Posted on 06/04/2003 7:13:05 AM PDT by Egregious Philbin
Posted on Sun, May. 25, 2003
The Point | U.S. has gained little if Bush lied about reason for war By Mark Bowden For The Inquirer
It has been two months since the United States and Britain went to war against Saddam Hussein, and coalition forces have yet to discover convincing evidence of the weapons programs that President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair said were its primary cause.
Some of those who supported the war beforehand did so solely on the basis of ending tyranny. The mass graves found throughout Iraq, and widespread stories of torture and atrocity, come as no surprise to those who had studied or endured the Baathist dictator's regime. Those who opposed the war for any reason ought to be doing some soul-searching about the kind of horrors they were prepared to leave in place.
But it is true that Hussein represented only one of many thuggish regimes, and that the United States is not about to go to war against them all. I supported this war because I believed Bush and Blair when they said Iraq was manufacturing and stockpiling weapons of mass destruction. Such weapons in the hands of al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations that shared Hussein's hostile designs made such a threat a defense priority - or so the argument went.
Early this month, the U.S. military announced that it had found three mobile laboratories that were most likely designed to manufacture chemical or biological weapons, the types of labs that Secretary of State Colin L. Powell referred to in making his argument for war before the U.N. Security Council. The discoveries were suggestive but hardly convincing evidence of the specific, tangible threat repeatedly outlined by the President. With the authors of Iraq's illicit-weapons program now in custody, we should expect to see soon, or to have seen already, the facilities and stockpiles we and most of the rest of the world believed Hussein possessed.
They may yet be found, but it is beginning to look as though the skeptics in this case were right. If so, I was taken in by this administration, and America and Great Britain were led to war under false pretenses.
Events have moved so swiftly, and Hussein's toppling has posed so many new pressing problems, that it would be easy to lose sight of this issue, but it is critically important. I can imagine no greater breach of public trust than to mislead a country into war. A strong case might have been made to go after Hussein just because he posed a potential threat to us and the region, because of his support for suicide bombers, and because of his ruthless oppression of his own people. But this is not the case our President chose to make.
Truth in public life has always been a slippery commodity. We expect campaigning politicians or debating journalists to pitch and spin. Facts are marshaled to support arguments and causes; convenient ones are trumpeted and inconvenient ones played down or ignored. This is the political game.
But when the President of the United States addresses the nation and the world, I expect the spinning to stop. He represents not just a party or a cause, but the American people. When President Bush argued that Hussein possessed stockpiles of illicit and deadly poisons, he was presumably doing so on the basis of intelligence briefings and evidence that the public could not see. He was asking us to trust him, to trust his office, to trust that he was acting legitimately in our self-defense. That's something very different from engaging in a bold policy of attempting to remake the Middle East, or undertaking a humanitarian mission to end oppression. Neither of these two justifications would have been likely to garner widespread public support. But national defense? That's an argument the President can always win.
I trusted Bush, and unless something big develops on the weapons front in Iraq soon, it appears as though I was fooled by him. Perhaps he himself was taken in by his intelligence and military advisers. If so, he ought to be angry as hell, because ultimately he bears the responsibility.
It suggests a strain of zealotry in this White House that regards the question of war as just another political debate. It isn't. More than 100 fine Americans were killed in this conflict, dozens of British soldiers, and many thousands of Iraqis. Nobody gets killed or maimed in Capitol Hill maneuvers over spending plans, or battles over federal court appointments. War is a special case. It is the most serious step a nation can take, and it deserves the highest measure of seriousness and integrity.
When a president lies or exaggerates in making an argument for war, when he spins the facts to sell his case, he betrays his public trust, and he diminishes the credibility of his office and our country. We are at war. What we lost in this may yet end up being far more important than what we gained.
1. Bush did not lie. Iraq had WMD. Whether they successfully hid and/or sold them, time will tell. If Bush lied, then the whole world lied.
2. Saddam Hussein harbored and supported terrorism. That was another reason we went to war. The capture of the Achille Lauro mastermind is conclusive proof of that. In addition, some people consider suicidal terrorism a form of WMD.
3. Democrat politicans have lied to the people for decades. Look at how successful some of them are. Why no discussion about that?
At this point, I have seen absolutely no evidence that he has lied, and I seriously doubt there is such evidence. Of all the possible explanations that will exists (hundreds?) for what we do or dont find (it could take years),only one will be "the President lied".... of course, I know which one the Bush Haters will latch on too...
Sure they do, depends on what you consider immediate. How long would it take an empty mobile lab to be fired up again and produce quantities of a substance neccessary to kill several thousand people? One month? One year? Two, three years? Immediate enough for me. How long does it take to get those missle parts put together to deliver the stuff. One month? A year? Immediate enough for me.
Yet, no one cares about this:
Excerpted...Long: http://www.iraqwatch.org/perspectives/cfsp-00-f-6.htm
NIX TO BLIX: MAN WHO CERTIFIED IRAQ AS NON-NUCLEAR IS UNLIKELY TO FIND -- OR EVEN TO SEEK -- SADDAM'S HIDDEN WEAPONS
Security Council's Choice is Sure Sign of End of 'Containment' Center for Security Policy SECURITY FORUM No. 00-F 6 27 January 2000
...The second has been the failure to implement Congress's Iraq Liberation Act - which was supposed to fund the overthrow of the dictator by native opposition groups. President Bill Clinton signed the 1998 act which was supposed to invest $97 million in this project. Apparently only $20,000 has been disbursed to the opposition groups - enough to buy some basic office supplies. The London office of the Iraqi National Congress, the main democratic opposition group, shut down at the end of last year. All this dithering and incompetence has enabled Saddam to replace his bombast after the Gulf War with a credible claim to have rolled back allied achievements then.
Where did that money go?
We're still looking for wmd. Have we looked at these 3 ships?
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.