WMDs: One more time, with candor...
In the last several days, ever since the administration went on the record about having given up hope of finding WMDs in Iraq, I've been rehashing many of the same angry thoughts as I have throughout the war: Lies! Fearmongering! Morons! You know the routine...
But now that the search is officially over (and officially fruitless), I've become truly curious about how the rest of the Fantastiko scatterplot is thinking about the WMD issue (or non-issue, I suppose) being put to rest this way, with such little apparent fanfare or debate. Now, I was opposed to the war with or without WMDs. Still, even I would have granted that the case for war was much stronger given the truth of the assertion. Moreover, I know many others who were in favor of (or at least went along with) the war based mainly on the threat (now: non-threat) of Iraq's WMDs and their proliferation throughout the networks of America's Terrorist Enemies. Take that factor out of the picture, and in retrospect the case for war looks weak. The decision looks like a mistake, and not a small one.
More seasoned politicos, bear with me -- I'm stuck on the obvious questions here: Was what the administration just admitted not worthy of even the smallest "oops"? I know that on Capitol Hill such admissions of errors aren't fashionable, but here in the blogosphere, where candor is more prevalent and paid apologists are fewer, I'm hoping someone can give a shot at telling me why they and/or the U.S. public don't seem to think this warrants a massive public backlash. Or is there at least, unbeknownst to me, a little, personal feeling of "oops" on the part of those folks whose support for the war was garnered with assertions we now know to be untrue? There must be something here I'm not seeing or hearing.
posted by Carl @ 1:17 AM
3 Comments:
Carl,
President Bush was inaugurated for his second term today, having led an administration that was entirely wrong about WMD in Iraq and, thus, was wrong to have sold the war, at least in part, based on intelligence about WMD. This “oops” has generally been excused because of many reasons. Here are a few I’ve thought of (I certainly haven’t thought of them all):
1. Although the administration presented the WMD threat as imminent, I think the case to go to war was based on some perceived future threat not entirely related to current WMD. That is to say that any enemy of ours could one day posses WMD or nuclear weapons. So, as the argument goes, it’s better to be safe than sorry.
2. Freedom. We like it and there are—were—are…whatever…people in Iraq who don’t. We must fix this.
3. Our “vital national interests,” not limited to security, are at risk. That is, a stable middle-east is in our best interests in terms of resources, economy, etc. and removing a dictator with a history of “madman”-like activities is a good idea so we can protect, or promote, our interests. This last point hasn’t been explicitly sold to the public (that would sound too superficial given many people have died), but I think everyone knows it played a huge part in US intentions to go to war.
Unfortunately, issues related to the missing WMD or “weapons of mass destruction-related program activities” have been clouded in a fight for freedom, defense of volatile region, and a general dislike of pre-“liberation” Iraq—and this is despite the Dept. of Defense’s own report that says that THIS message is, and has been, ineffective in the middle-east because they don’t perceive these as accurate or relevant descriptions of our intentions (see the important DOD report, if you haven’t already, at http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/2004-09-Strategic_Communication.pdf). Maybe President Bush didn't read the report since it was only released in PDF and it was released the day before Thanksgiving. He's busy and doesn't like to read as it is. Maybe he doesn't have Acrobat Reader. Mr. President: it's free! You can download the reader yourself at www.adobe.com.
My point is that you and I want accountability. We had hoped it would come in the form of a new President being elected today. It didn’t and so we feel like they got away with this one—and of course they did. Unfortunately this happens all the time. It’s just that the mistakes are rarely this big with such little backlash. I’m already getting used to it. This administration has a real knack for avoiding significant backlash.
The key is this: where do we go from here? Today, as I was watching the festivities on TV, I heard Karen Hughes, Bush’s former aide and current consultant, say that President Bush will be taking it up a notch; he’ll be “actively” playing a role “throughout the world” wherever people are being oppressed.
So, it’s not about WMD, or even terrorists, anymore. That’s old news. It’s about tyranny (if you haven’t noticed, Bush and co. have been using that word often lately). So where do we go from here? Do we believe her? Are we going after Saudi Arabia, Qumar, China and other oppressive nations as she suggests—nations that fill that criteria but also happen to be “important” allies? Or is this typical Bush-speak for: we don’t say what we actually mean; we say what we say to help you forget we said before.
Guillermo,
Right on. You’re absolutely right that it’s disturbing that there’s no reaction to the fact that there’s no reaction. That pisses me off more than anything.
You all have made excellent points. I don’t mean to get off topic, but, since we’re talking about Iraq, I have to post this recent article I read. Did you hear about the new Human Rights Watch report? I heard a quick clip on NPR the other day and saw a little ticker headline of it on CNN today. Talk about no reaction. Here—let me say it loudly:
TORTURE CONTINUES AT HANDS OF NEW IRAQI GOVERNMENT
It seems things are not going well for the citizens of Iraq. No big surprise; nothing new. It’s worth mentioning, though, since…you know…it’s their reality. It’s good to say it. It’s bad that it’s a reality, but denial doesn’t do anybody any good in the end. Accountability, justice, and a general disregard for human life continue to spiral downward. Who would have thought that would happen in an under-funded, under-supported, under-planned war in the most dangerous part of the world? I don’t mean to sound cynical, but what in the hell do you expect?
There are stories coming from Iraq that are worse than anything I’ve heard yet. Check out the recent report at www.hrw.org/english/docs/2005/01/26/iraq10053.htm and Washington Post article at www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33349-2005Jan24.htm
Back to my first comment:
Jon Stewart was right about Bush's inauguration speech. I checked:
Freedom: 27
Liberty: 15
My favorite line (and Jon Stewart's)?
"All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you."
Hmmm. Really? ALL who live in tyranny? I guess it depends on how you define tyranny. I guess it depends on who is doing the defining. Last I checked, we were doing a fine job of ignoring oppression in certain places (Saudi Arabia: you know I'm talking about you, right?).
Second favorite line?
"From the day of our Founding, we have proclaimed that every man and woman on this earth has rights, and dignity, and matchless value, because they bear the image of the Maker of Heaven and earth."
No comment.
Check out the speech at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/01/20050120-1.html
- Nan
Post a Comment
<< Home