10/07/2004

U.S. 'Almost All Wrong' on WMD

Washington Post: Report on Iraq Contradicts Bush Administration Claims

The 1991 Persian Gulf War and subsequent U.N. inspections destroyed Iraq's illicit weapons capability and, for the most part, Saddam Hussein did not try to rebuild it, according to an extensive report by the chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq that contradicts nearly every prewar assertion made by top administration officials about Iraq.

My fellow New Patriots. If you're like me, you protested this war. You questioned the motives, you questioned the flimsy evidence, you condemned the Bush Doctrine. You withstood scorn from those ignorant frothing "patriots" eager to kill those towelheads and silence dissent. You were deeply saddened at this pivotal downturn in America's history.

As we hastened to war, ill-equipped and unprepared for the long-term outcomes, Howard Zinn spoke these words:

This is a shameful moment in our history, attacking a nation that has not attacked us or anyone else. Many around the world feel President Bush is a greater threat to peace than Saddam Hussein. We want revenge for terrorism, but WAR IS TERRORISM. We are going to devastate the people of Iraq, that is certain. Morally you can't go along with this... people in our armed forces will die because Bush has grandiose ambitions for power in the world -- for oil, for the U.S. desire to expand its power -- those are not good reasons to die.

The invasion of Iraq has come at a devastating cost: A moral, human, and financial cost we and our children must bear for years to come. All because of this Bush Administration's reprehensible and unforgivable deception.

Yes, Iraq will have some sort of bittersweet election, in whatever parts of the country are safe. It's our duty now to help see those elections through and return the country to the Iraqi people. I say bittersweet, because by many other measures (like, say, whether your family is alive) Iraq is worse off. The American people would not have endorsed putting our troops in harm's way, for an unspecified length of time at enormous cost, so that we could plunge Iraq into chaos and make us less safe. We went because this Bush Administration gripped us tight in its fist, whispering propaganda through clenched teeth... "9/11... Nuclear clouds.... smoking gun... too late."

The Bush Administration has no more teeth. Its fist can no longer stifle liquid truth. The neocon empire is crumbling from within. Friends, the tide has turned. Under John Kerry, we'll remain strong and watchful, but we'll hear the chime of words too long forgotten upon our weary ears: Diplomacy, cooperation, hope.

Peace.

2 Comments:

At 11:00 AM, Blogger Rainey said...

Well said!!!!

I was at those rallies too. I saw the demographic that crossed lines of social, economic, race and age status. The Bush admin pursued this war knowing full-well what the attitude about the war was at the time. And they did it making promises that they couldn't keep. This is a cartoon but it reminds us what they told us they were doing using their own statements: http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=17813

It's my opinion that a good number of the people who are now in the Bush camp are suffering from shame, shock and denial. We need to make them think about the fact that they have an opportunity NOT to continue to support the source of their humiliation. It's time for them to invest themselves in a new opportunity instead of denial.

 
At 6:31 PM, Blogger Chuck Olsen said...

[thanks!]

Here's the latest from Andrew Sullivan:

THE UNDERLYING FACT: I have to say I have been enjoying and learning from this campaign in many ways - not least from you, the readers, and from the twists and turns we have seen and will keep seeing. But now and again, it's worth looking at the big picture. The fundamental question in this campaign is the war in Iraq. Was it worth starting? Has it been conducted well? Will it make us safer? My answers to those three questions are, briefly, yes, no, and, it depends. But from a broader perspective, the following facts are simply indisputable. The fundamental rationale for the war - the threat from Saddam's existing stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction - was wrong. Period. In the conduct of the war, it is equally indisputable that the administration simply didn't anticipate the insurgency we now face, and because of that, is struggling to rescue the effort from becoming a dangerous mess. Period. So the question becomes: how can an administration be re-elected after so patently misjudging the two most important aspects of the central issue in front of us? It may end up as simple as that. Maybe, in fact, it should end up as simple as that.

A SIMPLE QUESTION: Returning to Bremer. One of his early complaints was insufficient troop numbers to stop looting, restore order and protect unguarded weapon sites. Leave everything aside and focus on the latter. The war was launched because we feared Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. The main fear was that these weapons might be transferred to terrorists who could use them against us. And yet in the invasion, there was little or no effort to secure these sites! And there was no effort to seal the borders to prevent their being exported, or purloined by terrorists. Why? I've long pondered this, but Bremer's gaffe brings it back into focus. Why would you launch a war that failed in its very planning to avoid the disaster that you went to war to prevent? I don't understand. We were lucky in retrospect that Saddam didn't have any WMDs. The way this war has been run, it would have actually increased the chances of such weapons getting to America via terrorists rather than reduced them. At least, that seems to me to be the logical inference.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home