| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Bush obfuscations may sink him |
| 2004-02-12 |
| We have just witnessed a defining moment of this year’s American presidential election. Rather than helping George W. Bush, as the pundits have it, his hour-long televised interview last Sunday will haunt him, so laced was it with falsehoods and impregnated with questions. If you add his other recent pronouncements, and those of Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and others, it becomes clear that the administration has decided not to come clean on the invasion of Iraq. It is going to tough it out. That guarantees a continuation of the ever-shifting rationale on why about 16,000 Iraqis and 525 Americans are dead, so far. As self-defeating as the strategy may be for the Republicans, it will benefit the American body politic. The election can now be about what it should be: Bush’s integrity and judgment in waging a unilateral war on false premises, thereby squandering the most precious commodity of an American president abroad — legitimacy. The justification for the war has come down to intent — Saddam Hussein’s, as surmised by Bush. That, plus a series of suppositions. Saddam "could have developed a nuclear weapon over time," said Bush, in his Meet The Press interview. The dictator "had the capacity to make a weapon." In lockstep, George Tenet, director of the Central Intelligence Agency, intoned: Iraq had "intended to reconstitute its nuclear program." It had "intended to develop biological weapons." It had "the intent and the capability to convert civilian industry to chemical weapons production." The obfuscations are a far cry from the pre-war certitude about Iraqi weapons aimed right at America, and represents a retrenchment even from the recent assertions about Saddam’s "weapons programs," and his "weapons-related program activities." On the embarrassing reality that no weapons have been unearthed, the administration is offering two explanations: Rumsfeld: That weapons have not been found does not mean that they are not there. They could be found in a hole, just as Saddam was."They could have been destroyed during the war. Saddam and his henchmen could have destroyed them as we entered Iraq. They could have been hidden. They could have been transferred to another country." If the weapons were as lethal as Bush said they were, how could they have been destroyed safely and without leaving a trace? Bush has also backpedalled, in two subtle ways, on his pre-war charge that Iraq was linked to Osama bin Laden. He said Sunday Saddam could have let a lethal weapon "fall into the hands of a shadowy terrorist network." So, it’s not Al Qaeda any longer. Second, Bush twice cited Saddam’s "paying for suicide bombers," a reference to his practice of helping the family of Palestinian suicide bombers. But Iraq was not invaded in the name of punishing Saddam for aiding anti-Israeli terrorism but because his alleged terrorist links ostensibly threatened America. All these are clear markers for Americans to see how far their president has moved from what he told them before the war. Bush has done something even more useful. Until now, he had tended to blame flawed pre-war intelligence and not discuss his own faulty policy. But on Sunday, he owned up to the latter and expanded on the beliefs that drive his doctrine of pre-emptive wars. The post-9/11 world is a dangerous place, he said, and he, as "a war president," must whack the bad guys before they whack America. Saddam was "dangerous with weapons," "dangerous with the ability to make weapons," and was "a dangerous man in the dangerous part of the world." Hence the invasion. That skips over three details: Saddam was not linked to 9/11; he posed little or no danger to the U.S. and the decision to topple him had been made long before that day. Bush gave two more justifications for the war. "I don’t think America can stand by and hope for the best from a madman, and I believe it is essential that when we see a threat, we deal with those threats before they become imminent. It’s too late if they become imminent." That prompted this question by a letter writer to the editor of The New York Times: "Is there a country we couldn’t attack with this policy?" Bush also argued that "containment doesn’t work with a man who is a madman. Remember, he had used weapons against his own people." The same point was made by Rumsfeld to a meeting of NATO ministers last week. "Think about what was going on in Iraq a year ago with people being tortured, rape rooms, mass graves, gross corruption, a country that has used chemical weapons against its own people." But last year was not when Saddam’s cruelties were at their peak, as Human Rights Watch noted last week. It was in the 1980s when he used chemical weapons against Iraqi Kurds and Iranians. That was the time he was America’s ally. Rumsfeld himself visited him in Baghdad in 1983 as an envoy of Ronald Reagan and presented the dictator with a pair of golden spurs. Bush has written the script for the election campaign far better than the Democrats could ever have. |
| Posted by:Rob Perbowski |
| #36 Ever notice you never see any pictures of Bush and Hitler together? Oh, boy, Rob! Better jump on that one! Start Googling! |
| Posted by: tu3031 2004-2-12 10:18:31 PM |
| #35 The editorial is by Haroon Siddiqui from the |
| Posted by: john 2004-2-12 9:05:20 PM |
| #34 You know, this whole analysis of Saddam's position leading up to the war reminds me of the old joke, "There I was, sitting in the refrigerator, minding my own business..." |
| Posted by: Phil Fraering 2004-2-12 7:44:46 PM |
| #33 Note to Hyper: It's always the Bong. ;> |
| Posted by: Nuss Ratchet 2004-2-12 5:55:35 PM |
| #32 Who in the hell taught Bushitler to fly an F-102? Did he really catch on in 9 days? Jeeezzz... Why isn't the national press on this? I mean you can't learn to fly a supersonic jet in 9 dayz! Geee! It was like he had some sort of prior training or something. Hit the Bat! Dean-O Lives! |
| Posted by: AntiPasto 2004-2-12 5:53:24 PM |
| #31 Even more... Bush's pay records (that he released in regard to his time in the Air Nat'l Guard) show that he only worked 9 days between May 1972 and May 1974.... OH MY GOD!!! IT'S LIKE HE WAS IN THE NATIONAL GUARD OR SOMETHING!!! |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2004-2-12 5:35:34 PM |
| #30 Crazy Fool... trust me, you can't blame the bongs... |
| Posted by: Hyper 2004-2-12 5:28:51 PM |
| #29 BUT wait... The 9/11 investigation committee is considering a subpoena for Rice and even Bush--because they are withholding records that detail what they knew before that day. Even more... Bush's pay records (that he released in regard to his time in the Air Nat'l Guard) show that he only worked 9 days between May 1972 and May 1974.... |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2004-2-12 5:23:45 PM |
| #28 WMD were found, they were found in Libya who was farther along than anyone dreamed and who would not have turned over their WMD for inspections without the Iraqi war. And in the process the US removed a brutal dictator and stopped the death of 3,000 Iraqi's a month (according to Ramsey Clark). Any whining about US dead is pathetic. |
| Posted by: ruprecht 2004-2-12 5:12:48 PM |
| #27 "I love the smell of Napalm in the morning.... smells like... freedom!" The left looks at things though Isn't it strange where they make all these accusations but dont offer a shread of evidence? |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2004-2-12 4:00:45 PM |
| #26 Hmm… unemployed Weasel Clark employee(s) trolling today? *runs away from a mob of weasels insulted at being compared to Clark* |
| Posted by: Korora 2004-2-12 3:32:09 PM |
| #25 Hey B -- right you are! I call myself "closet-neo-con" because if I "came out" I would likely lose my job (as an untenured professor). The so-called liberals are now so illiberal it isn't even funny, while the so-called conservatives (at least neo-cons) are the greatest (only?) force for true liberalism (=liberty) in the world. |
| Posted by: closet neo-con 2004-2-12 1:27:17 PM |
| #24 Typical Tri-L opinions, under-researched, light on facts and heavy on cathcy phrases. Maybe if actual logic was phrased in rhymes they might see the simple truths. I suggest we all adopt the style of Dr. Seuss or use limericks to better communicate. |
| Posted by: Brainiac 2004-2-12 12:52:20 PM |
| #23 #3 Borris, Please explain to me if the two people quoted here have anything to do with the current administration. "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program. - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face. - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998 No? Then the lies, if they are lies, were fabricated by your LLL leaders. |
| Posted by: GK 2004-2-12 12:39:54 PM |
| #22 Borris: I initially agreed with this war, I think that's pure 100% bullshit. You always were anti-Bush, admit it. After 9/11, if you supported Bush going into Iraq, then it wasn't solely on the basis of the WMD. You would have understood the bigger picture involving the WoT, something leftists just can't fathom. I too supported Bush on this war, I too feel he or his administration have no clue how to handle post-war Iraq, I too feel they screwed up on the WMD issue before the war, they have already lost a good ally (Poland)... yet I still haven't given up supporting Bush and will never say that this war for nothing. Borris: however after hearing that all the reasons for going to war were lies Not all the reasons were lies. If you think WMD were all the reasons then you don't know the other 95% of the story. |
| Posted by: Rafael 2004-2-12 12:32:38 PM |
| #21 Anyone order Troll for breakfast? You catch 'im, CS, and I'll fry him. I still have that recipe for napalm in the filing cabinet... |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2004-2-12 12:23:15 PM |
| #20 ...resort to the power of imagination. or drugs. |
| Posted by: Rafael 2004-2-12 12:17:34 PM |
| #19 Zhang Fei, your problem is that you have a long memory. Can't you just forget about facts for awhile. It's the seriousness of the charge that matters. Boris, what was that treaty saddam signed for? |
| Posted by: Lucky 2004-2-12 12:14:11 PM |
| #18 Crux: I think Rumy went to Iraq to ask the murderer Sadaam "what the heck is taking soo long in killing the kurds, aren't the chemical weapons we've given you to use working effectivly!?" You mean like FDR went to Yalta to tell Stalin to kill more Soviet dissidents and Nixon went to Beijing to tell Mao to starve more Chinese peasants? The thing with the left is that when the facts do not cooperate with their thesis, they just make them up. Out of thin air. When mere lies will not do, resort to the power of imagination. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2004-2-12 11:53:12 AM |
| #17 I just want to know if the troll uses special 3-D glasses in order to get such a twisted view of reality or is he just sniffing gas fumes again. |
| Posted by: 98Zulu 2004-2-12 11:49:28 AM |
| #16 I think Rumy went to Iraq to ask the murderer Sadaam "what the heck is taking soo long in killing the kurds, aren't the chemical weapons we've given you to use working effectivly!?" |
| Posted by: Crux 2004-2-12 11:42:29 AM |
| #15 Rob Perbowski: It was in the 1980s when he used chemical weapons against Iraqi Kurds and Iranians. That was the time he was America’s ally. Why does the left lie so effortlessly? It was in the early '80's that Rumsfeld met with Saddam -while the Communist countries (and France) were selling tanks, ships and artillery to Iraq - and the late '80's when Saddam used his chemical weapons against Iran, and then the Kurds. Meeting with a dictator and presenting goodwill gifts is not the same as being responsible for his actions. Why does the left persist in its accusation that merely meeting Saddam made the US complicit in his actions? Because it's part and parcel of their traitorous Communist and totalitarian ideology - arms sales by foreign countries to Iraq are acceptable, whereas mere diplomatic openings on the part of the US with Iraq are proof of American evil. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2004-2-12 11:35:39 AM |
| #14 I think the love has come far more from the right. As the article say's Rumsfeld himself went to meet the dictator/murderer Saddam himself. Rumsfeld only met with Saddam as part of an effort to restore diplomatic relations with Iraq (which had been on ice for over a decade) - the Communist countries (and France) not only had long-standing diplomatic relations with Iraq, they sold major weapons systems to him, including ships, planes and nuclear reactors. Why did the US restore diplomatic relations with Iraq? Because it was a useful ally* in the effort against Iranian expansion in the Middle East. (Similarly, Nixon initiated diplomatic relations with Mao-ruled Communist China because he felt the China Card would be useful in any future confrontation with the Soviet Union. Interestingly enough, as with Iraq, the US was probably one of the last major countries in the world to establish diplomatic relations with Communist China - most of Europe had already acknowledged Communist sovereignty over the Chinese mainland - Europe understands that to trade with mass murderers is not an indication of moral support for their atrocities). * An ally is simply a nation with which we have common interests for a period of time. Allies are not our friends for eternity - in fact, they will do things that are against our interests - and principles - from time to time. And we are certainly not our allies' keeper - what they do outside of the parameters of the alliance is none of our business. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2004-2-12 10:22:33 AM |
| #13 The messge is getting out! Big visibility events this Saturday. Ivanho you got your house party set up yet? Hit the bat Deano! If anyone see's Nuss Ratchett tell her I'll be back before Jeapordy for Slow Folks is on. |
| Posted by: Sir Walter Ridley Scott 2004-2-12 10:17:08 AM |
| #12 Thanks Rob/Boris for making my prediction come true. No CS I wanted Grapefruit;they're sweeter. |
| Posted by: GK 2004-2-12 10:16:19 AM |
| #11 after hearing that all the reasons for going to war were lies Saddam didn't operate a police state? Saddam wasn't pursuing WMD? You have very odd definitions of both "all" and "lies", but considering you're a fascist-loving troll, I'm not surprised. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2004-2-12 10:14:17 AM |
| #10 lyot, well aren't you? |
| Posted by: Damn_Proud_American 2004-2-12 10:07:24 AM |
| #9 Boris, you said "dying in a war which was not needed"... which means you get off on there being 25 million slaves to a ruthless, psycopathic autocrat. It's as simple as that. |
| Posted by: Damn_Proud_American 2004-2-12 10:04:35 AM |
| #8 great article.. No doubt I will now be stigmatised as a leftist dictator lover.. sigh |
| Posted by: lyot 2004-2-12 10:03:28 AM |
| #7 D_P_A, I don't consider myself a leftist. I initially agreed with this war, however after hearing that all the reasons for going to war were lies, the current administration should be ashamed. |
| Posted by: Borris Ivanho 2004-2-12 10:00:56 AM |
| #6 DPA - the far left of today has become the far right of our parents generation. They are bigoted and intolerant. They proudly proclaim they can't stand all Republicans, Rednecks and Religious people regardless (over 1/2 of America) just like the far right used to hate all blacks and jews and immigrants). They feel justified in being rude to them ...because they believe them to be inferior. Instead of supporting free speech, they favor squelching it with PC codes, just like the right use to try to do with heresey accusations. And they openly mock any of their compatriots who attempt to be more open minded - just like the right used to do with comments like "jew lover or N***** lover. They demand perfection of others that they don't demand of themselves - just like the far right used to do when they noted the sins of non-believers but hypocritically failed to acknowledge the adultery, greed and unkindess of their own parish. The list goes on and on. The hate is the same; all that has changed over time is the focus of the hate. They grew up and became their parents. |
| Posted by: B 2004-2-12 9:58:09 AM |
| #5 Anyone order Troll for breakfast? |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2004-2-12 9:51:58 AM |
| #4 Boris, you obviously get off on seeing 25 million people enslaved to a ruthless dictator. I expect no less from a leftist. |
| Posted by: Damn_Proud_American 2004-2-12 9:50:24 AM |
| #3 I think the love has come far more from the right. As the article say's Rumsfeld himself went to meet the dictator/murderer Saddam himself. This isn't about leftist loving terrorists/dictators, its about 525 of our service men/women dying in a war which was not needed. The premis our country went to war on was fabricated by the current administration. |
| Posted by: Borris Ivanho 2004-2-12 9:45:58 AM |
| #2 Troll Alert! The link to Star doesn't work. So methinks Cybil is back with another persona. But ya gotta love this troll. He can write is own stuff including complete sentences, correct spelling, punctuation, etc. Next, he'll probably start adding provocative comments to his own post. |
| Posted by: GK 2004-2-12 9:41:49 AM |
| #1 Why do people on the left love terrorists and dictators so much? Do you remember the days when leftists were progressive and wanted freedom for the world.... ahhh how things have changed. |
| Posted by: Damn_Proud_American 2004-2-12 9:33:51 AM |