Skip to main content

I have had quite enough of the Bush/Republican spin that Democrats are attempting to re-write history about how the Iraq War started.

EJ Dionne has a good article

The bad faith of Bush's current argument is staggering. He wants to say that the "more than a hundred Democrats in the House and Senate" who "voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power" thereby gave up their right to question his use of intelligence forever after. But he does not want to acknowledge that he forced the war vote to take place under circumstances that guaranteed the minimum amount of reflection and debate, and that opened anyone who dared question his policies to charges, right before an election, that they were soft on Hussein.

By linking the war on terrorism to a partisan war against Democrats, Bush undercut his capacity to lead the nation in this fight. And by resorting to partisan attacks again last week, Bush only reminded us of the shameful circumstances in which the whole thing started.

But more needs to be said. Or rather, I need to say more.

What we know from the Iraq Survey Group:

Nuclear: Iraq did not possess a nuclear device, nor had it tried to reconstitute a capability to produce nuclear weapons after 1991. ISG has uncovered no information to support allegations of Iraqi pursuit of uranium from abroad in the post-Operation Desert Storm era.

Chemical: While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad's desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered.

Biological: In practical terms, with the destruction of the Al Hakam facility, Iraq abandoned its ambition to obtain advanced BW weapons quickly. ISG found no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a new BW program or was conducting BW-specific work for military purposes. Indeed, from the mid-1990s, despite evidence of continuing interest in nuclear and chemical weapons, there appears to be a complete absence of discussion or even interest in BW at the Presidential level.

The outcry we are witnessing is simply the result of Americans being told things that turned out not to be true. The sales pitch was good. Americans bought it. And now they are seeing what they paid for.

This is not revising history. It is revisiting history. Something Bush/Rove/RNC do not want to do, for obvious reasons.

All of this really points to one thing: What was the purpose of the White House Iraq Group? To SELL the war to the American people.

Bush and his White House Iraq Group devised the sales pitch. Their goal was not to be truthful, but to be persuasive to make the sale at any cost, even if that meant feeding half-truths to the media so they had something to talk about on the Sunday morning programs. The American people had to be convinced that going to war was THE answer.

The initial plans for Iraq included several hundred thousand troops. General Shinseki testified to this fact. But that would make a difficult sell to the American people. No Problem! Wolfowitz said that number was "wildly off the mark". The plans were also revised to state that troop levels would be down to 50,000 - by the summer of 2004.

The cost of the war was also a potential sticking point. No problem! Iraq's wealth and oil revenues would pay for everything.

But Saddam is "contained", so let's give inspectors more time. But the 'solid evidence' that the adminstration gave to inspectors to verify was turning up nothing. Time was running out. Saddam was a bad person. He used chemical weapons (ones we helped him get and then stood by and did nothing). He was a brutal dictator (just like a lot of world leaders). He failed to comply with UN Resolutions. Etc., etc.

Yeah, but was Saddam really a threat to the US? It's armed forces were in shambles from Gulf War I. No problem! Link Saddam to 9/11 and Al-Qaeda and bring on the mushroom cloud from the aluminum tubes (that were really only suited for centrifuges in a nuclear program - not) and the uranium from Niger. And lastly, throw in a UAV that could hit the east coast with biological or chemical weapons.

It's a deal! Let's go to war.

This is their own doing. Of course, they want to blame someone else for it. Salesmanship and accountability are not often found in the same place.

The problem for Bush now is he and the neo-cons are convinced that invading Iraq was the right thing, and believe the American people - having gotten what seems to be a raw deal and left with a bad taste in their mouth - should just accept what happened and move on. For Bush and the neo-cons, that chapter in history is already written.

Not completely. Not yet, anyway. We are not re-writing history. We are making sure it is properly written.

Originally posted to tln41 on Tue Nov 15, 2005 at 10:53 PM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Chuck Hagel in today's WaPo (none)
    In today's Washington Post, Hagel is quoted as follows:
    "The Vietnam War was a national tragedy partly because members of Congress failed their country, remained silent and lacked the courage to challenge the administrations in power until it was too late."

    "To question your government is not unpatriotic -- to not question your government is unpatriotic," Hagel said, arguing that 58,000 troops died in Vietnam because of silence by political leaders. "America owes its men and women in uniform a policy worthy of their sacrifices..."

    ...At one point, while answering a question from the audience about Syria, Hagel suggested that the Middle East is worse off after the invasion because the administration failed to anticipate the consequences of removing Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. "You could probably argue it is worse in many ways in the Middle East because of consequences and ripple effects," he said.

    Do your part for world peace - visit Iraqi Blog Count and interact!

    by Sharon Jumper on Tue Nov 15, 2005 at 10:56:56 PM PST

  •  The ultimate "irony is dead" point... (none)
    ...is that, even as Bush claims the Dems saw the same intelligence, he is still WITHOLDING intelligence they have long asked for (e.g., daily briefing stuff).

    Irony is dead, and they stomped on its head.

  •  Frame Shop: keep it simple, catchy, and fendable (none)
    When they say: The Dems saw the same intel,
    we say

    The Bush Whitehouse misrepresented intel and stopped inspections short. Period.

    •  An extension (none)

      When they say: The Dems saw the same intel or Dems are rewriting history
      we respond with

      The Bush Whitehouse misrepresented intel and stopped inspections short. It's a Republican War.

      and then we unremittingly use the phrase The Republican war in Iraq instead of the usual "war in Iraq".

      Frame Shop Lesson: keep it simple, catchy, yet defendable

      That's it :)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site