My favorite (if not most effective) method of convincing voters is engaging local right-wing talk shows with well informed arguments. Anyway, I've been e-mailing this one host with support information that he has been reading every morning before he gets on the air. Then I call in and we talk about it. Here's my latest narrative. It's a useful synopsis of how Bush failed the American people. There are some links to some old news stories that our collective memory has too often forgotten, like how in
August of 2002, the Bush administration was arguing that it could go to war in Iraq without a Congressional resolution, since Bush II still had authority to act under Bush I's 1991 resolution.
You and I have a difference of opinion on this matter, but I think that it is very important to remember that we share the same overriding goal. We both desire to minimize the loss of life in the resolution of conflict. Those who support the war under this premise must feel that the alternative would lead to more loss of life. Those who supported H.J. Resolution 114 also felt that the alternative would lead to more loss of life. But it is important to stress that the resolution in no way made war inevitable. The speeches, interviews and statements issued by those who were granted that newly authorized power in the months that followed its passage sealed that fate.
I spent the months between the resolution's passage and the start of the war in a very different mindset than you did I would guess. I was listening to alternative media and hearing interviews with current CIA officials, weapons inspectors, and nuclear weapons experts who could not get airtime on the networks or cable television because they asked questions that were too difficult to answer. Though you may feel that the opinions of the likes of Scott Ritter (1) and David Albright (2) are not admissible to the debate, I would have to respectfully disagree. What they said during those months was backed up by solid evidence and their findings completely contradicted the public statements made by those in power.
It seemed to me during those months that the Bush administration was acting in a way that contradicted that specific intention of H.J. Resolution 114 to "further diplomatic or other peaceful means". Where substantial and credible evidence did not exist to prove that Iraq posed a grave threat or had links to Al-Qaeda, it was calculatingly implied (3) (4) even if very conservative and level-headed think tanks disagreed (5). Whether another vote was necessary in Congress or not (a point that you used rhetorically to discredit my larger argument), it is clear that the President never presented a compelling case to Congress that all-out war was unavoidable. This he was beholden to do by the resolution, and it was a stipulation of the ultimate use of force. There are no two ways around that. The case was made, for sure, but it was made in the court of public opinion, and with little evidence that was credible. Yet in spite of the incredibly fear-saturated campaign, the majority of Americans never backed the final decision.
In his State of the Union Address of 2003 (6) George Bush used two claims (aluminum tubes for centrifuge use, and uranium acquisition from Niger (7)) that had already been proven to be unfounded by the state department's own Institute of Natural Resources (8), by the Institute for Science and International Security (9), by a British Intelligence Dossier (10), by an IAEA report, and by numerous atomic energy officials whom I had heard interviewed over the months of November and December on various PRI, NPR, and Pacifica programs. So when I listened to Bush's address on January 28, and to Colin Powell's address at the UN, I was absolutely dumbfounded by the single-minded nature of my own President and of his administration to insist on half truths when the truth was out there. If the claims that were made panned out to be true, I was prepared for a severe reality check and for a paradigm shift in my future choice of media. They did not.
I contend that in the months between the passage of the resolution in October and the start of the war in March that the Bush administration did little to honor the intention of the resolution. The case is much more difficult to make that they violated the letter of the law, though someone of my subsequently disillusioned persuasion admittedly comes to this conclusion more readily than yourself. On this we will have to disagree.
With regard to how John Kerry would have or how George W. Bush acted as President after H.J. Resolution 114 by, I have to come to the conclusion that John Kerry would have paid more attention to the facts as he found them rather than try and fit them to some pre-ordained notion of what the facts should be (11). All of this transpired after the resolution was passed. With a more patient and, yes, sensitive commander-in-chief, the power granted to wage war might have resulted in a more permanent and peaceful regime change through means other than the costly invasion, which we all must admit is not going as well as it was sold to us that it would (12) and for a far greater price (13). Those means consist of diplomacy, sanctions, covert action and intelligence, and a restructuring of our unilateral policies in the region to alleviate unnecessary animosity (14).
Meanwhile our real enemy is unaccounted for and remains at large and growing more dangerous every day--fanned by the arrogant and naïve actions of our leaders and of "bad-apple" Privates and private contractors--while our domestic security stays riddled with weaknesses. It is not for a lack of good ideas and imagination (if it ever was) that we are vulnerable. Rather, it is only a lack of priorities and good decision making that has brought us to this point. And the priorities of the president do not seem to be changing anytime soon, nor does he seem to be able to hold anyone accountable for any obvious failures.
"The man who loves his country on its own account, and not merely for its trappings of interest or power, can never be divorced from it, can never refuse to come forward when he finds that she is engaged in dangers which he has the means of warding off." --Thomas Jefferson
Sources:
1. http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,351165,00.html
Time Magazine Exclusive: Scott Ritter in His Own Words
Saturday, Sep. 14, 2002
2. http://www.isis-online.org/about/staff/dalbright.html
3.
"Iraq, 9/11 Still Linked By Cheney"
By Dana Priest and Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, September 29, 2003; Page A01
"In making the case for war against Iraq, Vice President Cheney has continued to suggest that an Iraqi intelligence agent met with a Sept. 11, 2001, hijacker five months before the attacks, even as the story was falling apart under scrutiny by the FBI, CIA and the foreign government that first made the allegation [...]
Cheney's staff also waged a campaign to include the allegation in Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's speech to the United Nations in February in which he made the administration's case for war against Iraq. Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, pressed Powell's speechwriters to include the Atta claim and other suspected links between Iraq and terrorism, according to senior and mid-level administration officials involved in crafting the speech.
When State Department and CIA officials complained about Libby's proposed language and suggested cutting large sections, Cheney's associates fought back. 'Every piece offered . . . they fought tooth and nail to keep it in,' said one official involved in putting together the speech."
http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=fp-pull-web-t&p=cheney+saddam+al-qaida
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=cheney+saddam+al-qaeda&ei=UTF-8&fr=fp-pull-web-t&fl=0&a
mp;x=wrt
4. October 15, 2002. Associated Press
"'We need to think about Saddam Hussein using al-Qaida to do his dirty work, to not leave fingerprints behind,' Bush said Monday at a rally for Michigan's GOP candidates.
'This is a man who we know has had connections with al-Qaida. This is a man who, in my judgment, would like to use al-Qaida as a forward army,' Bush said later at a Dearborn, Mich. fund-raiser.'"
5. http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-bandow081202.asp
August 12, 2002 National Review. by Doug Bandow of the CATO institute.
"Saddam's complicity in September 11 would present a good argument for devastating retaliation for an act of war, but there's no evidence that he was involved. All that exists is a disputed meeting, which might not have occurred, in the Czech Republic between hijacker Mohammed Atta and an Iraqi official.
Certainly Saddam shed no tears over the thousands who died on that tragic day, but he has never been known to promote groups which he does not control. In contrast to Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein is no Muslim fanatic looking forward to his heavenly rewards; moreover, he heads a government and nation against which retaliation is simple.
Probably the best, at least the most fearsome, argument for overthrowing Saddam is the prospect of Baghdad developing weapons of mass destruction. Yet if nonproliferation should be enforced by war, Washington will be very busy in the coming years."
- http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/print/20030128-19.html
- http://washingtontimes.com/national/20030719-120154-5384r.htm
FBI probing forged papers on Niger uranium By Bill Gertz of THE WASHINGTON TIMES
http://www.msnbc.com/news/973028.asp?cp1=1
"Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley told reporters that he received two memos from the CIA in October [2002] that cast doubt on intelligence reports that Iraq had sough to buy uranium from Niger to use in developing nuclear weapons. Both memos were also sent to chief speechwriter Michael Gerson and one was sent to national security adviser, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, Hadley said."
8. http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/reports/2002/nie_iraq_october2002.htm
You have to scroll down to the first box titled "State/INR Alternative View of Iraq's Nuclear Program" OCTOBER 2002
"In INR's view Iraq's efforts to acquire aluminum tubes is central to the argument that Baghdad is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program, but INR is not persuaded that the tubes in question are intended for use as centrifuge rotors. INR accepts the judgment of technical experts at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) who have concluded that the tubes Iraq seeks to acquire are poorly suited for use in gas centrifuges to be used for uranium enrichment and finds unpersuasive the arguments advanced by others to make the case that they are intended for that purpose. INR considers it far more likely that the tubes are intended for another purpose, most likely the production of artillery rockets. The very large quantities being sought, the way the tubes were tested by the Iraqis, and the atypical lack of attention to operational security in the procurement efforts are among the factors, in addition to the DOE assessment, that lead INR to concluded that the tubes are not intended for use in Iraq's nuclear weapon program."
9. http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iraq/aluminumtubes.html
October 9, 2002
10. http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page275.asp
September 24, 2002
11. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A61040-2002Aug25¬Foun
d=true
Bush Aides Say Iraq War Needs No Hill Vote [Before the resolution was passed!-ed.]
By Mike Allen and Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, August 26, 2002; Page A01
"Lawyers for President Bush have concluded he can launch an attack on Iraq without new approval from Congress, in part because they say that permission remains in force from the 1991 resolution giving Bush's father authority to wage war in the Persian Gulf, according to administration officials."
This article is really good evidence of the fact that Bush was going to go to war with Iraq no matter what approval he got from Congress or the world community. He may have even made up his mind before September 11, 2001.
12. http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=6145759
From today regarding the report by the Royal Institute of International Affairs
13. http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=87973
http://www.house.gov/schakowsky/iraqquotes_web.htm
14. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/12/books/review/12KAZINL.html?ex=1095998400&en=55fbf2de421195d3&a
mp;ei=5006&partner=ALTAVISTA1
Patrick J. Buchanan agrees.