Syzy, I would agree that the administration naturally assumed there would be WMD in Iraq. I'm personally surprised they haven't been found.
I would disagree with Dead that heavy casualties would be overly detrimental, in that Hussein's use of WMD would ultimately justify the invasion and any losses endured. This is particularly true given the percentage of the American population that would actually, personally lose a loved one. Also, there has been a focus on NBC training in the military for 50 years now. It is likely that an Iraqi use of chemical weapons would not be looked upon as a major impediment, and (as it played out) it wasn’t anticipated that there would be bloody streets in Baghdad.
IMO, the neocons felt that their philosophy would straighten out the Middle East through a carrot and stick approach from Iran to the West Bank. The end would ultimately justify the means, even if the American public was not quite ready to share in their grand (but highly complicated and theoretical) vision. Once a few WMD were found you would only see increased support for a successful “kick bellybutton and take names” administration. Perhaps they just didn’t do enough due diligence when they developed the second selling point - WMD - and are running a bit scared now because they are not finding any and the fact that Iraq is starting to look like the post war mess a lot of people thought it might but that the neocons generally dismissed.
The key in public relations is to not lie outright, but to shift the facts to support your position. And yes, both Democrats and Republicans do this as a part of daily life. I see it much like the adversarial relationship at a trial (hopefully without looking too ignorant to an expert), only with even more gray area where the truth is concerned. You can’t cross the line, but you can go right up to it and even shift it a bit. The goal is to win, and it helps that the other side usually has a self-serving reason for opposing your policy (that won’t play well with the public either) plus the need to operate in the Washington political environment after any single issue is resolved. The Washington media will generally play along until you FU, then there’s blood in the water.
Developing the message is a case of identifying the key issues (a laundry list), running focus groups and polls, determining which ones generate the most traction (typically ones that are simple and emotional) and concentrating on those messages exclusively. That’s why you saw such distinct shifts in the message. When Al Queada fell flat, they had to move on almost exclusively to WMD and so forth (or you start confusing people too much). The spokespersons (from Ari to Bush to Rumsfeld to Powell) then stick on message and repetitively reinforce the message every time they are in a quotable situation.
Is it possible that the current administration really believed that Saddam had WMD. Yes, in fact probable. Is it possible that these weapons would find their way into the hands of Muslim fundamentalist terrorists for an attack on the US? Sure, but that is speculation. It is that gray are where you can mislead and generate opinion without actually lying about it. You could argue that it is unlikely, particularly compared to several other countries in the region with far stronger ties to Muslim fundamentalism. But, again, it is in the realm of possibility. Is it likely that the whole WMD thing was a selling point with some potential validity, but that it was by no means the reason we actually went to war -- IMO, yes. Where this is getting dicey for the administration is that an assumption that was the cornerstone for a second tier (or more likely third of fourth tier) issue might have been false. If this is the case then they will have, even if uninetentionally, crossed the line. To me, it stinks regardless but unfortunately that is how the game is played.
Sorry if it reads like a lecture, but it always amazes me how many people (not referring to any particular individuals on the bbs BTW - in general) just don’t understand how this all works. I think "How marketing works" should be taught in Jr. High School about the time kids learn the Constitution, since marketing (from the Saturday morning cartoons to the next election) is as big a facet of life in America as democracy.
BTW, it is interesting to see Ari stepping down all of a sudden. While not too unusual, the timing is interesting. The last thing a PR person want’s to happen, career wise is to lose credibility, to intentionally, or even by being mislead, cross that line. You could speculate that past or potential future events have made him uncomfortable speaking for the administration. Or he could just want to move on for personal reasons.
Charon
