About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Echoing Bush on legacy tour, NPR's Liasson says Iraq war "pretty manageable, if not almost won"

December 16, 2008 8:14 pm ET

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

SUMMARY: On Special Report, Mara Liasson said of President Bush's handling of the Iraq war, "I think that history will judge him pretty kindly," but made no mention of the ongoing debate over whether the United States should have initiated the war in the first place or whether it has been worth the cost in lives, money, and diverted attention and resources. She also described Bush as "handing over a war that's pretty manageable, if not almost won, to his successor." Liasson's words closely tracked Bush's own recent descriptions of progress in Iraq, as he has repeatedly discussed the legacy of his presidency.

21 Comments

On the December 15 edition of Fox News' Special Report, Fox News contributor and NPR national political correspondent Mara Liasson said of President George W. Bush's handling of the Iraq war, "I think that history will judge him pretty kindly," and said that Bush leaves "a war that's pretty manageable, if not almost won, to his successor." Liasson made the comments while discussing the Iraqi reporter who threw his shoes at Bush during a December 14 press conference in Baghdad. Liasson's comments echoed those made by conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer's moments earlier, in which Krauthammer asserted that Bush was "the hero of the surge" who is now "handing over to his successor basically a war that's just about won." Liasson's words also closely tracked Bush's own recent descriptions of progress in Iraq, as he has repeatedly discussed the legacy of his presidency, ignoring or dismissing criticism of the conduct of the invasion and occupation.

Liasson said of Bush's legacy in Iraq: "He can't catch break on Iraq, even though over time, I think that history will judge him pretty kindly. He corrected the mistakes. He had a terrible beginning in Iraq -- well, he had a great beginning and a terrible middle, I guess, but he is handing over a war that's pretty manageable, if not almost won, to his successor." In asserting that Bush "had a great beginning" in Iraq, Liasson did not mention the false premises under which the United States went to war in the first place or the failure on the part of the Bush administration to plan for the aftermath of the invasion. She did not mention the widespread looting, the dissolution of the Iraqi army without accounting for weapons, and the failure to secure stores of military equipment -- including explosives -- that occurred early in the war. Moreover, in suggesting "history will judge him pretty kindly," Liasson made no mention of the ongoing debate over whether the United States should have initiated the war in the first place or whether it has been worth the cost in lives, money, and diverted attention and resources.

The White House reportedly has issued "talking points" on the Bush legacy that avoid mention of these and other criticisms of the administration. The Los Angeles Times reported on December 9 that a "two-page memo that has been sent to Cabinet members and other high-ranking officials offers a guide for discussing Bush's eight-year tenure during their public speeches." According to the Times, the memo, among other things, "presents the Bush record as an unalloyed success" and "mentions none of the episodes that detractors say have marred his presidency: the collapse of the housing market and major financial services companies, the flawed intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq war, the federal response to Hurricane Katrina or the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib."

In several recent public appearances and interviews, Bush has discussed his Iraq legacy by asserting that the war has been "longer and more difficult than expected," but that due to the surge, "we began to bring our troops home under a policy of return on success." For instance, in a December 9 speech at the U.S. Military Academy in West Point, New York, Bush said of his Iraq legacy:

We also took a hard look at the danger posed by Iraq -- a country that combined support for terror, the development and the use of weapons of mass destruction, violence against its own people, aggression against its neighbors, hostility to the United States, and systematic violation of United Nations resolutions. After seeing the destruction of September the 11th, we concluded that America could not afford to allow a regime with such a threatening and violent record to remain in the heart of the Middle East. So we offered Saddam Hussein a final chance to peacefully resolve the issue. And when he refused, we acted with a coalition of nations to protect our people -- and liberated 25 million Iraqis.

The battle in Iraq has been longer and more difficult than expected. Foreign terrorists, former regime elements, and Iraqi insurgents -- often with outside support -- combined to drive up violence, and bring the country to the verge of chaos. So we adopted a new strategy, and rather than retreating, sent more troops into Baghdad in Iraq. And when the surge met its objective, we began to bring our troops home under a policy of return on success. Last week, Iraq approved two agreements that formalize diplomatic and economic and security ties with America -- and set a framework for the drawdown of American forces as the fight in Iraq nears a successful end.

Bush expressed similar sentiment during a December 14 interview with ABC News chief White House correspondent Martha Raddatz, portions of which aired during the December 15 edition of ABC News' World News. During the interview, Raddatz asked, "During these years, did you imagine it would -- the war would go the way it went, first of all, and that you'd be sitting here today with -- signing a Status of Forces Agreement?" Bush responded:

Well, first of all, it's taken longer than we had hoped, and it is more expensive than we had hoped, and so, in one way, you know, I guess I -- I was -- it didn't meet expectations. However, I am pleased that we are now in a position to have signed these agreements, because it's a signal of success.

But there were some pretty tough moments -- and you know better than anybody because you covered them during 2006. And I had a tough call to make and that was whether or not to pull back and hope that the chaos didn't spread beyond certain parts of Iraq and beyond the borders of Iraq, or send more troops in, in order to achieve victory, and I chose the latter. And the signing of these agreements, the Strategic Forces Agreement [sic] and the SOFA is -- I mean, the Strategic Framework Agreement and the SOFA is a sign of success. I was asked, "Does this mean, you know, you're taking a victory lap?" No, it means that this is a stable platform to continue forward.

Similarly, Bush stated during his December 14 appearance at the Camp Victory U.S. military base in Baghdad, "Two years ago, the situation [in Iraq] had grown dire -- the political process was frozen and sectarian violence was spiraling out of control." Bush continued, saying, "Many said the mission was hopeless; many called for retreat. Retreat would have meant failure -- and failure is never an option." He added: "So instead of pulling troops out, we sent more troops in -- called the surge. And because of you and because of your courage, the surge is one of the greatest successes in the history of the United States military."

From the December 15 broadcast of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:

BRIT HUME (host): And the president would go on to say later that he saw into the man's "sole."

We promise you, folks, that's the last time we will show you that on this broadcast. We think it -- I thought it was impossible yesterday to show that too often. I was quickly proved wrong watching television today. So that's the end of it for the moment. But it was an interesting episode. And -- and what a -- what a end point for the president and his adventures with and in Iraq. Your thoughts, Charles?

KRAUTHAMMER: Well, he handled himself graciously, but he can't catch a break on Iraq. Here he was for the victory lap -- and it was a victory. He was the hero of the surge. He's the guy who went ahead and ordered it against all advice, all political pressure. And he succeeded, and he's handing over to his successor basically a war that's just about won.

And here he is signing a major agreement, making Iraq an ally of the United States that began under Saddam Hussein as a true enemy and a destabilizer in the region. And in the middle of it you get a cinematic moment. Because it's so telegenic, it's gonna be what's remembered.

But, look, the guy who threw it spoke for two factions in Iraq -- the extreme Shiites and the extreme Sunnis who oppose the U.S., who hate the United States. He apparently is a Shia but was picked up and tortured by a Shia militia once; picked up, arrested by Americans -- a murky history.

But the fact is that in the parliament, elected, speaking on behalf of the real Iraqis, the support for the pact with the United States was overwhelming. And the Shiite extremists and the Sunni extremists are marginalized.

What we really have here is success. And all of the braying among the Arab intellectuals about how he represented -- the guy who threw the shoe -- how he represented Arab opinion I think is a phony. There is a long history of the Arab street hate -- hating Americans. On 9-11, there was dancing in the street in the Palestinian territories.

HUME: And ululating and -- yeah.

KRAUTHAMMER: Exactly, and it's not to be taken seriously. What's really important is what Iraq leadership and parliament has done, and that's to cement an alliance with the United States.

LIASSON: Well, I agree with Charles. I mean, it was unfortunate. It's a really indelible image. And, actually, I thought the president like -- didn't just handle it well, I mean, he was -- he practically was laughing, and he had great reflexes.

But I agree. He can't catch break on Iraq, even though over time, I think that history will judge him pretty kindly. He corrected the mistakes. He had a terrible beginning in Iraq -- well, he had a great beginning and a terrible middle, I guess. But he is handing over a war that's pretty manageable, if not almost won, to his successor.

FRED BARNES (Weekly Standard executive editor): You know, he did, I agree with that. But I'm afraid he's going to be dogged by this -- by this shoe throwing that you're not gonna show again, at least over the next minute or two.

HUME: At least not tonight.

BARNES: Not tonight, but it's just always gonna be around, and it's gonna harm him.

From Raddatz's December 14 ABC News interview with Bush:

RADDATZ: Your last trip to the region as president, your last trip to Iraq -- surely, your legacy will be largely about this war. Talk to me about how that feels being here, the last trip --

BUSH: Yeah.

RADDATZ: -- and what you really think that legacy will be.

BUSH: Clearly, one of the most important parts of my job, because of 9-11 was to defend the security of the American people. There have been no attacks since I've been the president -- since 9-11. One of the major theatres against Al Qaeda turns out to have been Iraq. This is where Al Qaeda said they were going to take their stand. This is where Al Qaeda was hoping to take it.

RADDATZ: But not until after the U.S. invaded.

BUSH: Yeah, that's right.

RADDATZ: So --

BUSH: So, what?

RADDATZ: So were you --

BUSH: I mean, the point is, is that Iraq -- Al Qaeda said they were going to take a stand. Well, first of all, in the post-11 environment, Saddam Hussein posed a threat, and then upon removal, Al Qaeda decides to take a stand and they're getting -- they're becoming defeated. And I think history will say that, one, the world was better off without Saddam; two, along with the Iraqi troops, we have denied Al Qaeda a safe haven because a young democracy is beginning to grow, which will be an important sign for people in the Middle East and --

RADDATZ: But you're -- let me just go back because you brought this up. You said Saddam Hussein posed a threat in the post-9-11 world.

BUSH: He did.

RADDATZ: They didn't find weapons of mass destruction.

BUSH: That's true. They didn't. Everybody thought he had them.

RADDATZ: So what threat? And if --

BUSH: Well, Saddam Hussein was a sworn enemy of the United States. He'd been enriched by oil revenues. He was a sponsor of terror. I have never claimed, like someone said, that he, you know, was directly involved with the attacks on 9-11, but he did support terrorists. And Saddam Hussein had the capability of making weapons of mass destruction. I didn't have the luxury of knowing he did not have them, neither did the rest of the world until after we had come and removed him. And finally --

RADDATZ: So would you have gone in anyway?

BUSH: And finally -- excuse me for a minute. And finally, we gave Saddam Hussein a peaceful way out. It was his choice. And when he refused to allow for inspections, when he refused to disclose or disarm, then a large coalition of troops took him out. And now the question is: Are we going to stay in and help this young democracy thrive?

What happened was, after Saddam leaves, Al Qaeda says, "This is a second front in the war on terror" -- and I take the words of a terrorist leader seriously. And so, we have worked with the Iraqis to try to help their democracy grow and thrive, and at the same time, eliminate Al Qaeda safe havens.

RADDATZ: During these years, did you imagine it would -- the war would go the way it went, first of all, and that you'd be sitting here today with -- signing a Status of Forces Agreement?

BUSH: Well, first of all, it's taken longer than we had hoped, and it is more expensive than we had hoped, and so, in one way, you know, I guess I -- I was -- it didn't meet expectations. However, I am pleased that we are now in a position to have signed these agreements, because it's a signal of success.

But there were some pretty tough moments -- and you know better than anybody because you covered them during 2006. And I had a tough call to make and that was whether or not to pull back and hope that the chaos didn't spread beyond certain parts of Iraq and beyond the borders of Iraq, or send more troops in, in order to achieve victory, and I chose the latter. And the signing of these agreements, the Strategic Forces Agreement [sic] and the SOFA is -- I mean, the Strategic Framework Agreement and the SOFA is a sign of success. I was asked, "Does this mean, you know, you're taking a victory lap?" No, it means that this is a stable platform to continue forward.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by JLyons (December 16, 2008 8:28 pm ET)
         
      What a horrible assessment by Liasson.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by mefirst (December 16, 2008 8:59 pm ET)
         

      we're still there.  how is it "won"?

      Report Abuse
    • Author by DorisRussell (December 16, 2008 9:10 pm ET)
         
      I thought we "won" back in 03 when we were liberating the Iraqis and they were throwing flowers at us.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by proudconservative (December 16, 2008 9:13 pm ET)
         

      Of course victory can't arrive until late January 2009.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by mefirst (December 16, 2008 9:23 pm ET)
           

        don't you mean obama will inherit the useless war that bush embarked on.  of course, bush just had to have his war.  he was pumping up the attack irag line on 9-11.  check again, clarke, you sure saddam didn't have anything to do with this?

        Report Abuse
    • Author by my4cents (December 16, 2008 9:28 pm ET)
         

      It may sound silly, but one ofthe reasons I never contributed to NPR (even bein in a financial situation to do so) if because this woman and Juan Williams belong to both NPR and FoxNews.

      And FoxNews bashes NPR all the time.

      That said, the only significant amount I gave as charity (barring the 1-5 dollars outside of Stop and Shop) was to Red Cross at Katrina time.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Caseysprings (December 16, 2008 10:07 pm ET)
           

        And FoxNews bashes NPR all the time.

        FOX News bashes anyone they disagree with all the time. Look at O'Reilly and his vendetta against well GE (NBC), his new attacks on the Gov of Washington. 

        Report Abuse
    • Author by IRONY 101 (December 16, 2008 10:27 pm ET)
         

      Doea Mara Liasson suffer from memory loss...or is this the onset of dementia?

      Report Abuse
      • Author by MiddleLeft (December 17, 2008 12:22 am ET)
           

        Mara is a lifelong member of the inner Washington beltway. She gives the vague impression of being a moderate but look at her actual words.  She routinely echoes the themes of conservatives and beltway pundits.  She was born into it.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by eweston8542983 (December 16, 2008 10:39 pm ET)
         
      I'm sure we'll be told the exact moment when its a true victory. One second before would have been giving into.... who, I'm not sure, but a surefire showing of the white feather. Her group of comentators has been wrong so many times, but she is still able to speak as the authority. Just like the rest of them
      Report Abuse
    • Author by onionhead (December 16, 2008 11:37 pm ET)
         

      "RADDATZ: But not until after the U.S. invaded.

      BUSH: Yeah, that's right.

      RADDATZ: So --

      BUSH: So, what?"

      Yeah. So, what? so what if it was after we invaded? So what if there were hundreds and thousands of lives ruined?  Big flippin' deal!

      Report Abuse
      • Author by nerzog (December 17, 2008 9:26 am ET)
           

        I think "So what?" may be the lasting legacy from the disastrous Bush Administration.

        Bush and Cheney both have expressed this sentiment more than once when questioned about their reckless foreign policy.  Darth Cheney has even admitted to authorizing the waterboarding of prisoners, which was apparently considered a war crime at the end of WWII.  

        Will anyone in the Numbnuts administration  ever be held accountable?  My guess is... a big fat "NO".  And that's the tragedy of it all.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by onionhead (December 17, 2008 10:48 am ET)
             

          That would also be my guess.  It's almost like they are saying, "Yeah--well, what are you going to do about that? Arrest us?" 

          And I thought cigarettes and cigarette companies were the only proof of the existence of "absolute evil". 

          Report Abuse
    • Author by wildofski (December 17, 2008 5:34 am ET)
         

      Stockholm Syndrome

      Report Abuse
    • Author by night-n-day (December 17, 2008 8:43 am ET)
         
      The Hollywood World of Republicans It's ironic that the people who rail the most about "Hollyweird" are the ones who cannot think outside it's fantasy life. Aside from their obvious addiction to Hollywood celebrities (Ronald Reagan, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Fred Thompson, etc.), they view "war" and "military" solely in John Wayne terms. "There are good guys & bad guys in war" and when a war is underway, there is "our side and their side." That's how their empty-heads work. The nuance of warring factions and tribal conflicts is much too complex to understand, so lets all pretend that "our side will win," even if "our side" (in the case of the Iraq occupation) is doing nothing but dying and making Iran the strongest country in the region. Ask a rightwinger what "our side" can ever hope to win in Iraq, and it's like asking if we can make the moon out of cheese. They have no idea what you're talking about. "We need to defeat the bad guys and for democracy to flourish! Why don't you support that??" It's precisely because of the monumental distance between the Republican Party and actual military service/commitments, that the GOP should NEVER be allowed to initiate war (not that any "good guy" should ever start a war for fun). They simply have no more experience with what war is about than John Wayne movies and bumper sticker logic. The Hollywood fixation of Republicans is why they support torture - since on the program '24' the idiotic lead actor tortures people, which they think is cool from the comfort of their homes, so lets be like him, consequences, laws, and morality be damned! The Hollywood-ization of politics by the GOP needs to pointed out so that no more troops die in vain, and no more innocent people are murdered like the Iraqis.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by nerzog (December 17, 2008 9:03 am ET)
         

      It will be interesting to see how many in the Corporate Media are willing to sell what's left of their credibility to help President Numbnuts polish his Iraq War Terd.

      I guess they feel obligated to do so, since most of them sat on their hands or actively participated in the massive Bullsh*t campaign that got us into that mess.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by nerzog (December 17, 2008 9:15 am ET)
         

      Maybe these Media Geniuses can help us come up with an apt metaphor for what Bush has done in Iraq.

      One that comes to mind is an exterminator who burns down your house and kills half your family to get rid of a rat, then can't understand why you won't pat him on the back.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by NiceguyEddie (December 17, 2008 12:09 pm ET)
         

      The question was NEVER one of winning or losing.  Victory is assured.  (How can we LOSE?  Was Saddam going to capture DC and overthor our gov't)?  Winning the WAR was never an issue.  The debate is whether or not it's a hollow victory.  Thosuands of lives and trillions of dollors to accoplish little or nothing. 

      Even if Iraq is stable it's still a weaker counterballance to Iran's influence in the region than Saddam would have been.  And if we need to keep even a peaceful troop presence there (ala N.Korea, W.Germany, etc...) how can they really can that STABLE? 

      It's not about whether or not Victory is achievable.  It's about whether or not anything can be gained from it.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by mainesongwriter8612 (December 17, 2008 12:22 pm ET)
         

      Liasson has long been an apologist for bush and his errant, tragically destructive policies. She is a major contributor to the increasingly accepted variation on the "NPR" acronym, now widely referred to as: "NATIONAL (RE)PUBLIC(AN) RADIO". 

      Report Abuse
    • Author by hurricaneyankee52983 (December 17, 2008 12:33 pm ET)
         

      More hot air and lies from FOX NOISE, as if we should expect anything different.

      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.