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?
ROFL !!!
LOL. In an era of talking heads, talk radio, and other elements of "the chattering class," this advice is sure to fall on deaf ears.
Pat's always had one major problem -- the same problem that Rush Limbaugh has to a much lesser extent. These people are at their best when they are functioning as members of the unofficial opposition. The heyday of Limbaugh's radio show, and the best columns that Buchanan has ever written, date back to those 1992-94 days when the forces of the political world were arrayed against conservatives.
Now it is 2003. Limbaugh's show has lost a little flavor because he doesn't have as much to satirize about, and Buchanan is left criticizing an administration that has been, by and large, a pretty good one by most conservative standards.
LOL!
Amenhotep IV ruled at the height of Egypt's empire. He is remembered for combining the hundreds of deities worshipped in ancient Egypt into one overarching deity -- Aton Ra, a sun deity. Amenhotep then changed his own name to "Akhenaton" -- or servant of Aton. His radical change in religion was a direct challenge to the priestly caste. Priests were chosen by status at birth, and were guaranteed incredible power as the spokesmen (and women) of the gods. When Akhenaton declared Aton-Ra as the supreme god, he also declared that he himself was the sole spokesman of Aton-Ra. The priests suddenly found themselves out of favor, out of power, and effectively out of a job. They were not happy. Akhenaton, on the other hand, had effectively consolidated his power. The centralization of power, combined with a weakening of the age-old superstition, produced a boom in art and creativity known as Amarna Art. LINK
I for one would be disappointed if no WMD were found as this was stated as the primary reason for going to war; however, I don't believe this will be the case.
Nah, when I was 14, I wanted to be an egyptologist. Ahkenaten was a fascinating fellow. Considered to be one of if not the first important monotheists.
Ahkenaten had a big old paunchy belly, and he insisted that his busts be realistic. This was another thing that ticked off the priest and royal class.
To keep it on topic... Pat Buchanan is a weenie *grin*
While I disagree with your premise, I'll give it a shot.
Patsie:"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?"
This 'analysis' by Pat shows an alarming naiveté towards knowledge of Hussein and his history. Of course, I'm quite sure that Pat has no knowledge of any history, as he has quite adequately demonstrated in this column.
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.