Bush's War in Iraq
The wonderful syndicated columnist Richard Cohen, of the Washington Post, wrote a superb and wonderfully articulate analysis about how and why Bush misled us into going to war. He wanted this war, and did everything possible to convince us that we needed it.
Here is the column in its entirety, to save you the trouble of clicking on a link:
The Iraq deception
History could prove war to be right - but lies were wrong
Shortly before the U.S. went to war in Iraq, I was in contact with a former member of the American intelligence community. This is what he told me: Saddam Hussein had no nuclear weapons program, no chemical or biological weapons program to speak of and no link to Al Qaeda. He said that if America invaded it would cost us "perhaps 1,000 casualties" and would lead to prolonged "terrorism and harassment." I thanked him very much - and urged the U.S. to attack anyway.
The record will show, however, that as war approached I was expressing second thoughts. I urged patience since it was becoming obvious that my source might be right. In short, I knew that the most alarming case against Saddam Hussein - that he was an imminent threat to the United States - was a lie.
Paradoxically, that basic fact becomes increasingly obscure the more one commission or another looks into America's epic intelligence failures. America went to war because George Bush wanted to go to war.
Of course, the CIA and other intelligence agencies were inept. Of course, they had all failed to stop 9/11 and, worse, the Bushies disregarded the warnings of the Clinton administration that fighting terrorism should be their first priority. Instead, the Bush administration - knowing best, as always - decided to concentrate elsewhere.
That little dig at the President is both purposeful and, in my view, warranted. From the very start, he had expressed the view that he had no need to read newspapers because, as he insisted, he got everything he needed from briefings. Unlike Bill Clinton, who got the PDB (the President's Daily Brief) on paper and routinely defaced it with questions and comments, Bush's briefings were delivered orally, much like children's medicine. Much was made of them, but we now know they were worthless and sometimes misleading. So found the latest commission to look into the matter, the one headed by former Sen. Charles Robb (D-Va.) and Laurence Silberman, a senior federal judge. Neither man is known for making rash judgments.
Had the President read the local newspaper, however, he might have questioned if much of what he was being told was nonsense. Every piece of evidence the Bush administration was citing to support its assertion that Saddam had a nuclear weapons program was being challenged. None of it mattered, of course. The United States was going to war.
It is now clear that the decision to do so was made shortly after the 9/11 attacks - maybe even the next day. History may well decide that this was the correct decision, but it won't change the fact that the administration failed to make a truthful case for war. Instead it built a sham one based on the hysteria, hate and panic created by 9/11. Intelligence hardly mattered. Saddam was going to go, regardless of the evidence. My source in the intelligence community understood this from the get-go. I did not - not right away, anyway.
Iraq, fundamentally and above all, was a breach of faith with the American people. When it comes to matters of life and death, we expect our government to level with us. The Bush administration did not - and it would not matter if all of the Middle East, from the Tigris to the Nile, becomes a democracy overnight. The fact will still remain that this war was fought for a lie. The failure was not in intelligence. It was in political character.
>>>
Please send him an email to compliment him for this analysis and honesty. He can be reached at cohenr@washpost.com
Here is the column in its entirety, to save you the trouble of clicking on a link:
The Iraq deception
History could prove war to be right - but lies were wrong
Shortly before the U.S. went to war in Iraq, I was in contact with a former member of the American intelligence community. This is what he told me: Saddam Hussein had no nuclear weapons program, no chemical or biological weapons program to speak of and no link to Al Qaeda. He said that if America invaded it would cost us "perhaps 1,000 casualties" and would lead to prolonged "terrorism and harassment." I thanked him very much - and urged the U.S. to attack anyway.
The record will show, however, that as war approached I was expressing second thoughts. I urged patience since it was becoming obvious that my source might be right. In short, I knew that the most alarming case against Saddam Hussein - that he was an imminent threat to the United States - was a lie.
Paradoxically, that basic fact becomes increasingly obscure the more one commission or another looks into America's epic intelligence failures. America went to war because George Bush wanted to go to war.
Of course, the CIA and other intelligence agencies were inept. Of course, they had all failed to stop 9/11 and, worse, the Bushies disregarded the warnings of the Clinton administration that fighting terrorism should be their first priority. Instead, the Bush administration - knowing best, as always - decided to concentrate elsewhere.
That little dig at the President is both purposeful and, in my view, warranted. From the very start, he had expressed the view that he had no need to read newspapers because, as he insisted, he got everything he needed from briefings. Unlike Bill Clinton, who got the PDB (the President's Daily Brief) on paper and routinely defaced it with questions and comments, Bush's briefings were delivered orally, much like children's medicine. Much was made of them, but we now know they were worthless and sometimes misleading. So found the latest commission to look into the matter, the one headed by former Sen. Charles Robb (D-Va.) and Laurence Silberman, a senior federal judge. Neither man is known for making rash judgments.
Had the President read the local newspaper, however, he might have questioned if much of what he was being told was nonsense. Every piece of evidence the Bush administration was citing to support its assertion that Saddam had a nuclear weapons program was being challenged. None of it mattered, of course. The United States was going to war.
It is now clear that the decision to do so was made shortly after the 9/11 attacks - maybe even the next day. History may well decide that this was the correct decision, but it won't change the fact that the administration failed to make a truthful case for war. Instead it built a sham one based on the hysteria, hate and panic created by 9/11. Intelligence hardly mattered. Saddam was going to go, regardless of the evidence. My source in the intelligence community understood this from the get-go. I did not - not right away, anyway.
Iraq, fundamentally and above all, was a breach of faith with the American people. When it comes to matters of life and death, we expect our government to level with us. The Bush administration did not - and it would not matter if all of the Middle East, from the Tigris to the Nile, becomes a democracy overnight. The fact will still remain that this war was fought for a lie. The failure was not in intelligence. It was in political character.
>>>
Please send him an email to compliment him for this analysis and honesty. He can be reached at cohenr@washpost.com
posted by Wounded Liberal at 8:59 AM
|
