Abnormal Interests

« The Punchline From Dover
Main
How Best to Spend a Saturday Morning »

November 11, 2005

Changing History By Omission

President Bush gave a rousing speech at Tobyhanna Army Depot in Tobyhanna, Pennsylvania. In it, he made this claim,

While it's perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began. (Applause.) Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war. These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs. [emphasis added]

But exactly who is rewriting history. There were three arguments for the war. Saddam had weapons of mass destruction was just one of them. This one turned out to be false but who, other than Ritter and his team, knew and few believed Ritter at the time. The other two were that Saddam had or might get the ability to make nuclear weapons even within a year and that Saddam was supporting Al Qaeda. I take these up in reverse order.

On September 25, 2002, President Bush said to the nation,

You can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror.

And on February 5, 2003 Collin Powel speaking to the United Nations said,

I can trace the story of a senior terrorist operative telling how Iraq provided training in these weapons to Al Qaeda.

But at the time it was known that this senior terrorist operative was likely lying and had no knowledge of some of the things of which he spoke. In his speech today, the President did not directly repeat the tie-in between pre-war Iraq and Al Qaeda. Nor did he disassociate himself from the claim. Rather, he used the now familiar muddle of conflating pre-war Iraq and Iraq today by pointing out Al Qaeda operations in Iraq that developed after our invasion and were arguably caused by our invasion.

Likewise, before the war there was no creditable intelligence that Iraq could have quickly produced nuclear weapons. In a speech on October 7, 2002, President Bush admitted that it might take ten years for Iraq to develop nuclear weapons but nonetheless forcefully made this claim,

If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year. And if we allow that to happen, a terrible line would be crossed. Saddam Hussein would be in a position to blackmail anyone who opposes his aggression. He would be in a position to dominate the Middle East. He would be in a position to threaten America. And Saddam Hussein would be in a position to pass nuclear technology to terrorists.

But the first "if" was an extremely big if, the whole paragraph was intended to frighten rather than inform. Everyone knew at the time that Saddam did not have and could not acquire a critical mass of enriched uranium and turn it into a working weapon within a decade much less a year. Also note the implied tie-in with Al Qaeda in the last sentence. And statements like this were an integral part of the justification for the war in Iraq. So how did the President handle this in his speech today? He did not even mention it as a justification for the war. He did talk of nuclear weapons but not in terms of prewar Iraq.

Finally, the "bipartisan Senate investigation" that "found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs" did not say anything at all about how the intelligence was used or misused. In fact, that question was outside their charter and a separate investigation is all too slowly prodding along on the issue of use and misuse. And it misuse of intelligence that at issue.

So while the President accuses others of "rewriting history" he rewrites it himself by not telling us that the two most frightening aspects of the justification for taking us to war were not only false but also known to be false. The best way to rewrite history is with an eraser and that is exactly what the President and his Administration are doing.

Bush did say something the was correct,

Throughout history, tyrants and would-be tyrants have always claimed that murder is justified to serve their grand vision -- and they end up alienating decent people across the globe. Tyrants and would-be tyrants have always claimed that regimented societies are strong and pure -- until those societies collapse in corruption and decay. Tyrants and would-be tyrants have always claimed that free men and women are weak and decadent -- until the day that free men and women defeat them.

Is it too late to defeat the tyrants running our country? Just how low in the polls do they have to fall in a Democracy before they no longer have any mandate and must leave or be removed from office?

Posted by Duane Smith at November 11, 2005 8:48 PM | Read more on Current Events |

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.telecomtally.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1443

Comments

Posted by: Ken at November 12, 2005 9:52 AM

Posted by: Bruce Breece at November 12, 2005 8:27 PM

Sorry, comments are closed for this post.
Send me an email if it is important.

Tags: