Posted on 05/07/2003 7:15:56 PM PDT by FairOpinion
After each war, historians sift through the record to discern its real causes. Invariably, they divide into two camps: the court historians who defend the war leaders and the revisionists who prosecute them before the bar of history.
After World War II, the evidence that FDR had steered us into war, while asserting he was doing his best to avert war, was so massive even his court historians admit he lied. Wrote Thomas A. Bailey in FDR's defense, "He was like the physician who must tell the patient lies for his own good."
Roosevelt had cut off Japan's oil, sent the Flying Tigers to China and sought to tempt Japan into attacking a line of picket ships. He had lied about German subs torpedoing U.S. destroyers and Nazi plans to conquer South America and replace the Christian cross with the swastika. This mattered in 1950. For, with Stalin triumphant in Europe and China, it appeared – in Churchill's phrase – that we "had killed the wrong pig."
But today, with the immense focus on the Holocaust, the question is no longer, "Did FDR lie?" But, "Why did we not declare war sooner?"
Vietnam was, in Reagan's phrase, "a noble cause." But because it was a lost cause, it is now said and believed we only went to war because LBJ had misled us about the Tonkin Gulf incident.
The war in Iraq is being portrayed by the president's men as a just and necessary war that removed a mortal peril. But if our victory turns to ashes in our mouths, and we discover that we have inherited our own West Bank in Mesopotamia, the White House will have to explain again why we went there.
In his speech from the deck of the Abraham Lincoln, President Bush told the nation, "With those attacks (of 9-11), the terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States. And war is what they got" – i.e., the invasion of Iraq was payback for the killers of Sept. 11.
But is this the truth? For this war on Iraq was not sold to the nation as retribution for 9-11. Indeed, the ties between Iraqi intelligence and the al-Qaida killers turned out to be bogus War Party propaganda.
We were told, rather, that Saddam had gas and germ weapons and was working on nuclear weapons. And once he had them, he would use them on us, or give them to Osama. "Do you want to wait for a nuclear 9-11?" Americans were asked.
Trusting the president, believing that he had information we did not, a majority of Americans approved of pre-emptive war. But where, now, are the thousands of artillery warheads and terror weapons the president and secretary of state told us Saddam had?
We have scoured Iraq for a month. No Scuds have been found. No chemical or biological weapons. No laboratories or production lines. No evidence that Iraq was building nukes or seeking fissile material.
"Every statement I make today is backed up by ... solid sources," Colin Powell told the United Nations. But since then, his case has crumbled. Were he a district attorney, Colin Powell would be under investigation today for prosecutorial incompetence or possible fraud. One British document he relied on turned out to be a 10-year-old term paper by a graduate student. The documents from Niger proving Iraq was seeking "yellowcake" for nuclear bombs turned out to be forgeries – and crude ones at that.
Who forged them? Why have we not been told? Does the secretary who put his integrity on the line not want to know?
If our occupation of Iraq turns sour and U.S. troops are being shot in the back, a year from now, Americans are going to demand to know. And President Bush could face the charge thrown up in the face of FDR by Clare Boothe Luce, that he "lied us into war."
Both the president and Powell are honorable men. If they misled us, surely it is because they themselves were misled. It is impossible to believe either man would deliberately state as fact what he knew to be false. But the president must find these weapons – or find the men who told him, with such certitude, that Iraq had them.
For there is something strange here. If Saddam had these weapons, why did he not surrender them to save himself? If he did not give them up because he intended to use them on us, why did he not use them on us? And if they were destroyed before the war, why did he not simply show us where, and thereby save himself, his family and his regime?
Last fall, Congress abdicated, surrendered its war-making power to a president who demanded that Congress yield it up. If Congress wishes to redeem itself, it should unearth the truth about why we went to war. Was the official explanation the truth, or was it political cover for an American imperial war?
So what's your cause?
No you obviously don't. Buchanan asked where the damn WMD is. That is certainly a fair question to ask considering it was indeed the cause bellum according to the administration.
You make an absolute FOOL of yourself with such a statement. Now you come off like a conspiracy nut. Why would anyone in the mainstream media want to hide the fact that they beleive Buchanan had the best speach at a Republican Convention?
Buchanan was and is an isolationist, anti semetic bigot! If that is your hero then the Republican party is better off without your ilk. Just as we do not need the David Dukes of the world.
It is libertarian fools like you that end up living in Idaho and Montana with your own constitution.
People like you scare me!
"I'm no big fan of Pat Buchanan . . .
--- Alberta's Child
I'm no libertarian, either.
Neither do we.
Just what trickled out in the news is some definite evidence:
What trickled out in the news isn't "definite" one way or the other.
Frankly, I'm patient enough to continue waiting for the government to catalog what they've discovered and publish a more "definite" official report.
But what has trickled out through the media seems pretty skimpy so far. Like most Americans, I was under the impression that we'd be discovering much larger quantities of WMD. Asking what happened to them is a valid question. Contrary to what the liberal Saddam apologists are saying, I'm convinced that he had 'em. I'm just concerned as to what happened to them. Are they in Syria? Have they already been shipped to the U.S. with illegal immigrants? Where are they?
I may be going out on a limb here but I'm guessing that you subscribe to The New American and believe that the Federal Reserve system is a dastardly scheme which the Jewish bankers of the New World Order thought up to control America.
I'm also guessing that you think 'Zionists' pose a greater threat to us Americans than militant Islamists.
How about it, am I right?
Boss, Boss! TPaine, TPaine!
I apoligize, you are probably a Clinton lover, and that being said, you still believe in Big Union Labor. Which is what helped screw up this country. Buchanan and Clinton are twqo birds of the same feather, they want the same thing. They just want to get there a different way, but the result is the same, A weak america.
Not really, no facts to discuss, just pat's opinions.
Mind you it's a rhetorical question since the mindset which you represent has a statistically-zero level of influence in society today.
But to satisfy my curiosity tell me what kind of a kook you are.
Are you: A paleo-con? A nihilistic anti-globalist? A neo-Confederate secessionist? Some combination of all three?
What?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.