TheAgitator.com
White House on Iraq: Just Kidding.
Friday, April 25th, 2003Startling report at ABC News that, I’m guessing, won’t get much play in the pro-war blogosphere. White House officials are now admitting that Saddam was never much of a threat to the U.S., that the war was an excersize in “message sending,” not in self-defense. Excerpts:
To build its case for war with Iraq, the Bush administration argued that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, but some officials now privately acknowledge the White House had another reason for war â?? a global show of American power and democracy.Officials inside government and advisers outside told ABCNEWS the administration emphasized the danger of Saddam’s weapons to gain the legal justification for war from the United Nations and to stress the danger at home to Americans.
“We were not lying,” said one official. “But it was just a matter of emphasis.”Officials now say they may not find hundreds of tons of mustard and nerve agents and maybe not thousands of liters of anthrax and other toxins….
….The Bush administration felt that a new start was needed in the Middle East and that Iraq was the place to show that it is democracy â?? not terrorism â?? that offers hope…
…The Bush administration wanted to make a statement about its determination to fight terrorism. And officials acknowledge that Saddam had all the requirements to make him, from their standpoint, the perfect target.
Other countries have such weapons, yet the United States did not go to war with them. And though Saddam oppressed and tortured his own people, other tyrants have done the same without incurring U.S. military action. Finally, Saddam had ties to terrorists â?? but so have several countries that the United States did not fight.
But Saddam was guilty of all these things and he met another requirement as well â?? a prime location, in the heart of the Middle East, between Syria and Iran, two countries the United States wanted to send a message to.
One official said that in the end, history and the American people will judge the United States not by whether U.S. officials find canisters of poison gas or vials of some biological agent.
History will judge the United States, the official said, by whether this war marked the beginning of the end for the terrorists who hate America.
If this story is accurate (and that it was released on a Friday afternoon leads me to think it was a controlled leak), let’s sum it up:
A) The White House just launched a war under a lie.
That lie: Iraq is a threat. Iraq was not a threat. The real reason: After September 11, we wanted to send a message that the (1) the U.S. is still a badass, and, (2) U.S.-style democracy represents the best hope for the Arab world.
Confused? Me too.
B) Whether or not the country we actually launched the war against was responsible for September 11 is unimportant. We needed to kick some ass, quickly, and Iraq was the likeliest target.
C) We wanted to send a message to angry young Arabs that American democracy offers Arabs hope. We did this by having our American democracy drop bombs on Arabs.
Confused? Me too.
If it’s borne out that the White House never believed Iraq to be a legitimate threat — that Colin Powell went before the UN Security Council and perpetrated an out and out fraud, that President Bush lied to Congress, to the American people, and to the world, well, it’s probably about the most depressing thing I’ve read in weeks.
I never agreed with the White House that Iraq was a threat, but I at least gave them enough credit to believe that they were deluding themselves. I at least thought that they believed Iraq was a threat.
Perhaps it’s naive of me to find this alarming — that government would lie to us to justify a war. Again. But seeing it in print is awfully disheartening.
Thanks to Julian for the link.
Unnamed source again. If this is true it is obviously disturbing, but I don’t buy all of these stories leaked by “officials inside the government”. There are thousands of people in the government with opinions but no knowledge of what the opinion or strategy of the administration is. This reminds me of the “sources inside the Pentagon” who said the war was improperly planned and “done on the cheap”.
I also do not believe Iraq was a threat to us, but it is very arrogant to think people privy to more information and with a differing opinion from ours are deluded.
The whole thing reads like “let’s put the worst possible spin on everything that’s already known.” i.e. since the admin can’t find WMD today, we made up WMD; since we can’t prove Saddam collaborated with al Qaeda, there’s no possibility whatsoever he did; since Mugabe/Chavez/Castro/Kim/Chirac/Arafat is also an asshole, we should have attacked one of them first. Just because Saddam wasn’t involved (that we know of) in one particular incident doesn’t necessarily mean that he didn’t give aid and comfort to terrorists, or wouldn’t have in the future.
It’s not going to get any play in the pro-war blogosphere (including my blog) because the story’s basically journalism in the Indymedia sense of the word.
To make an analogy: if I go to the movies with a date, I’m going to emphasize to my date that I’m interested in spending time with her, even though part of the motivation is also to enjoy the movie. That I also derived entertainment from the film doesn’t discredit my motives for going on the date, unless I made her pay for everything and then stopped paying attention to her afterwards since the real reason I went was just to see the movie and I was too cheap to spring for a ticket.
I wonder why, if the war was intended to ‘send a message’, the administration didn’t sell it that way. Why deceive the public with tales of WMD or ties to Al-Queda? Did they do it to get the backing of the UN? Hardly seemed necessary. They had a lot of support at home and they clearly don’t care about the support abroad.
the fact that you would believe anything ABC news said almost destroys your credibility. almost. but you’re not saying its true, so i’ll give you a pass. they are spinmeisters over there. you know that. don’t get on the left wing anti-war hippy bandwagon just because you oppose the war on reasonable grounds.
Just Kidding?
Radley Balko, who may be my favorite anti-war blogger, has a provocative post up that I pray isn’t true. It’s
I choose to believe that this story is exaggerated and from a source that is not credible….. because the alternative scares the crap out of me.
Terrorism doesn’t worry me nearly as much as the power grab that inevitably occurs during times of percieved national crisis, which we’ve already seen plenty of evidence of.
I suspect it is not legit. But even if it was, it would not care much. My support for overthrowing Ba’athist Socialism in Iraq was only partially predicated on enhancing US and UK security, the main reason I saw to liberate Iraq was … to liberate IRAQIS. Liberation is justification enough.
And yes, it this turns into Operation Perpetual Whoopass (i.e. Syria, N Korea etc)… well I am fine with that too if they can be done at an acceptable cost (clearly that is the ‘Big If’). First lets get rid of the greater evil and then start on the lesser evils closer to home.
Perry,
And where in the U.S. Constitution does it give authorization to use U.S. force and U.S. lives (not to mention U.S. tax dollars) to liberate the people of another country?
Or should we just ignore the Constitution on this one?
And how do we know they’re going to stay “liberated?” Given Iraq’s Shiah majority, the only way we can ensure it is by effectively making Iraq the 51st state. And is making another country an effective U.S. territory really liberating it?
Radley, You seems to have mistaken me for someone who gives a hoot about the US Constitution (yes, I realise that to most Americans saying that is like blowing your nose on Mona Lisa). If a written constitution could stop people being disarmed by the state, prevent the travesty of ‘eminent domain’, stop super-territorial taxation and trial-less asset forfeiture, then I guess I would regard it has having been a success. It didn’t and I don’t.
Of course we do not know if Iraq will stay liberated any more than we knew Germany or Japan would not go back to their wicked fascist ways… but setting up a highly confederal system with broad regional autonomy would go a long way to ensuring that what comes after Ba’athist Socialism is not nearly as bad… plus of course the threat of Pax Americana’s big stick. For all America’s many and variegated flaws, it is vastly preferable to Ba’athism or Islamofascism. It is an imperfect world.
Perry,
As a libertarian, I *would* expect you to give two hoots about the rule of law.
And if you live in a country where a constitution is the supreme law of the land, embarking on overseas military missions for reasons not authorized by said constitution shows a grave disprespect for the rule of law.
if that is true then i feel tricked.
but if the “officials” who said that are whitehouse janitors, then there’s no need to worry
I find it difficult to believe that any person devoting more than a few minutes thought to the attack on Iraq truly beleived it was anything but a “message.”
Oil made no sense; oil companies hate turmoil; revenge for Poppy’s failure/attack attempt made no sense; the Al Qaeda link was beyond tenuous; the WMD have been either destroyed or moved to Syria.. The Harvard MBA had a problem — terrorism / Palestine — and like any good MBA, decided to remove the sources(s) of the problem. He did say, early on “regime change” and that it would take years. It will.
The real concern now should be that it was, in a manner of speaking, too easy. The Baathists will lay low for a few years until we’re gone and then try to reassert themselves.
A minor point is that there is nothing in the Constitution that authorizes or does not auytthorize such operations. We’ve been doing stuff like that for over two hundred years, starting with the Barbary Pirates in 1801. This one just happened to be bigger than most.
Bigger then Kosovo, which after all, was a nothing but a regime change not authorized or sanctioned by the U.N>
I don’t know about the rest of you, but I will accept lies from the White House over war and death, but over oral sex…never.
That would be inexcusable.
That Ken is not this Ken but he does raise two interesting points:
A. The White House and its various occupants have been lying about war and death for almost two hundred years — as it/they will probably continue to do so, accepting such lies may not be an option so much as almost inevitable.
B. “Over” oral sex or under — play it as it lies…
Depressing very depressing
Go read this. I am going to bed, I feel sick after reading it. I agree with the article completely
It’s a lie to admit that the murder of 3,000 American civilians is a perfectly appropriate casus belli?
Now, I’m confused.
I’m baffled, more than anything!
Why on earth would anyone in the administration want to leak this sort of information, at least right now? And if it’s true, how come this piece of news hasn’t created more of a stir?
In your free time, visit the pages dedicated to two feet texas holdem v1 5 1 3 two feet texas holdem v1 5 1 3 http://www.texasholdemcenteral.com/ http://www.texasholdemcenteral.com/ – Tons of interesdting stuff!!!
You may find it interesting to check out some relevant information about online poker online poker http://www.poker-4all.com/online-poker.html http://www.poker-4all.com/online-poker.html pacific poker pacific poker http://www.poker-4all.com/pacific-poker.html http://www.poker-4all.com/pacific-poker.html .
You may find it interesting to check out the pages on online poker online poker http://www.poker-4all.com/online-poker.html http://www.poker-4all.com/online-poker.html poker poker http://www.poker-4all.com/poker.html http://www.poker-4all.com/poker.html .
You may find it interesting to check out some relevant pages about casino casino http://www.favorite-casino.com/casino.html http://www.favorite-casino.com/casino.html roulette roulette http://www.favorite-casino.com/roulette.html http://www.favorite-casino.com/roulette.html …
You are invited to visit some helpful info about online casinos online casinos http://www.westvalleyhigh.us/online-casinos.html http://www.westvalleyhigh.us/online-casinos.html …
In your free time, take a look at some relevant information in the field of link http pacific poker download info message boards – Tons of interesdting stuff!!!