Gephardt on Iraq: "I was wrong"

Former House Minority Leader the Hon. Dick Gephardt was in Seattle last week on several accounts -- a victory lap for his mediation of the Boeing strike, a business seminar for the DC law firm where he hangs his hat, and a funder for Rep. Jim McDermott's Legal Expense Trust. [We'll hear more on this as Boehner v McDermott reaches critical junctures in DC Circuit Court of Appeals, and in the political arena as some of the original cast of heavies -- Gingrich, DeLay, Boehner -- prepare to test their chops in an XTREME ETHICS Cage Match Spectacular: "Moral Equivalence" .]

At this odd-couple tag-team appearance -- "Baghdad Jim" McDermott and "Rose Garden Richard" Gephardt -- the inevitable question was voiced: "Why did you support Bush on the Iraq War, and what would you do differently now?".

Rep. Gephardt's response is reproduced here from my verbatim notes, with his confirmation and concurrence, as a perspective that deserves attention both to fill gaps in the first draft of history and to smooth cracks in the road to progressive political unity.

THE HISTORY
[Rep. Gephardt's public remarks indented. Verbatim quotes in italics. Paraphase and imprecise quotes, non-italic. Timelines as provided by Rep. Gephardt. Context and analysis mine, outdent, including key items of interpretive speculation discussed prior with Rep. Gephardt.]

2001-09-12, the White House, a bipartisan leadership meeting:

GEPHARDT to BUSH: "We have to trust each other. You have to trust us, and we have to trust you."

These sentiments were repeated in public comment that evening by Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle.

Late 2001 - early 2002:

Like others, GEPHARDT hears the grapevine buzz about Iraq in DC corridors of power.

As Wes Clark often recalls, the Pentagon laugh line was "If Saddam didn't attack us, he should have, because we're going to take him out anyway".

February, 2002:

GEPHARDT to BUSH: You have my support if it's about Weapons of Mass Destruction -- but not if it's about Saddam. "If it's about Saddam there are 30 countries we need to invade tomorrow morning."

Later:

GEPHARDT to BUSH: The US can't go into this alone. If it's done, it has to be done multilaterally -- with regional partners, NATO, the UN.

[Recall speculation in this interval to the effect that Bush could and would take the US into Iraq without international partners -- and even without action by Congress.]

Later still:

BUSH to GEPHARDT: "Dick, I'm gonna do what you've been talking about", i.e., premise the case for invasion on Saddam's WMD threat Weapons of Mass Destruction.

[History may have turned on this exchange.

Insiders later hinted that WMD wasn't (variously) the central, sole, or real reason for invading Iraq, that it was agreed among the principals as a politically plausible casus belli.

Deputy SecDef Paul Paul Wolfowitz, 2003-05-09 " ... for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason ...".]

CIA HQ, as all parties prepare for debate in Congress:

GEPHARDT: "George, do you believe?" [in the WMD thesis]
DCI TENET: "Absolutely."

2002-10-02, the White House Rose Garden:

GEPHARDT: "In response to the President's desire for congressional support and, in keeping with our constitutional responsibilities, I have worked to draft a resolution that reflects the views of a large bipartisan segment of Congress. My underlying goal in this process has been to ensure that Iraq is disarmed, and to lessen the likelihood that weapons of mass destruction can be passed to terrorists."

This concession effectively short-circuited any attempt to attach binding conditions to a War Powers Resolution, or to weigh the WMD thesis even-handedly. On the other hand, Bush would have found a route to war in the face of any conceivable action or inaction in Congress.

[UPDATE: errata - corrected from 2005-10-10, and how did we both miss that?]
2005-10-11, Seattle, WA:

GEPHARDT: "It was a mistake ... I was wrong."

The Rose Garden compact was a mistake. The War Powers vote was a mistake. Trusting this Administration was a mistake.

And this history suggests -- in the tradition of a classic sales training parable, the farmer's daughter joke -- that Gephardt (the prospect) telegraphed exactly what Bush (the salesman) had to say to clinch the sale. "Dick, I'm gonna do what you've been talking about". A mistake.

In the national interest, in a time of crisis, our side played its cards face up -- and they held cards up their sleeves. They knew what they wanted, and they played on our patriotic idealism and earnest statesmanship to freeze us -- "the opposition" -- in untenable positions. Must we now become them in order to overcome them?  (Short answer, "No", but that's an argument for another day.)

"I was wrong." Powerful, healing words, for those who have ears to hear them. Not everyone can say them yet, or with full conviction. Those who do still have to figure out what to tell the Gold Star Mom who wants to know her son died for a noble cause, as well as the Gold Star Mom who wants to know the troops are coming home.

[On a personal note, I was right -- but the Iraq War vote had to be a vote of conscience, not party discipline, and I've never insisted anyone eat crow for my amusement. Peacemakers cannot nurse grudges.

And a small irony -- on the White House website, the current Iraq index page is captioned "Renewal in IRAQ" ... but the "Rose Garden moment" archive page still screams "IRAQ: DENIAL AND DECEPTION".]

POST-MORTEM's

The Great Mistake:

We never comprehended the complexity of the undertaking. I didn't. None of us did.

The Greater Mistake:

The President has never been honest about the sacrifices required ... the lives lost, the eyes blown out. Bush fails the first test of leadership: "Can you be honest with the people you lead?"

THE ROAD AHEAD

Will we pull the troops out?

Until very recently, I thought we [Bush] would pull out in time for the 2006 elections. Now it doesn't look like we will.

Winning the War on Terror:

We can't win just by killing people. We never dealt with underlying causes ... [perceptions of] oppression, religious duties. The madrasas are still in business. US energy policy [that] leaves us beholden to the oil states. Pakistan is the most dangerous country in the world.

On bipartisan cooperation:

I've lost all faith in the integrity of Moderate Republicans. [but with a kind word for the old-school Mike Castle]

Why are they so pathetically weak that they can't stand up to him [DeLay]? Does he have them hypnotized? ... Is he holding their children hostage? ... I don't get it!

Democrats in power would not -- and could not -- exercise that kind of discipline.

On taking our country back:

If the election were held today, Democrats would win back the House [but a year is an eternity in politics].

Rep. Gephardt shared additional comments on the predicament of the nation and the Democrats, some of which I'll reprise at a later date.

Comments

[emptywheel]

Great post, Ron.

When I told mr. emptywheel about this post, he said, "Oh, you mean Gephardt isn't running for anything." Which I think is key. I hope Gep can be a model others can follow. But I'm not holding my breath, particularly among the future presidential candidates.

[RonK, Seattle]

emptywheel -- No, we don't usually give our electeds enough space to admit mistakes ... which is probably a BIG Mistake.

[phoebes]

Well, finally. A Democratic leader - okay, former - who's speaking out against this stupid war and apologizing for his part in it.

Thanks, Gephardt. Maybe your mea culpa may spur more public regrets, but like emptywheel above, I'm not hopeful.

[alabama]

This is very generous, and maybe should be, but it's missing the one thing that pertains to any recent history of candidates for elective office on the national level (senators and congressmen, Democrats and Republicans especially): specifically, what kind of pressure was brought to bear on Gephardt by AIPAC ... [Routine puppetmaster rant elided for brevity -- RonK] ... where the flow of money controls the electoral process, owners can do no wrong; wrongs are only done by the ones who seek to be owned (a necessary condition for seeking office, it would seem).

[Adina Levin]

Thanks. I lost a lot of respect for the Democrats in Congress when they rolled over for the Iraq war. Hearing this sort of acknowledgement from members in Congress would help regain that respect.

[Frank]

It is good, and important, to see Gephardt saying this, and this is an important post.

However, the formatting doesn't do it justice. There are long "asides" in blockquotes, and it isn't quite clear to me what is what in some points. What exactly did Gephardt say? Which parts are history as you researched it?

[DHinMI]

Adina,

I think it's important that everyone remember that a majority of Congressional Democrats--a big majority in the House, a narrow minority in the Senate, a combined majority--voted AGAINST the IWR. Most prominent Dems who weren't running for President voted against it, and several of the Dem Senators who voted for it were either defeated in 2002 (Cleland, Carnahan) or have retired (Breaux, Hollings).

I think this is very important for several reasons, one of which Ron made explicit with his line about "smooth[ing] cracks in the road to progressive political unity." One can respond with "too little, too late." Or we can at least acknowledge that SOMEONE is owning up to his role in making it easier for the White House to lead us into this war, and build upon that admission that the war was a mistake. Note that it doesn't sound like Gephardt is saying, as many liberal hawks have done, that the problem with the war was it's conduct, the poor job Bush has done in executing it (which is a way to exonerate oneself for supporting it). No, Gephardt is saying the war itself was wrong, and that by indicating what conditions would garner his support, he (in my opinion naively) gave them the roadmap of how to get his support, which they did by lying about WMD.

If Gephardt, who was leader, can own up to his huge role, maybe others can as well. Hell, let them blame Gephardt and Daschle, I don't care. But if we get more people saying it was wrong, that we're in the war and it's screwed up not because we don't have enough troops or didn't get a big enough coalition, but because it was wrong from the start and predicted on lies, that would be a tremendous and good thing, and something we should all embrace.

[Uppity Gal]

completely OT- but I thought you would want to know:
Was just listening to the fabulous community radio station WMNF 88.5 FM (http://wmnf.org) and the broadcast of Counterspin (produced by FAIR).
The discussion included an interview of Village Voice's (editor? or a reporter?- sorry, didn't catch that)
but after discussing the Traitorgate and the media's complicit nature and role in all this, he said the nature of journalism (as it should be practiced) is changing. And, he said journalism is moving. He cited NGOs as legitimate sources of information, and of course mentioned the blogs. AND= cited The Next Hurrah as the place to get your journalism.

I visit here thanks to linking through from firedoglake, americablog and other sources. have bookmarked you- and apologize if this is old news.

Just wanted to mention it and give you your props! :o)
thanks for all you do!

[DemFromCT]

Journalamilism is praticed on the blogsd... not always, and not always well, but after reading the Sunday NY Times this weekend, bloggers have nothing to apologize for. and that will become even more apparent when the DC journalists, one by one, get to explain their role in what they knew and when they knew it (think Chris Matthews, Andrea Mitchell and Tim Russert, for three).

we would have done worse that have Gephart be the nominee. He couldn't and didn't win, but he's abn honorable man. That's more than i can say for Bush.

[Joel]

Looks like the exiled Dems are working on smoothing the way for a more coordinated objection in the current power set. Kerry got blasted for "flip-flopping" on the war, which revealed the need for Dems to start spreading the "we were misled; we were wrong" memes. It starts to establish a respectable base for elected Dems to rally around in a way that is not immediately damaging to their hold on seats.

[Kagro X]

Uppity Gal,

News to me! Damn, I'm getting out of these pajamas and taking a shower before the company arrives!

[DHinMI]

Joel's right. It was infuriating to me that Kerry didn't do that himself, because it wasn't just the Congressional Dems who were misled, it was the entire country. Unfortunately it had to wait until now for a prominent Dem supporter of the Presdent's Iraq policy to say he was wrong, but also that the President lied. Now it will not only make it easier for other Dems to take a respectable position, one that not only works for Dems who may be embarassed to have let themselves be mislead, but for voters who haven't been completely willing to admit that they allowed themselves to be mislead, and that they believed the President even though it was all a lie.

[Taylor]

Gephard doesn't get a pass from me.

At the time he gave Bush his backing, it was very definitely a (calculated) shiv in the back of Tom Daschle, who was trying to hold back the floodgates of Dems rushing to back the invasion.

And it was *all* about Dick's presidential aspirations. I wouldn't be surprised if he did it at the behest of his consultants.

Perhaps if he'll go to the parents of each one of the servicemen and womon killed in Iraq and beg for their forgiveness, it might start to make a difference. Or it might not.

[RonK, Seattle]

We can sound off all we want, but we don't walk in the shoes of public officials who face the "Gold Star conundrum".

They can be confronted almost daily by parents who (for the most part) want desperately to be assured their sons or daughters served and sacrificed in a noble cause.

And there's no exit scheme that doesn't require a line of "last" men and women to die for a mistake.

[Mike S]

AND= cited The Next Hurrah as the place to get your journalism.

Was he on crack?

but for voters who haven't been completely willing to admit that they allowed themselves to be mislead, and that they believed the President even though it was all a lie.

That has been a problem. It isn't just the polititions that are afraid or unwilling to admit they were easily mislead. I'm not as optimistic about what will happen with the rest of the dems since this is the first I've heard about this. Was it covered in any media?

[DHinMI]

Mike, we ARE the media. ;-)

Seriously, this is Ron's scoop. Now, will the rest of the media follow up on it, even though it first appeared on a blog? Will anyone pick up a phone and call Dick Gephardt and ask him about it? We'll see.

[RT]

At this point, I don't care if Gephardt's Rose Garden moment WAS all about his Presidential ambitions. Bush was going to war regardless. What we need now is a party that's willing to say the Iraq war was wrong from the get-go. Gephardt's words are a step in that direction.

"I've lost all faith in the integrity of Moderate Republicans...[w]hy are they so pathetically weak that they can't stand up to him [DeLay]? Does he have them hypnotized? ... Is he holding their children hostage? ... I don't get it!"

Put me down for "they only want to LOOK moderate." If they wanted to actually BE moderate, and effect moderate results, they could bolt the party as a group, and as a "Bull Moose Party" controlling the swing votes in Congress, they could opt to caucus with whichever party was willing to hew more closely to THEIR agenda.

They've got the high cards, if they ever want to use them.

[Meteor Blades]

Congratulations, Mr. Gephardt. And to you, RonK, for showing us his mea culpa.

I agree that Peacemakers cannot nurse grudges, so I'm not going to ask why it's taken so damned long for Mr. Gephardt to come around to this position. But, as a (lapsed) Catholic, I know that every good confession requires repentance - truly being sorry, with a pledge not to do it again - and performing penance.

As half his penance, let me suggest that this former presidential candidate reshape and extend his comments cited above and repeat, repeat, repeat in public forums across the nation. As for the other half, let him spend time one-on-one persuading elected Democrats who have not yet come to his position that they should do so.

DHinMI rightly notes that a majority of congressional Democrats opposed the Iraq War Resolution of three years ago. And I think a very good case can be made for saying that if the Supreme Court had not gone all ideological in Bush v. Gore, the war probably wouldn't have happened at all.

But what disturbs me, and not just a little, is how very few Democrats - even those Democrats who did oppose the IWR, much less those who voted in favor of it - have spoken regularly and forcefully as this war drags on. A great deal of that recalcitrance seems to relate to a fear that they - individually and the Democrats as a party - will be painted as weak on defense or even pro-terrorist. Their inability to properly "frame" their opposition is worth how many lives?

One more point.

I can embrace Mr. Gephardt and say a hearty "thank you" for admitting his "mistake" of being taken in by the Administration's sly propaganda. But letting the war itself be described as a "mistake" gives too much slack to those who concocted it.

A mistake is when you drop the screwdriver down the drain when you're trying to fix the sink. While the outcome was not at all what its progenitors expected, and while grotesque errors were made in carrying out the war and continue to be made, the war was not a mistake. The rationale for it was invented out of whole cloth. The lies that took us into that war were intentional, no more a mistake than the lying Gulf of Tonkin resolution was a mistake.

[DHinMI]

MB's point about mistakes is crucial, and probably the key issue for the Democrats. It was a mistake that Democrats supported the White House and supported the war. It wasn't a mistake that the White House got the support of Congressional Dems like Gephardt (and most of the people who are past or current Presidential candidates), it was the result of deliberate lies proffered as part of a strategy to conduct an invasion and occupation of Iraq.

And the other mistake was that too many voters supported the war and didn't see through Bush's lies.

[RonK, Seattle]

Mike S -- Was it covered in any media?

Rep. Gephardt's remarks from the podium were made to a small audience: Rep. McDermott and a couple dozen supporters, contributors (mostly labor) and activists (Whitney Williams, daughter of former MT-AL Democratic Rep. Pat Williams ... Dean Nielsen of Progressive Majority).

We discussed this afterward in context of two or three tangential or unrelated fence-mending enterprises. I suggested that the day's disclosures had not been heard widely, and that the message could be shared with a wider audience to good effect (though with inevitable flame-broiling on the public spit).

Perhaps nobody else heard the remarks with a proper ear to historic context, or thought to ask.

I am sure others will follow up, and some of a prosecutorial bent will insist "Confession is not good enough! We must have every detail, signed in blood ... and only then can put an end to your misery".

Take it as a good start, in good faith, and work with it in good faith.

[Mike S]

I am sure others will follow up, and some of a prosecutorial bent will insist "Confession is not good enough! We must have every detail, signed in blood ... and only then can put an end to your misery".

Take it as a good start, in good faith, and work with it in good faith.

I am taking it in "good faith" if that wasn't clear. I was unclear on just how many people were there, reading isn't always fundamental, and was questioning why it didn't receive more play. This should be big news.

As far as the "prosecurorial" people, they won't be happy unless Gep sit's in front of the White House, douses himself with gasoline and imoliates himself as a way to ask their forgiveness.

[RonK, Seattle]

MB -- Gephardt addressed his decision as a mistake (in the sense of "error", not "accident"), and clearly does not attribute the war to accident.

[RonK, Seattle]

Mike S -- an omission on my part -- also in attendance, WA-08 candidate Darcy Burner.

[Meteor Blades]

I'm clear that Gephardt sees things that way. But everywhere I turn, critics are calling the war itself a "mistake." For some, that's an improvement over previous analyses. But what I fear is that this will become the long-term theme, just as it has for Vietnam even though after August 1964, prosecution of that war was not a mistake by those in charge of it.

[Sonoma]

I'm with DHinMI (post 12:18).

Gephardt states that he shouldn't have trusted the swine. Who is he trying to kid?

He didn't climb the greasey pole to House leadership by being naive. It goddamned insulting that he dared to have said that. I live across across the continent from DC, and knew better, along with millions of other people.

That said, for purely partisan reasons, I'll hope other democrats follow his disingenuous lead, and begin to admit to error. All things considered, the "I shouldn't have trusted" spiel isn't a bad way to explain the unforgivable.