Triumphalism Amid the Wreckage

"It was skin crawling to hear him tell Mr. Gibson that the thing he will really miss when he leaves office is no longer going to see the families of slain soldiers, because they make him feel better about the war. But Mr. Bush's comments about his decision to invade Iraq were a 'mistakes were made' rewriting of history and a refusal to accept responsibility to rival that of Richard Nixon. . . .

"After everything the American public and the world have learned about how Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney manipulated Congress, public opinion and anyone else they could bully or lie to, Mr. Bush is still acting as though he decided to invade Iraq after suddenly being handed life and death information on Saddam Hussein's arsenal.

"The truth is that Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had been chafing to attack Iraq before Sept. 11, 2001. They justified that unnecessary war using intelligence reports that they knew or should have known to be faulty. And it was pressure from the White House and a highly politicized Pentagon that compelled people like Secretary of State Colin Powell and George Tenet, the Central Intelligence director, to ignore the counter-evidence and squander their good names on hyped claims of weapons of mass destruction.

"Despite it all, Mr. Bush said he will 'leave the presidency with my head held high.' And, presumably, with his eyes closed to all the disasters he is dumping on the American people and his successor."

The editorial earned a rare response from national security adviser Steve Hadley, who issued a statement today criticizing the Times for "expressing inaccurate and incomplete statements on pre-war intelligence and the war in Iraq.

"While the President has repeatedly acknowledged the mistakes in the pre-war intelligence, there is no support for the Times' claim that the President and his national security team 'knew or should have known [the intelligence] to be faulty' or that 'pressure from the White House' led to particular conclusions. Nothing in the many inquiries conducted into these matters supports the view of the Times' Editorial Board. . . .

"While Saddam Hussein did not have stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, he was a threat, and his removal has opened the door to a democratic Iraq in the heart of the Middle East that is an ally of the United States."

Middle East Revisionism

Paul Richter writes for the Los Angeles Times: "In a sweeping defense of his record, President Bush asserted Friday that his administration is leaving the Middle East a 'freer, more hopeful and more promising place' than when he took office.

"Bush said his administration is close to success in Iraq, has moved to counter Iran's nuclear program, and has 'laid a foundation of trust' between Israelis and Palestinians.

"'At long last, the Middle East is closing a chapter of darkness and fear, and opening one written in the language of possibility and hope,' Bush said in remarks to the Saban Forum in Washington. . . .

"The assessment comes six weeks from the end of a presidency that Bush's team would like to portray as more successful than widely believed. But some experts don't share Bush's optimism.

"'The net effect is an impression left by the Bush administration that the United States is unable to deliver and that when it tries, it tends to make matters worse,' wrote two experts, Martin S. Indyk, director of the Brookings Institution's Saban Center for Middle East Policy, and Richard N. Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, in a book released before the forum that Bush addressed.