One More Time on Iraq War: The Fix Was In

CNN: Bush asked to explain UK war memo. Eighty-nine Democratic members of the U.S. Congress last week sent President George W. Bush a letter asking for explanation of a secret British memo that said "intelligence and facts were being fixed" to support the Iraq war in mid-2002.

This request will probably be ignored or dismissed as "old news" by the administration. But so what?

Who can possibly doubt anymore that the Bush administration decided to launch the Iraq war long, long before it made the official "decision" in 2003? This was obvious even before the war started.

So when the Democrats -- whose spines remain missing in action -- profess to be shocked, shocked by this memo, they're either liars or fools. Or both.

(Speaking of feckless, the U.S. mass media are finally waking up to this memo, almost two weeks after it appeared in the British press. About time...)

Comments

[gp]

The left will never get over the fact that as the boomers reached their pinnacle of influence and financial power, the U.S. still was able to go to war for all the correct, old-fashioned reasons, and get it ratified by the voters in November 2004.

[Jim M]

I don't consider going to war based on lies to be correct or old-fashioned, although admittedly this may be traditional among some folk. But then I'm not a Republican.

[Owen]

I suspect "gp" fancies there is some logical thread in his posting, but it eludes me. I take it he is proud that a sitting president ignore the facts, took us to war based on personal desires and politics, lied about it, mismanaged the results, muzzled internal dissent and still intimidated or bamboozled the press and populace to be reelected. Only a con man could admire this.

Like Jim, the connection between this sad history and traditional conservative American values - you know, leftist foolishness like truth, reason, fairness and openness -- is a little difficult to accept. Isn't this the same group that savaged the Clinton administration for lying about a blowjob? I guess screwing the American people on a grander scale is acceptable.

The next spin is probably along the lines of "we aren't accountable for what you didn't find out about until after the fact"...an interesting legal position for the law-and-order advocates to take.

[Scote]

"This request will probably be ignored or dismissed as "old news" by the administration."

I love this spin tactic, the one where the press secretary says these allegations are old, or that the president's views are "well known on this issue," or that we need to "move on."

I'd like to see these spin tactics tried in a criminal court. "Your honor, these allegations are 'old news' and we need to move on so the healing can begin." One would hope such attempts would go nowhere in court, and they should get equal derision when applied to political malfeasance as well.

Increasingly, it looks like the Bush Administration is one of the most corrupt and power drunk administrations in US history. From intentionally lying about the reasons and timing of going to war to charging tax payers for Bushes partisan--only shills welcome--60 day road trip to sell the beginning of the dismantling of Social Security, this Administration is ripe for the kind of political expose that brought down Nixon. The only problem is that we already have a Watergate's worth of evidence and nothing is happening.

[pg]

"I suspect "gp" fancies there is some logical thread in his posting"

No he doesn't. He's quite aware it contains not a single shred of actual content. He's also aware that the average American today is far more easily swayed by name calling and emotional outbursts than by facts.

I'd say he's acutely aware that your average Joe is poorly educated and woefully underinformed. It seems certain he counts on the fact that upon seeing a post such as his and not getting it, Joe will not think "what an idiot" but in his ignorance will accept the empty statements therein as facts, and absorb and repeat them as such.

You didn't think the domain part of his email address was an accident, did you?

[Alex Krupp]

pq: you are right, that qp guy is a total idiot. I'm glad we have people like you on this site though who can see through his lies and manipulations ;)

[Dan Gillmor]

Folks, personal attacks are not what we do here...

[Owen]

Dan...am I correct in assuming you mean personal attacks on other bloggers' intelligence and character, as opposed to presenting negative reflections on the behaviors and decisions -- yea, and paternity -- of the public figures of all stripes upon which we so joyously pounce?

[Alex Krupp]

Dan: If you were referring to me then I was just kidding, on account of the fact that pq and gp are the same guy.

[gp]

A significant number of us believed that, post-9/11, the U.S. needed to begin to restructure the Arab world. This violated modern strictures on American foreign policy, as articulated in the Lennon/Ono and the Star Trek doctrines. But Iraq was a good place to start.

Certain elements of the opinion elite were horrified to find that they could not stop the war, nor prevent the reelection of the architect of it.

Having framed the problem for so many commentators to my post, I dare you to try to address it. It might do you some good.

Now that everything you have been taught and worked for most of your lives has gone down the drain, it is a good time to reflect on why your ideas are constantly rejected.

P.S. I have not posted here under any other names and have no need to do so.

[Alex Krupp]

gp: "Having framed the problem for so many commentators to my post, I dare you to try to address it. It might do you some good.

Now that everything you have been taught and worked for most of your lives has gone down the drain, it is a good time to reflect on why your ideas are constantly rejected."

These two paragraphs don't make any sense to me. What are you saying exactly?

[Scote]

"These two paragraphs don't make any sense to me. What are you saying exactly?"

Alex,
Did you read about the students who made a program to create non-sensical scientific papers for submission to conferences? I wonder if someone has made a similar program that posts to blogs. Hmm....[strokes goatee between thumb and forefinger while pondering.]

[Al]

Bush said from day one that he was going at the root of terrorism. And don't say that Iraq wasn't involved. Many of you are in such a hatred mode that you will seemingly never see the big picture. The big picture is to reshape the mideast - so things like the Israeli-Palestinian can be, at least, addressed. As we know now, the kleptocrats in the UN were taking money from Sadaam. How many other dictators are paying off the Europeans?? Still today? I'll bet our government knew about the bribes.

And it's painfully obvious that the dictators of the mideast keep the Israeli-Palestinian conflict going so as to keep the heat off themselves.

Bush has shown true leadership in trying to reshape things. We have caused many good effects: free elections in Iraq, Egypt calling for elections, Syrians out of Lebanon, the Saudis going after terrorists, real pressure on the Iranians, Lybia stopping their nuke program, exposing the kleptocrats at the corrupt and ineffective UN, etc. When all is said and done, if we are successful, the war will be viewed as a small event with ginormous positive implications. You guys hate Bush so much that you don't care about solving the problems. And don't say "diplomacy" alone will work. There are too many people who have a vested interested in maintaing the status quo in the mideast - which means oppression, hatred and keeping everyone poor. With what we are doing, hopefully in 10 years we'll start seeing products labeled "Made in Syria". Get out of the hate mode, it's silly and ineffective.

[moi]

Misconception #1: "Bush said from day one that he was going at the root of terrorism." Terrorism doesn't have a single root. It's the response of the powerless but committed to oppression -- ankle-biting of a very effective kind.

Misconception #2: "And don't say that Iraq wasn't involved." Iraq wasn't involved. Read the
memo.

Misconception #3: "The big picture is to reshape the mideast." Not only is this not the US's business, it's illegal -- an international war crime. These are sovereign countries we're talking about, not US possessions. What are you thinking?

I could go on, but what's the point? To express what you have in your post, Al, is astounding it what it reveals -- ill-educated and unthinking fascism. To see "products labeled 'Made in Syria'" in 10 years is supposed to be a justification for interference in the affairs of other countries? Have you learned nothing from the past century of history? I'm disgusted.

[Alex Krupp]

Scote: I was actually thinking that when I posted but I didn't want to be a *complete* asshole. But I'm glad you said it because it would have been a waste of a perfectly good joke otherwise.

[Ran Talbott]

"I'd like to see these spin tactics tried in a criminal court."

It does happen, even "legitimately": we have statutes of limitations that are based, in part, on an assumption that someone who has "mended his ways" shouldn't be penalized now for something that he did "a long time ago". And we have sentencing hearings in which convicted criminals can argue that they've "reformed" after more-recent bad acts.

"The only problem is that we already have a Watergate's worth of evidence and nothing is happening."

There are differences: Watergate involved some "conventional" crimes, and a cover-up conspiracy that went right into the Oval Office. If it had just been campaign finance shenanigans and "dirty tricks", Nixon might've survived.

Today's corruption is less clear-cut: the "revolving door" and the K Street Project aren't as straightforward as slipping the mayor five grand for rigging the bids on a sewer project. The Democrats are finding it difficult to make a big hairy deal about it because their hands are only somewhat cleaner.

And the abuse of power isn't setting off alarms because its victims so far have largely been "other people", and the worst abuses haven't happened yet: they'll be based on the groundwork being laid now.

It remains to be seen whether the frog will hop out of the pot before it's boiled. The results to date are not especially encouraging.

[Owen]

Al -
"Many of you are in such a hatred mode that you will seemingly never see the big picture."

Sounds like projection to me.

The election shows that most Americans don't hate Bush as a person...he's likeable, sort of a Jaycees brother-in-law type. What many of us DO hate is the mendacity, disrespect for Constitutional principles, narrowness of mind and shallowness of vision that mark his administration's policies and decisions. By disregarding realities about our economic, diplomatic, legal and natural environment, this administration has shown itself to be the champion of the "me first", society.

I don't want Bush to fail as President...that's as smart as hoping the pilot of your plane dies while it's in the air. I do want his policies and politics to fail, for the sake of our country.

[Al]

A few points for Moi: #1 - Let's be more precise - Islamic terrorism. Your definition/description is nice for academia, but Bush said he's going after them - and he is.
#2: Iraq has been involved in terrorism. Besides attacking Kuwait and trying to kill Bush I, they have funneled money to the Palestinians. You bet they have performed terrorist acts and supported terrorists. As for Al Qaeda, here's UK story about some intercepted cell phone conversations. .
From The Independent. To say that Iraq was uninvolved with terrorism is silly. They may not have been at the helm of 9/11 planning, but they were involved with many acts of terrorism. #3 You may be (conveniently, I suppose) forgetting that UN and some key members were being bribed. Bush did go to the UN, but the key members felt their wallets were more important than helping the mideast. And you talk about crimes??? What is really disgusting is how the left ignores these basic and inherent problems with the UN. As I said, the war will be viewed as a blip on radar as compared to the benefits.

I used to think that we should stay out of these world problems - this goes back to the first Gulf war. Then, we were attacked and thousands were killed. All of sudden, we are more vulnerable.
Either we deal through the corrupt UN or we solve the problems our way. I agree with Bush that we had to go in ourselves. Don't tell me about sovereign countries; 9/11, the Cole, blown up embassies, etc. opened the door to make a difference. So, are you arguing that we should have done nothing?

We all have a chance to make a difference and help reshape the mideast. If you think it's none of anyone's business, then we all should ignore these disputes (like the Israeli-Palestinian issue), as so much as the disputes don't effect us, and let the parties figure them out themselves. So call a spade a spade. The terrorists go after western interests....aren't western nations sovereign too?
The bottom line is we were attacked and our interests and our friends interests are under attack.
From JFK's first inaugural address: "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of liberty."
Moi, what disgusts me is the do-nothing left.

[Al]

Owen, I disagree with just about every point in your post. I don't know where you are from (Canada?), but Bush as a huge vision. He is on a legislative track and the Dem's here have zero ideas. I don't agree with everything Bush does (like the amount of domestic spending), but to say he has no vision doesn't make sense. The rest of your post seems like the Democrat's talking points (to themselves, because the rest of us are on a different frequency.)

[Ran Talbott]

"This violated modern strictures on American foreign policy, as articulated in the Lennon/Ono and the Star Trek doctrines."

It also violated the strictures of laws of the United States, as articulated in acts of Congress and treaties signed and ratified by the Senate.

"Having framed the problem for so many commentators to my post, I dare you to try to address it."

Okay. The problem is that the people in charge of formulating the policy are contemptuous of the law and the people people they say they want to help and protect, dismissive of decades of history of attempts to "restructure" (as you put it), and at least arguably derelict in their duty to investigate thoroughly and plan carefully before expending American blood and treasure.

So now we're pursuing a policy that's alienated large numbers of people whose cooperation we need for self-defense, violated the trust of those who volunteered to put their lives on the line to protect us, and is creating a whole new generation of terrorists eager to attack us.

I think that about sums it up.

[gp]

Ran:

I'm glad you like international law, I'll bet we could both be extradited to the Hague for using more than our share of the world's energy resources . . . not to mention education, fine wine, etc.

I don't submit to "international law", I don't think the President does either. The majority of Americans agree. The UN is our creation, we deploy it when suitable. Lots of Americans have lived in peace and prosperity since we came up with the concept.

I do not understand the fixation with making sure that Europeans "like" us. If they ran the world I guess I would hate them and *they* wouldn't care. Mutual self-preservation will continue despite the antipithy.

I give you credit for stating your points. But is it that hard to understand why so many people -- enough to ratify everything the President has done -- don't want to cede their sovereignty?

I continue to wait for someone who disdains "intervention" to attempt to convince me, in a non-conclusory fashion, and without religious dogma, why we should just take whatever people decide to dish out to us when we have the power to resist or preempt it?

That would be a debate worthy of this forum.

[Ran Talbott]

"Let's be more precise - Islamic terrorism."

I must say it's very obliging of you to change your position from one that was only "mostly wrong" to one that's "completely wrong": it's well-documented that the Bushies not only reduced the emphasis the Clinton administration had placed on terrorism as a national security threat, the shifted the remaining focus from al Qaeda and similar groups to "state-sponsored" terrorism.

"As for Al Qaeda, here's UK story about some intercepted cell phone conversations."

Which were made from the part of Iraq under U.S. protection, by someone that Bush decided THREE TIMES not to take out when the Pentagon presented plans for doing so.

"You may be (conveniently, I suppose) forgetting that UN and some key members were being bribed."

You seem to be remembering "facts" that were never even alleged, much less proven: there has never been a claim that anyone with a role in setting policy towards Iraq at the UN or any member was on Saddam's gift list. Although some of the recipients might be ragarded as "lobbyists", it was largely about paying off people who had helped him make deals that circumvented the import and financial controls.

I strongly suggest that you revise your standards for "bribery", lest someone start applying them to the Bushies' policy and strategy towards Iraq. You wouldn't like the results.

"Don't tell me about sovereign countries; 9/11, the Cole, blown up embassies, etc. opened the door to make a difference."

Yes, Al, they did. They opened a door to the discarding of our principles of respect for the law and for our fellow human beings. And now, having killed more innocent people than al Qaeda, we shrug off our failure to adequately prove the necessity of using lethal force, and openly brag about using an entire nation as human decoys to draw the terrorists away from us.

The people who watched their loved ones die because we regarded them as second-class humans who could be sacrificied for our safety and convenience won't see the war as "a blip". We'll be paying the price of our arrogance for generations, and the best we can hope for is that it won't be exacted in blood.

[Steven I. Weiss]

Dan - According to David Frum's book, getting rid of Hussein was a given as soon as the administration took office. It is old news, and though he provides the earliest citation, no one ever mentions him; maybe no Democrats have read his book (I haven't, I got the quote from Kaus).