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.
Absolutely! And keep that stone a-rollin'!
You assume he coudl nopt have garnered support if he didn't use WMD as a reason ? The polls don't support that but if your free to revise histroy to support your view then by all means be my guest. Go for it.
Rush's take was quite tongue-in-cheek, highlighting liberal naivete and opportunism that ultimately self-thwarts.
Regards.
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.