Is the War on Iraq helping or hurting efforts to keep Americans safe from terrorist attacks?
Last week, the federal government partially declassified a National Intelligence Estimate, wherein all 16 government intelligence agencies concluded that the war against Iraq not only isn’t helping to stop terrorism, it’s making everything worse. “I strongly disagree,” said the President.
Bush maintains that Iraq is the central front in the War on Terror, even as he conceded on the fifth anniversary of 9/11 that “Saddam Hussein was not responsible for the attacks.” If only now he would concede: Saddam Hussein had not threatened the United States; Saddam Hussein had no WMD’s, certainly not anywhere near the stockpiles of which he was officially accused in 2003; Saddam Hussein had no relationship with al-Qaeda, nor could he have had one, if you understand what al-Qaeda’s motives are; the Clinton policy of containment was effective.
Tens of thousands of Iraqis – some of them bad, misguided people, to be sure, but many of them innocent bystanders, women, children, pro-democracy types – are dead. There have been dire consequences, but not for the people responsible for either 9/11 or the invasion of Iraq.
More Iraqi civilians died per month, every month, this summer than American casualties on 9/11; American military casualties in Iraq have now surpassed the 9/11 toll.
Who is responsible for 9/11? The hijackers are dead, of their own free will. Osama bin Laden is still free, five years later, most likely in the mountains on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border; both countries the President considers “allies” in the War on Terror.
Who is responsible for the War on Iraq? Saddam Hussein is in prison, but the violence continues. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is dead, but the violence escalates.
President Bush told the world that Saddam Hussein possessed: “as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent”; “25,000 liters of anthrax – enough doses to kill several million people”; “38,000 liters of botulinum toxin”; and “30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents.” None of this was true. President Bush was re-elected.
Of those enormous quantities of deadly weapons, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said, "We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." He remains in office, soon to be the longest-serving Secretary of Defense in history. CIA Director George Tenet called the intelligence on Iraq’s WMD capability a “slam-dunk.” He was given a Medal of Honor.
In March 2003, Vice President Cheney said, Saddam Hussein was "trying once again to produce nuclear weapons.” “We know that when the inspectors assessed this after the Gulf War, he was far, far closer to a crude nuclear device than anybody thought -- maybe six months from a crude nuclear device,” said Condoleezza Rice. Cheney is still in office; Rice was promoted to Secretary of State.
“We do not torture,” said President Bush. But we do. And we send completely innocent people to nations we accuse of being terror supporters to be tortured. This week we legalized torture and banned habeas corpus.
Who will stand up for the victims of this lethal folly? Until we hold our government accountable, and see our President condemned for his crimes, we ourselves will be guilty of gross negligence. American democracy is government of the people, by the people, for the people. You have the power. You have the responsibility. Take it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Won't happen. America is a lost cause and more of a sham now than I ever believed as an incomparably cynical child. Abandon ship. Last week, I set about reading the plays by Georg Buchner that I'd never bothered reading, starting with Danton's Death, and I started contemplating the French Revolution and our current situation. I would almost love to see guillotines erected in Washington, DC and a re-enactment of The Terror against all who are currently in positions of power!
I question only one point Andy. Tenet is the only professional in that list whose competence I currently do not question. Ron Suskind's book addresses Tenet's "slam dunk" comment. Of all the things Tenet said in that meeting, Bush cherry-picked that phrase and then misapplied it. According to Suskind, Tenet was not talking about the intelligence behind Iraq's WMD capability. I'll provide a quote tonight. About Tenet's professional fate, and the current disarray within the CIA, Bush replaced Tenet with an oil lobbyist. Bush placed a oil man with no experience in intelligence at the head of the CIA. [More tonight...] Keep in mind that the only substantive victories against terrorists we've had, really, were won by the global intelligence corps, not by Rumsfeld's DOD. Some wins were due exclusively to Tenet's global network of diplomatic contacts and strong personal relationships with world leaders, especially in the Middle East. He was too deferent to Bush, but Suskind makes a convincing case that he served us well and that we lost a great asset when Bush chose a crony to fuckup our intelligence.
So now everyone belives our Intelligence community...
From the Washington Post:
The Times headline read "Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terrorism Threat." But there were no quotations from the NIE itself, so all we have are journalists' characterizations of anonymous comments by government officials, whose motives and reliability we can't judge, about intelligence assessments whose logic and argument, as well as factual basis, we have no way of knowing or gauging. Based on the press coverage alone, the NIE's judgment seems both impressionistic and imprecise. On such an important topic, it would be nice to have answers to a few questions.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/25/AR2006092500912.html
Hi Andy, I was a loser last night and did not provide the quotes. Instead, here's a link to a NY Times article today citing Suskind's book.
Hi Knave, as for me, I'm choosing the best information available to me. I'm taking Suskind's book as the best I've read that chronicles the last five years. Richard Clark's book is also highly recommended and next on my list.
Post a Comment