alternative hippopotamus

You may have heard about the NYT op-ed published in a heavily redacted form after a lengthy battle with the CIA. You’re first reaction may have been like mine: that this was about a White House so intent to send a message that they’ll waste time over the piddling things. Then, when someone hands them a briefing called “Bin Laden Determined To Attack US,” it’s just yawn, stretch, crumple, and throw.

Here’s what Leverett (the author of the op-ed) had to say at the Center for American Progress last week: [this shows]“just how low people like Elliot Abrams at the NSC [National Security Council] will stoop to try and limit the dissemination of arguments critical of the administration’s policy.”

But is censorship always wrong? I would submit there are times when it’s appropriate to censor speech. For instance, all the spin, misinformation, and propaganda carried in a typical presidential radio address. I say it’s time we apply the censorship pen. Liberally. We could even call it “Censoring Liberally.”

So, here goes. Let’s rewrite Bush’s December 9 radio address:

“On Monday, I met in the Oval Office with one of Iraq’s most influential Shia leaders, His Eminence Abdul Aziz al Hakim. We discussed the desire of the Iraqi people to see their unity government succeed, and how the United States can help them achieve that goal.

On Thursday, I had breakfast with Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain. We discussed the sectarian violence in Iraq and the need to confront extremists inside Iraq and throughout the region. The Prime Minister explains it this way: “The violence is not … an accident or a result of faulty planning. It is a deliberate strategy. It is the direct result of outside extremists teaming up with internal extremists — al Qaeda with [the] Sunni insurgents, [and Iran with] Shia militia – to foment hatred and thus throttle at birth the possibility of non-sectarian democracy.”

The Prime Minister and I also discussed the report I received this week from the Iraq Study Group, chaired by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Congressman Lee Hamilton. Their report provides a straightforward picture of the grave situation we face in Iraq. The Iraq Study Group’s report also explicitly endorses the strategic goal we’ve set in Iraq: an Iraq that can “govern itself, sustain itself, and defend itself.”

The report went on to say, “In our view, this definition entails an Iraq with a broadly representative government that maintains its territorial integrity, is at peace with its neighbors, denies terrorism a sanctuary, and doesn’t brutalize its own people. Given the current situation in Iraq, achieving this goal will require much time and will depend primarily on the actions of the Iraqi people.”

I agree with this assessment. I was also encouraged that the Iraq Study Group was clear about the consequences of a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq. The group declared that such a withdrawal would “almost certainly produce greater sectarian violence” and lead to “a significant power vacuum, greater human suffering, regional destabilization, and a threat to the global economy.” The report went on to say, “If we leave and Iraq descends into chaos, the long-range consequences could eventually require the United States to return.”.

The Iraq Study Group understands the urgency of getting it right in Iraq. The group also understands that while the work ahead will not be easy, success in Iraq is important, and success in Iraq is possible. The group proposed a number of thoughtful recommendations on a way forward for our country in Iraq. My administration is reviewing the report, and we will seriously consider every recommendation. At the same time, the Pentagon, the State Department, and the National Security Council are finishing work on their own reviews of our strategy in Iraq. I look forward to receiving their recommendations. I want to hear all advice as I make the decisions to chart a new course in Iraq.”