Jul 01 2005
Iraq: A Recap
Correct me if I miss something, but I wanted to take a minute to realize just how ridiculous the Iraq War is. Both supporters and critics of the Bush administration seem to be so focused on the Bush admnistration PR crisis du jour that they have lost the forest for the trees. Beyond that, the Bush administration’s campaign of disinformation has created a number of false but popular beliefs, including that Saddam Hussein helped plan and support the hijackers who attacked the U.S. on September 11, 2001, that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when the U.S. invaded, and that several of the hijackers who attacked the U.S. on September 11 were Iraqis, all of which are false (cite).
Furthermore, people are more and more starting to wonder if the Bush and Blair administrations (*gasp*) made the whole charge up! This is substantially bolstered by the Downing Street Memo, which I quote:
The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.
The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change. (cite)
So let’s do a quick recap of the claims and the facts in order to get back on the right page, and see if something is off. If you happen to catch something I miss, please make a point to mention it in the comments.
- The war drums started beating for Iraq linking 9/11 to Saddam Hussein (cite), even though Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11 and did not have ties with Al Qaeda (cite).
- When that didn’t take, there was a change of focus to saying that Hussein was very actively pursuing a nuclear program, including seeking “significant quantities of uranium from Africa” and also seeking “to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production” (cite). This story was upgraded by Ari Fleischer to say that Iraq was actually about to receive a shipment of “pure uranium” (yellowcake)from Niger. To no great surprise, these turned out to be a complete lie (cite), and the CIA director fell on his sword for the “mistake” (cite).
- When this didn’t take, Bush fell back to a secondary claim that he had been trumpetting: Weapons of Mass Destruction. This was the excuse up until the invasion itself, including Powell’s February, 2003, announcement that “The gravity of this moment is matched by the gravity of the threat that Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction pose to the world” (cite). There are plenty of additional quotes where the Bush administration, including Bush himself, pushed the idea that Saddam had WMDs, and was intending to sell them to terrorists (cite). It turned out that Saddam didn’t have WMDs or even plans for how to get them (cite) , but that he put up a stubborn front and attempted to be sneaky so that people thought he might (cite).
- As the claim that Saddam has WMDs rapidly lost any kind of legitimacy, the direction changed to “regime change”, based on the fallacious view that you can “gift” Democracy on people. This has lead to our current fight with the insurgency, which is apparently in its “last throes”, according to Cheney on Larry King Live: “I think they’re in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency.” (cite) Unfortunately, yet again reality doesn’t quite line up with Cheney’s claims, but that’s a post for another time…
Given all this, and given that “more than two-in-five voters (42%) say they would favor impeachment proceedings if it is found the President misled the nation about his reasons for going to war with Iraq”, including one in four Republicans (cite), I think it’s about time that anyone who wants a future in Washington start asking some very hard questions.
BTW, if you really want to know why I am so personally angry at Bush, it’s because I and the American people were betrayed by him in 2000: his promises were often blatantly opposed to what he did once he was in office (one of many cites).
Popularity: 3% [?]
The reason we on the left keep “focusing” on the PR diaster on the moment is because we have too. We haven’t lost the forest for the trees. There has been a steady drumbeat from the left, including me, that hasn’t changed it’s fundamental tune- the war was illegal, that it was a crime, that it was stupid, that we shouldn’t have gone in, and that we should get out. This was just dismissed as Bush hating (like the right never hated Clinton). But if we simply ignored the talking point of the day, it’d be we who would appear out of touch. We may have a steady drum beat- but we’re still dancing to the conservative’s tune.
As for the Republicans lying- duh! The Republicans have figured out that although you can’t fool all the people ever, you can fool enough of the people enough to stay in power. They don’t need to fool everyone, they just need to fool 51%. Which is much easier.
So in three years, Bush won’t be eligable to run again. Then comes the critical question: will you beleive the fresh faced candidate they put forth. He likely won’t use the same terms as Bush- you won’t hear “I’m a uniter not a divider” or “compassionate conservative”. But he’ll be using terms that mean the same thing. There will be talk about traditional values, and being in touch with real Americans, and warm puppies and fluffy kittens. Why not? It worked for Bush.
Eisenhower got elected only after 20 years of Democratic dominance (1932-1952), and it was Eisenhower only because anyone more radical to the right wouldn’t have stood a chance. In fact, the dominance of the New Deal over American politics continued for another 16 years, until 1968. All the while the forces of corporatism (aka fascism) and religious fanaticism were working their way back into power. Bush is just the latest and worst example of a trend that dates back quite some time. Indeed, he’s a return to the late 19th century style goverment (teapot dome and railroad barrons, anyone?). So I could make the argument that the New Deal era (roughly 1932-1968) was the aberration, and not the normalcy.
Except that’s not really true. The robber barrons of the late 19th/early 20th century mainly just wanted the federal goverment (and all goverments) to get out of their way, and let them loot and pillage to their heart’s content. What changed was the idea of using the federal goverment as a way, as a tool, to loot and pillage. Which is why the federal goverment is not getting smaller under Bush, but is instead bloating like crazy. It’s fullfilling it’s new role of reverse Robin Hood- stealing (taxing) from the poor and giving to the rich. The reasons Bush gave for the invasion are obviously bullshit- but there are real reasons why they wanted to do this. One of the reason definately was so that Halliburton, Bechtel, the Carlyle Group, etc., could rake in billions of dollars in contracts which they can then fail to fullfill. It’s a way to funnel money from the taxpayers to the wealthy.
Which means it’s not going to go away. The only thing that will put it into submission is another 20 years in the political wilderness. The next Republican presidential candidate- oh, and by the way, this also applies to their congressional, senatorial, and gubenitorial candidates- will still be of this faction. Will still be on the side of the corporatists and the American Taliban. No matter what they say, they’ll be lying. They won’t be able to tell the truth, they’d never get elected if they did. It’s predictable, like the sun rising in the east.