You say to yourself, "I know the Bush Administration kept changing their reasons to go to war, but before the war, but all I can remember is talk of WMDs, mushroom clouds, War on Terrah, and Al Qaeda. Certainly, all 9 arguments weren't given the same emphasis."
You're right, and the Tribune admits as much and then goes on to give them all the same weight in their matrix. So let's look at what the Tribune had to say about whether we were mislead on WMDs, mushroom clouds, the Iraqi link to the War on Terror, and Iraq-Al Qaeda links.
Biological and chemical weaponsThe Bush Administration didn't rely on risky intelligence. They only presented the intelligence that supported their position. Looks like Tribune is following the Bush lead or "mislead" here. Regardless of the Tribune's effort to muddy the verdict, it is clear on this argument that the Bush Administration mislead the American people on Iraq's biological and chemical weapons. Next argument, quest for nukes.
WHAT THE WHITE HOUSE SAID
The Bush administration said Iraq had stockpiled weapons of mass destruction. Officials trumpeted reports from U.S. and foreign spy agencies, including an October 2002 CIA assessment: "Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons, as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions."
WHAT WE KNOW TODAY
Many, although not all, of the Bush administration's assertions about weapons of mass destruction have proven flat-out wrong. What illicit weaponry searchers uncovered didn't begin to square with the magnitude of the toxic armory U.S. officials had described before the war.
THE VERDICT
There was no need for the administration to rely on risky intelligence to chronicle many of Iraq's other sins. In putting so much emphasis on illicit weaponry, the White House advanced its most provocative, least verifiable case for war when others would have sufficed.
The quest for nukesAll the proof I need that this whole editorial is a whitewash is the first 5 words of the verdict. "If the White House manipulated..." Are you f-ing kidding me?! If?! If?! From Condi's "mushroom clouds" comment to Cheney's flat out lie on Meet the Press that "We believe, in fact that Iraq has reconstituted its nuclear weapons program..." Read this interview if you don't believe me. Again, they cherry-picked the intelligence that served their fear-mongering best. It also happened to be the weakest intelligence. Next arguments, linking Iraq with the Global War on Terror.
WHAT THE WHITE HOUSE SAID
Intelligence agencies warned the Clinton and Bush administrations that Hussein was reconstituting his once-impressive program to create nuclear weapons. In part that intel reflected embarrassment over U.S. failure before the Persian Gulf war to grasp how close Iraq was to building nukes.
WHAT WE KNOW TODAY
Four intel studies from 1997-2000 concurred that "If Iraq acquired a significant quantity of fissile material through foreign assistance, it could have a crude nuclear weapon within a year." Claims that Iraq sought uranium and special tubes for processing nuclear material appear discredited.
THE VERDICT
If the White House manipulated or exaggerated the nuclear intelligence before the war in order to paint a more menacing portrait of Hussein, it's difficult to imagine why. For five years, the official and oft-delivered alarms from the U.S. intelligence community had been menacing enough.
Waging war on terrorFinally, a straight up verdict from the Tribune. So we can all agree. The Bush Administration exaggerated the threat. They misled the American people. Next argument, the Iraq-Al Qaeda link.
WHAT THE WHITE HOUSE SAID
Iraq was Afghanistan's likely successor as a haven for terror groups. "Saddam Hussein is harboring terrorists and the instruments of terror ... " the president said. "And he cannot be trusted. The risk is simply too great that he will use them, or provide them to a terror network."
WHAT WE KNOW TODAY
The White House echoed four years of intel that said Hussein contemplated the use of terror against the U.S. or its allies. But he evidently had not done so on a broad scale. The assertion that Hussein was "harboring terrorists and the instruments of terror" overstated what we know today.
THE VERDICT
The drumbeat of White House warnings before the war made Iraq's terror activities sound more ambitious than subsequent evidence has proven. Based on what we know today, the argument that Hussein was able to foment global terror against this country and its interests was exaggerated.
Iraq and Al QaedaWow, another straightforward guilty verdict from the Tribune. Now let's look at the other so-called arguments that the Tribune adds into its matrix to cloud up the issue a bit. I'll list them and you can read them for yourself. What I want to know though, is the Tribune seriously saying that these were arguments the Bush Administration could have used to sell this war?
WHAT THE WHITE HOUSE SAID
President Bush: "... Iraq and the Al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy--the United States of America. We know that Iraq and Al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade.... Iraq has trained Al Qaeda members in bombmaking and poisons and deadly gases."
WHAT WE KNOW TODAY
Two government investigative reports indicate that Al Qaeda and Iraq had long-running if sporadic contacts. Several of the prewar intel conclusions likely are true. But the high-ranking Al Qaeda detainee who said Iraq trained Al Qaeda in bombmaking, poisons and gases later recanted.
THE VERDICT
No compelling evidence ties Iraq to Sept. 11, 2001, as the White House implied. Nor is there proof linking Al Qaeda in a significant way to the final years of Hussein's regime. By stripping its rhetoric of the ambiguity present in the intel data, the White House exaggerated this argument for war.
Iraq rebuffs the world/Hussein rope-a-dope: In desperation to find arguments to cloud their overall verdict, the Tribune creates 2 historically ignorant, inconsistent and redundant arguments out of one historically ignorant and inconsistent argument. The Tribune is saying that Saddam Hussein ignores the UN. Well, far be it from me to let facts get in the way, but Hussein didn't kick the UN inspectors out before the war. Bush told them to leave because he was quickly realizing he would have no case if the inspectors were allowed to finish the job. In regards to ignoring the UN, Iraq has some company in that department. The U.S. ignores the UN. Israel ignores the UN. North Korea ignores the UN. Iran ignores the UN. This justifies a war? It might justify some UN reforms, but not necessarily a war. I highly doubt the American people would have supported a war on this argument, even if you wanted to make it into 2 arguments.
Reform in the Middle East: Ah, yes. Democracy. At the barrel of a gun. Other Arab countries falling in line, like for example, ummm, Iran? Yes, Syria is feeling some pressure, but that was because of the assassination of a beloved Lebanese leader by agents of Syria, which led the Lebanese to rise up against Syria's violent interference in their government. While we're speaking of democracy, why not require some reforms from our "friends" in the region, like, umm, Saudi Arabia? Democracy breaking out in Saudi Arabia? Suffrage for women? Might have to lose the corrupt monarchy first, which funds those democracy/freedom/America loving radical Islamic schools. Regardless, the American people would not sacrifice their sons and daughters for this argument. Let the Arabs fight for their freedom. What we could do is stop supporting corrupt regimes to begin with. Remind me, who was it that Rumsfeld was shaking hands with in the 1980s?
The Butcher of Baghdad: My favorite non-argument from the Tribune whitewash. The Bush Administration cares about human rights and ummm, torture. No seriously they do care. They care about ignoring human rights and supporting torture. Abu Ghraib, anyone? Gitmo, anyone? Kidnapping and rendering suspects to states like Egypt that are more than happy to torture for us? It is pure cynicism to include this in the list. Why would I say that you ask? What aren't are troops in the f-ing Sudan right now if we're all fired up about stopping butchers?
Iraqis liberated. Again, I'm happy for Iraqis that Saddam is gone, but are we in the business of deposing bad guys everywhere in the world now? Shouldn't we let Iraqis fight for their freedom? I'm also happy that they have the right to vote, but I think we're seeing how that's working out. Claims of election fraud from minority factions. A victory for the theocratic Shiites. Kurds setting up their own oil deals without involving the central government. Kurds in the Iraqi Army saying that they see themselves as Peshmerga first and would turn on their fellow soldiers if given the signal by their leaders. The Chicago Tribune might want to read an article by their fellow Tribune company employees at the L.A. Times. The opening line?
The myth of a unified Iraqi identity may have finally been laid to rest this month.I'm sure the American people would have a little trouble saying our sons and daughters should die in the name of Iraqi liberation so that: a) a theocratic, Iran-friendly government can emerge in Iraq, or b) the country breaks into 3 separate states c) the civil war and sectarian violence can escalate, or d) all of the above.
So, you see. It's simple really. With the most widely used and fear-provoking arguments widely discredited by pesky facts, the Tribune had to find a few reasons that were both valid and not completely proven false in order to come to their pre-determined conclusion that Bush did not mislead the country into war and that they made the right decision in supporting the war.
To their credit, the Tribune even admits that all of the arguments were not given equal weight. What they neglect to explicitly mention is that each of the arguments that were given the most emphasis were false. What else did they have in common?
They were also the arguments designed to promote fear.
They were the only arguments the Bush Administration could use to sell the war to the American people.
It is only fair then, that we should judge the case by what Vice President Cheney said were the most important justifications for war on Meet the Press on March 16, 2003.
Hmmm. No talk of Iraqi liberation, Butcher of Baghdad, Middle East democratic reform.MR. RUSSERT: The Los Angeles Times wrote an editorial about the administration and its rationale for war. And let me read it to you and give you a chance to respond: “The Bush administration’s months of attempts to justify quick military action against Iraq have been confusing and unfocused. It kept giving different reasons for invasion. First, it was to disarm Hussein and get him out. Then, as allies got nervous about outside nations deciding ‘regime change,’ the administration for a while rightly stressed disarmament only. Next, the administration was talking about ‘nation-building’ and using Iraq as the cornerstone of creating democracy in the Arab/Muslim world. And that would probably mean U.S. occupation of Iraq for some unspecified time, at open-ended cost. Then, another tactic: The administration tried mightily, and failed, to show a connection between Hussein and the 9/11 perpetrators, Al Qaeda. Had there been real evidence that Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks, Americans would have lined up in support of retaliation.”
What do you think is the most important rationale for going to war with Iraq?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I think I’ve just given it, Tim, in terms of the combination of his development and use of chemical weapons, his development of biological weapons, his pursuit of nuclear weapons.
Thanks for your help clarifying the rationale for war, Dick.
Present day facts and old transcripts sure make it difficult to revise history, don't they? Damn internets.
At least the Bush Administration can take solace in the Chicago Tribune's obvious attempt to absolve the administration of any shred of responsibility for misleading our country into a war of choice, not necessity.
No comments:
Post a Comment