Thursday, October 07, 2004
Offered for Your Consideration
How's this for a thesis:
Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Scooter Libby--and others--knew all along there were no WMD in Iraq. In fact, they knew that, far from being a threat, Saddam Hussein's Iraq was actually the weakest target in the Middle East, and that's why they decided to invade there. That they were determined to put a US military presence in the region for reasons having nothing to do with US security, and Iraq was their chosen foothold.
Doesn't everything that's happened--and everything they've said--make a lot more sense in this light? Why they thought a small force would suffice? Why they didn't bother equipping the soldiers with proper gear? Why they didn't bother getting a coalition to help pay for it? Why they ignored all the voices in their own government who suspected their "intelligence" on Iraq's WMD was faulty? (Because they didn't care.)
That they thought they could get away with "stretching the truth" about Iraq's WMD and ties to al Queda because they truly believed it would be a cakewalk--since there were no WMD--and that once the deed was done no one would bother to go back and check the details?
Think about it: if post-war Iraq had gone well, no one would be paying attention to who said what beforehand. isn't that what they were counting on?
It's time to take a step back and really look at what's happened here. Think about what they said, what the reality turned out to be, and how they changed rationales as the story began to fall apart. Think about George Bush and Dick Cheney constantly putting the words "9/11" and "terrorism" in sentences while talking about Iraq and Hussein but never truly connecting them grammatically.
They were deliberately suggesting a link without actually saying it--to make a phony case but leave plausible deniability. Aren't they now in fact trying to plausibly deny they ever made a connection? Dick Cheney actually said in the debate with John Edwards that he never suggested to Americans a connection between 9/11 and Iraq.
Then who did? Santa Claus? Does he expect us to accept now that that case was made by anyone other than the Bush administration?
Check out this recent quote from White House spokesman Scott McClellan:
How's that pap compared to what they were saying before the invasion?
Here's the bottom line: they can no longer justify the decision to invade Iraq. We're talking about the first preemptive war in the history of the country. They now justify it by saying--repeatedly--that this is the "post-9/11 world". Ask what Iraq had to do with 9/11 and they mumble something about "a nexus of terrorism and WMD". That's just rhetoric; there were no WMD, no ties to terrorists, and nothing to connect the two together in Iraq. Just the opposite, in fact.
Given all this, are we supposed to forget that many of these guys had been talking about invading Iraq for years? Is it all just an amazing coincidence? They got to use the US military to fulfill a plan they'd had for years, after which--oops--it turns out there weren't really any weapons or ties to al-Qaida? But oh well, now we're stuck with it so we have to "stay the course"--but gosh don't hold us responsible for the screw up?
Please. I was born at night but it wasn't last night.
Meanwhile they've abandoned Afghanistan to the point that Hamid Karzai is only in charge of whatever street his guards happen to be standing on at the moment. And the same thing is happening in Iraq; they've been pushed back to the Green Zone, and now the word is they can't even fully protect that. And they can't convince the Congress or the American people--let alone the rest of the world--to voluntarily increase the troops or money because they have no credibility left.
Worse: they haven't done anything to protect us from terrorism here at home. They caved in to the airline industry on screening baggage, they caved into the chemical industry on protecting chemical plants, they caved into the shipping industry on screening container ships...and they put the budget nearly a half a trillion dollars into deficit.
How have they done anything but make things much, much worse? And why shouldn't Americans demand to know exactly why Iraq was so important to them?
The truth is, the world is a far more dangerous place than George Bush understands. That's the only way to explain his disastrous choices and priorities. And frankly, we think that's because he's never had to live in the real world or suffer the consequences of poor decision-making the way the rest of us do.
Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Scooter Libby--and others--knew all along there were no WMD in Iraq. In fact, they knew that, far from being a threat, Saddam Hussein's Iraq was actually the weakest target in the Middle East, and that's why they decided to invade there. That they were determined to put a US military presence in the region for reasons having nothing to do with US security, and Iraq was their chosen foothold.
Doesn't everything that's happened--and everything they've said--make a lot more sense in this light? Why they thought a small force would suffice? Why they didn't bother equipping the soldiers with proper gear? Why they didn't bother getting a coalition to help pay for it? Why they ignored all the voices in their own government who suspected their "intelligence" on Iraq's WMD was faulty? (Because they didn't care.)
That they thought they could get away with "stretching the truth" about Iraq's WMD and ties to al Queda because they truly believed it would be a cakewalk--since there were no WMD--and that once the deed was done no one would bother to go back and check the details?
Think about it: if post-war Iraq had gone well, no one would be paying attention to who said what beforehand. isn't that what they were counting on?
It's time to take a step back and really look at what's happened here. Think about what they said, what the reality turned out to be, and how they changed rationales as the story began to fall apart. Think about George Bush and Dick Cheney constantly putting the words "9/11" and "terrorism" in sentences while talking about Iraq and Hussein but never truly connecting them grammatically.
They were deliberately suggesting a link without actually saying it--to make a phony case but leave plausible deniability. Aren't they now in fact trying to plausibly deny they ever made a connection? Dick Cheney actually said in the debate with John Edwards that he never suggested to Americans a connection between 9/11 and Iraq.
Then who did? Santa Claus? Does he expect us to accept now that that case was made by anyone other than the Bush administration?
Check out this recent quote from White House spokesman Scott McClellan:
McClellan ticked off a litany of what he said were links between Iraq and al-Qaida. Both were "sworn enemies of the free world, including the United States''; both "celebrated the Sept. 11 attacks on America,'' he said.Wow, some links, huh? They practically share a checking account. By this standard we'll have to invade 34 countries tomorrow. Using the National Guard, presumably.
How's that pap compared to what they were saying before the invasion?
Here's the bottom line: they can no longer justify the decision to invade Iraq. We're talking about the first preemptive war in the history of the country. They now justify it by saying--repeatedly--that this is the "post-9/11 world". Ask what Iraq had to do with 9/11 and they mumble something about "a nexus of terrorism and WMD". That's just rhetoric; there were no WMD, no ties to terrorists, and nothing to connect the two together in Iraq. Just the opposite, in fact.
Given all this, are we supposed to forget that many of these guys had been talking about invading Iraq for years? Is it all just an amazing coincidence? They got to use the US military to fulfill a plan they'd had for years, after which--oops--it turns out there weren't really any weapons or ties to al-Qaida? But oh well, now we're stuck with it so we have to "stay the course"--but gosh don't hold us responsible for the screw up?
Please. I was born at night but it wasn't last night.
Meanwhile they've abandoned Afghanistan to the point that Hamid Karzai is only in charge of whatever street his guards happen to be standing on at the moment. And the same thing is happening in Iraq; they've been pushed back to the Green Zone, and now the word is they can't even fully protect that. And they can't convince the Congress or the American people--let alone the rest of the world--to voluntarily increase the troops or money because they have no credibility left.
Worse: they haven't done anything to protect us from terrorism here at home. They caved in to the airline industry on screening baggage, they caved into the chemical industry on protecting chemical plants, they caved into the shipping industry on screening container ships...and they put the budget nearly a half a trillion dollars into deficit.
How have they done anything but make things much, much worse? And why shouldn't Americans demand to know exactly why Iraq was so important to them?
The truth is, the world is a far more dangerous place than George Bush understands. That's the only way to explain his disastrous choices and priorities. And frankly, we think that's because he's never had to live in the real world or suffer the consequences of poor decision-making the way the rest of us do.
