« Supreme Court Justice in Favor of Orgies (Slight Return) | Main | Republican Fear-Mongering Video »
October 06, 2004
The Emperor Has No Clothes
The second round of the 2004 Presidential debates are in the can and, just as we expected, the race has become quite interesting indeed. Major news revelations have been coming so quickly over the past several days that we find it difficult to decide which is the most noteworthy, or the most devastating. The current administration's position is unraveling at a blinding pace; so much so that we are beginning to think that Bush may not make it as far as the election, much less another four years. Let's take a quick look at each of the items.
1. Rumsfeld Denies Link Between Al-Qaeda, Iraq
On Monday, during a appearance before the Council on Foreign Relations, Rumsfeld was asked about the connection between Saddam Hussein and the Al-Qaeda network. After hesitating at first, Rumsfeld said “to my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two.” Later in that appearance, when asked about the administration's evidence that Hussein possessed WMD, Rumsfeld stated that “it turns out that we have not found weapons of mass destruction. Why the intelligence proved wrong I’m not in a position to say, but the world is a lot better off with Saddam Hussein in jail.”
Interestingly, in an interview on the Fox News Channel only a day before, Rumsfeld stated that “I believe they [WMD] were there, and I’m surprised we have not found them yet. He has either hidden them so well or moved them somewhere else, or decided to destroy them... in event of a conflict but kept the capability of developing them rapidly.”
Why the drastic change of position in only twenty-four hours? Was Rumsfeld having an uncharacteristically candid day, or perhaps a pang of conscience? Was it that Rumsfeld was intentionally trying to confuse people and muddy the waters? Or was he desperately trying to abandon a sinking ship?
Only several hours after his appearance before the Council, the Pentagon released a statement that tried to distance Rumsfeld from the impact of the remarks. In the statement Rumsfeld expressed concern that his comment “regrettably was misunderstood” by some and repeated that he did believe that there were ties between Al-Qaeda and Iraq.
Or maybe he had been speaking to Paul Bremer lately.
2. Bremer Says Not Enough Troops
In remarks before the Insurance Leadership Forum in White Sulphur Springs, W.Va. L. Paul Bremer was quoted as saying "we never had enough troops on the ground," and because of that the period immediately following the start of his tenure in Iraq was filled with lawlessness and looting. Referring to the rampant looting and criminal activity Bremer said "we paid a big price for not stopping it because it established an atmosphere of lawlessness." Bremer's remarks were released to the public Monday evening by the Council of Insurance Agents & Brokers.
Of course, this was really old news from a new messenger. More than a year ago General Eric Shinseki estimated that several hundred thousand troops would be needed to secure the peace in post-war Iraq. Paul Wolfowitz, Assistant Secretary of Defense and the highest-ranking civilian in the Pentagon, immediately launched a public offensive against Shinseki, saying that the General's estimate was "wildly off the mark." "Every time we get a briefing on the war plan, it immediately goes down six different branches to see what the scenarios look like," Wolfowitz said. "If we costed each and every one, the costs would range from $10 billion to $100 billion." Donald Rumsfeld was quoted at the time as saying "the idea that it would take several hundred thousand U.S. forces I think is far off the mark."
We now know that the cost of the war is at $120 billion, with another $80 billion appropriated but not yet spent. And no one at this point dares to speak of a timeline for ending the war, so it is entirely unknown how much it will ultimately cost, although it is certain the cost will keep rising. We also know that Shinseki's estimates as to troop strength were obviously closer to the mark than the administration's estimates. We know that because we see that large areas of Iraq are still in the hands of insurgents. We know that because all of our standby units have been called up for active duty, and troops have been pulled out of Afghanistan and other areas of the world to shore up Iraq.
3. CIA Report - No Link Between Iraq, Zarqawi
A CIA report has concluded that there is no conclusive evidence of a link between Saddam Hussein and Abu Musab al Zarqawi, further substantiating the earlier findings of the 9/11 commission. Further, ABC News quotes an unnamed senior U.S. official as saying "there's no conclusive evidence the Saddam Hussein regime had harbored Zarqawi." According to ABC, "The official says there is no clear cut evidence that Saddam Hussein even knew Zarqawi was in Baghdad."
Along with Hussein's possession of WMD, the ties between Iraq and Al-Qaeda leaders were given as a major justification of the war in Iraq. Are we to believe that our intelligence agencies were so incredibly, horribly inept that we knew nothing of this before the war? In fact, that we believed exactly the opposite? That in fifty years of intelligence gathering we had learned absolutely nothing about the art of intelligence? Or perhaps the Bush administration simply chose to ignore the experience of the intelligence community. Occam's Razor suggests that when given several possible explanations it is the simplest that is correct.
4. Top U.S. Weapons Inspector - "No Iraqi WMD"
According to the top U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq, in a briefing Tuesday, he found no evidence that Iraq had produced weapons of mass destruction after 1991 and, in fact, Iraq's weapons capability progressively weakened, not grew, during the twelve years of sanctions leading up to the current Iraq conflict.
According to the report, the "Iraq Survey Group (ISG) discovered further evidence of the maturity and significance of the pre-1991 Iraqi Nuclear Program but found that Iraq's ability to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program progressively decayed after that date."
This is in stark contrast to statement made by Vice President Dick Cheney in a speech given on Aug. 26, 2002, when he said that “simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies and against us.” Again, in a speech given on Oct. 7, 2002, Cheney said “it [Iraq] possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons.”
Conclusion
In the last few weeks, and especially the last few days, every one of the administration's reasons to justify war with Iraq have been proven wrong. What we, and they, are left with is simply an argument that we went to war with Iraq because Saddam Hussein was a Very Bad Guy™. Does that mean we are following a foreign policy course that will lead us to war with every country that is led by a Very Bad Guy™? Korea? Iran? Sudan? Palestine? We don't have enough lives to sacrifice in order to follow that policy. We don't have enough money to spend in order to follow that policy.
In less than four weeks we will have a chance to make a difference, to make a real choice as to how we want America to lead the world in the next four years. Think hard about where we started, where we've been, and where we are now, and make the right choice. Don't let this chance slip away.
Posted by bcoffee at October 6, 2004 09:33 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.icantthink.com/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/37
