nation with a fear too visceral to ignore, the President not only achieved an invasion of Iraq that he had wanted for years, but he was re-born as a Commander-in-Chief in the process. Game, set, match.
But there was one problem: none of it was true.
There was no threat of nuclear war from Iraq. Years of UN sanctions--despite being riddled with corruption--had rid Iraq of nuclear weapons. The pictures, diagrams, vials of poison--all fakes. Rumors based on conversations with Iraqi exiles seeking revenge and financial gain from an American invasion. While the nation grew more and more afraid of a nuclear attack from Iraq, the White House grew more and more confident in their own political skills. President Bush knew that there was no threat of nuclear war from Iraq. His real goal was political success in the 2004 election. And the more the public feared nuclear war, the better his chances at re-election.
All was going as planned. Then Joe Wilson published an op-ed in the New York Times, arguing that the core evidence of the nuclear threat PR campaign was false, a lie.
According to Joe Wilson, Iraq had no nuclear weapons, America was not under of nuclear attack. Suddenly, having lead U.S. government and the public down a path of fear, the Bush White House finally felt their own fear for the first time. But was it fear of nuclear attack? Was it fear of losing the war in Iraq? No,no. The fear the White House felt when Joe Wilson's op-ed was published was the fear that they would lose the PR war on which they had staked their entire political future. While Americans feared nuclear attack from Iraq, the Bush White House--knowing all along that Iraq had no nuclear weapons--feared only a political opponent who would launch a counter PR campaign, thereby turning the nation's fear of nuclear war into distrust for President Bush.
And that's exactly what Joe Wilson did.
Some day, the conversations about what to do about "the Wilson threat to the 2004 re-election" will come to light. Some enterprising investigative reporter will find them and publish a series of articles demonstrating to America how brutal and unprincipled the Bush White House became when it feared a total collapse of their political project. Until then, we have to imagine what happened. Some day, evidence will come to light of a meeting with President Bush, Karl Rove and Dick Cheney in which they discussed the possible ways to bring down Joe Wilson before he convinced America that there never was a nuclear threat from Iraq--before Joe Wilson revealed that the fear they felt was not based on truth, but was just the result of a very effective PR campaign.
The conclusion they came to was this: to prevent Joe Wilson from threatening our political plans, we will brand him as a traitor.
And so, the President's chief political adviser and closest confident, Karl Rove, set out to counter Joe Wilson's op-ed with a series of well-placed newspaper articles. Wilson published one piece in the New York Times? Rove would land a half dozen pieces in newspapers and magazines using all of his contacts. The thrust of these articles to be planted by Rove--which we all know about now--would be that Wilson had plotted to bring down President Bush by using his wife's connections at the CIA to make false claims against the American government.
As Americans watch the battle between Joe Wilson and Karl Rove unfold in the media, it is important to remember the big picture: President Bush took the nation to war to prevent a nuclear attack from Iraq. Now we know that all of that evidence was false.
Instead of asking who was the real source in the White House that released the name of Valery Plame to the press, we should all be asking a much more important question: If the President new Iraq did not have nuclear weapons and that Iraq could not launch a nuclear attack against the United States, why did he tell Americans that they were in danger of nuclear attack? Why did the President claim to be protecting American from a nuclear threat that did not exist? And why did President Bush campaign for re-election on the basis that if the Democrats were to be elected, the nation would once again be in danger of a nuclear attack?
When a President, who is in charge of protecting the nation, uses his power to spread fear in the population--so as to garner support for policies that the public might otherwise not support--how should Americans respond?
A President willing to use false claims to toy with the emotions of the American people--to scare the public and to convince young men and women to die in war--is a President who must answer for more than the emails of his advisers.
© 2005 Jeffrey Feldman