Posted on 06/06/2003 9:19:23 AM PDT by F_Cohen
If Bush Was Going To Lie, Why Would He Lie About WMD?
By Lowell Phillips
Weekender June 08
Toogood Reports
Call it a failing of mine, but I have this problem with things that just don't make sense. And, sorry, the bubbling hysteria over pre-Iraq War intelligence is replete with things that just don't make sense. None of the inconsistencies, however, have any impact on those who are positively breathless to believe the worst about President Bush and the rest of the administration.
Pick up a newspaper, turn on a news broadcast, or listen to the callers on talk radio and there it is. But the screaming illogic of charging the White House with intentionally falsifying intelligence to justify an invasion is being drowned out by the hypnotic chant, "No Weapons. Bush Lied", "No Weapons. Bush Lied."
Sure it's maddening, but also fascinating that so many want something so desperately to be true. The political left is giddy at the prospect. Indeed, they have not been this hopeful since body bags were returning from Vietnam en masse.
Though the speed of the victory spoiled their groovy retro-60s protests, there is yet a chance at happiness. And if the cost is merely the paralysis of our intelligence agencies, the premature end to the war on terror, perpetual vulnerability for the American people, and the destruction of the most effective foreign policy president in a generation, so be it. Then again, national security and the international stature of the United States have never been priorities for the left.
Certainly it is possible that this inarticulate Texas dunce orchestrated a wicked scheme to trick the country and the world into war, but how might this be reconciled with the woefully limited intellectual capabilities that his opponents insist he has? Maybe that's just what he "wants us to think". And what would a good conspiracy theory be without an assumption like that?
There is also the possibility that poor President Bush was an unwitting pawn for those nefarious "neo-cons" that we have heard so much about? But if this were the case, he would not be a liar, now would he?
Whatever part Bush played, evil genius or dupe, some farfetched assumptions are necessary, which clear thinkers have pointed out. And even then there are a few significant, though unanswered questions.
To believe that the Bush administration intentionally deceived the country to facilitate war, we must believe that it was working in concert with the Clinton administration, which used much of the same intelligence to justify air strikes back in 1998. We have to believe that Clinton himself was deeply involved in the stratagem, due to his persistent warnings about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. The same can be said for leading Democrats in congress that helped make "regime change" in Iraq the official policy of the U.S. government during that time.
We must believe that countries like Germany, France and Russia, whose intelligence services supported American conclusions, were likewise in on it. Not to mention the United Nations, whose point man, Hans Blix, agreed up to the eve of war that Hussein's regime was not cooperating with inspections.
We have to accept that after going to so much trouble to obstruct and drive out weapons inspectors in 1998, that Saddam then unilaterally destroyed the weapons he admitted to having, and decided to keep it a secret, depriving his government of billions in oil revenue. And we must believe that this wily "survivor" decided to convince the world of his innocence and dissuade the coalition massed on his southern border by threatening to use weapons that he supposedly destroyed.
Maybe I'm nitpicking here, but if one is trying to prove that they haven't got a gun, I don't think they would yell, "Take one more step and I'll shoot!"
It is one hell of a leap to assume so much. But then there's that chant, "No Weapons. Bush Lied", "No Weapons. Bush Lied." It makes anything easy to swallow.
Ok, let's say that it was all Bush's doing, that it really was a "war for oil", or a Bush family vendetta. Why falsify intelligence about weapons of mass destruction?
It was inevitable that people would want to see the weapons. Are we to believe that the White House set up a situation where they were certain to be exposed? After going to all the trouble to manufacture intelligence, why not supply the weapons in a location convenient for the media's cameras?
No matter how concrete the WMD evidence appeared prior to the invasion, opponents complained that going after Saddam had nothing whatsoever to do with the war on terror. They argued that this was a "distraction". Democrat competitors for Bush's job have also charged him with diverting military assets away from the war to needlessly target Saddam.
Moreover, the WMD angle obligated the administration to seek the approval of the U.N., at least initially, and provided detractors the opportunity to cultivate a "give the inspectors more time" sentiment in the American public.
If Bush wanted war, and was prepared to "lie" to get it, why not cut out the U.N. middleman, and go with the sure thing with American voters?
However pleasing it was to have the support of the British and others for the Iraq invasion, we didn't need them.
For all but the most willful doubters, the support for terrorism by the Hussein regime was clear, but the evidence provided didn't make it appear massive.
Bush could have garnered overwhelming support from the public, left no room for Democrats and the rest of the anti-war movement to cry "distraction", and alleviate the need for U.N. approval from the outset by "exaggerating," "distorting", or simply lying about the terrorist presence in Iraq.
Or perhaps the administration decided on a conspiracy, with all the dangers involved, but still was considerate enough to be sporting and give the opposition a fighting chance to stop the war they so desperately wanted. Is that it?
I have no doubt that these questions will be shrugged off by the legions of Bush-haters as easily as all the others. But should they, if even for a moment, begin to see the absurdity of their accusations, they can resort to that comforting chant and convince themselves of the presidents's fiendishness, that appeasement works, and that liberal paradise awaits.
Nonsense! Teddy had little patience for nation-building and "spreading democracy." Now....he took the Panama canal but, for the most part, his administration was a model of restraint in foreign policy compared to Wilson (who like modern pro-conservatives) who wanted to "liberate" and "uplift" every God-forsaken corner of the planet.
Please leave this comparative "they all do it" crap argument in the toilet where it belongs.
For me, as I believe for most like minded people, it had nothing to do with who was in charge and everything to do with 9-11 and the fact terrorists made the war come home.
Up until 9-11 there was no political support fro conservtives to go into Iraq.
So, please wipe your feet and leave your revisionist history at the other sites where it belongs.
From Stephan Ambrose's book, TO AMERICA
In my interviews with World War II veterans, they sometimes tell me that the reason they fought was that they had learned as children the difference between right and wrong and they didn't want to live in a world in which wrong prevailed, so they fought. Right there, I think, one hears the voice of Theodore Roosevelt ringing in the words of soldiers born after his death. It seems to me that perhaps our greatest strength is that American kids are brought up to know right from wrong. And of all our Presidents, the one who used the words "right" and "wrong" more than any other, who did the most to exalt right-doing, was Theodore Roosevelt.
The Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine
I agree with a previous post that conservatives' perspective changed on 9/11. Prior to 9/11, few conservatives were urging action against Saddam. The War on Terror made that action imperative, in Bush's strategy on the war. Many of us (most, likely) support and back up Bush on this. The fact that we can use US muscle to "put an end to chronic unrest and wrongdoing" as Bush is attempting to do in the Middle East doesn't mean we push our way around in every little hell-hole in the world, but that we pick our fights carefully, and intervene where it is consistent with our overall goals in the War on Terror. I think most Americans, and overwhelmingly most conservatives, do not accept pacifism in this War.
Perhaps, but you made the assertion that TR's administration was "a model of restraint in foreign policy". Nothing in that declaration is "restrained".
Hardly a shift. Bush gave numerous speeches preceeding any action on the war on terrorism and how that changed the dynamics. You must of missed it. It was carried live and in all the papers. Maybe you were out of the country at the time.
Later, when it became apparent that it was Iraq's turn to come clean the administration listed a number of benefits that would come from going into Iraq. These included liberating Iraq, regime change and WMD.
I know its hard for anti-bushies to hold more than one thought in their heads at one time and all but even us common conservatives can se that Bush presented a logical progression in his argument to remove Saddam by force.
Bush and his spokespeople already said this.
one add on. If Bush made this clear this wouldn't stop the press and critics at all. They would just change gears to Bush doing all this in secret and what does he have to hide.
I should have said everyone on FR. But the proof works both ways. It was obvious Bush didn't change his plan either for his critics that wanted the war now or the critics that wanted him to put it off for ever. He had his preplanned time line, he never sought to justify it to anyone and he implemented it on his time frame.
Watching that prior scenario, (which an observor coudl see that he has employed on almost every issue) it should be apparent that one should not assume that the search isn't on a similar path. The timing of which is one of Bush's choosing.
You haven't been paying attention then. All along, President Bush has listed liberation of Iraq, support of terrorism, and WMD as reasons for regime change in Iraq.
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.