WMDs as the rationale for the war:

[Theophylact]

Just in case you forgot, here's the Congressional Resolution authorizing the war. Note that, except for one paragraph citing "brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security", and one mentioning "attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush", the entire Resolution is based on weapons of mass destruction and support for al-Qaida. Congress either wrongly believed in the evidence for these, or cynically pretended that it did.

Now, of course, we hear that those reasons didn't matter, because Saddam was a mass murderer. (Mind you, we knew all that in the early '80s, when he gassed his own people, but of course he was our buddy, so that was okay. Then.)

Since when is going to war for the wrong reasons okay?

Or more: Since when have we needed a reason to go to war?

[U-96]

We've always been at war with Eastasia. Or was it Eurasia? I forget...

[MTAtech]

June 3, 2003

Standard Operating Procedure

Column by PAUL KRUGMAN, NY Times



The mystery of Iraq’s missing weapons of mass destruction has become a lot less mysterious. Recent reports in major British newspapers and three major American news magazines, based on leaks from angry intelligence officials, back up the sources who told my colleague Nicholas Kristof that the Bush administration “grossly manipulated intelligence” about W.M.D.’s.

And anyone who talks about an “intelligence failure” is missing the point. The problem lay not with intelligence professionals, but with the Bush and Blair administrations. They wanted a war, so they demanded reports supporting their case, while dismissing contrary evidence.

In Britain, the news media have not been shy about drawing the obvious implications, and the outrage has not been limited to war opponents. The Times of London was ardently pro-war; nonetheless, it ran an analysis under the headline “Lie Another Day.” The paper drew parallels between the selling of the war and other misleading claims: “The government is seen as having `spun’ the threat from Saddam’s weapons just as it spins everything else.”

Yet few have made the same argument in this country, even though “spin” is far too mild a word for what the Bush administration does, all the time. Suggestions that the public was manipulated into supporting an Iraq war gain credibility from the fact that misrepresentation and deception are standard operating procedure for this administration, which — to an extent never before seen in U.S. history — systematically and brazenly distorts the facts.

Am I exaggerating? Even as George Bush stunned reporters by declaring that we have “found the weapons of mass destruction,” the Republican National Committee declared that the latest tax cut benefits “everyone who pays taxes.” That is simply a lie. You’ve heard about those eight million children denied any tax break by a last-minute switcheroo. In total, 50 million American households — including a majority of those with members over 65 — get nothing; another 20 million receive less than $100 each. And a great majority of those left behind do pay taxes.

And the bald-faced misrepresentation of an elitist tax cut offering little or nothing to most Americans is only the latest in a long string of blatant misstatements. Misleading the public has been a consistent strategy for the Bush team on issues ranging from tax policy and Social Security reform to energy and the environment. So why should we give the administration the benefit of the doubt on foreign policy?

It’s long past time for this administration to be held accountable. Over the last two years we’ve become accustomed to the pattern. Each time the administration comes up with another whopper, partisan supporters — a group that includes a large segment of the news media — obediently insist that black is white and up is down. Meanwhile the “liberal” media report only that some people say that black is black and up is up. And some Democratic politicians offer the administration invaluable cover by making excuses and playing down the extent of the lies.

If this same lack of accountability extends to matters of war and peace, we’re in very deep trouble. The British seem to understand this: Max Hastings, the veteran war correspondent — who supported Britain’s participation in the war — writes that “the prime minister committed British troops and sacrificed British lives on the basis of a deceit, and it stinks.”

It’s no answer to say that Saddam was a murderous tyrant. I could point out that many of the neoconservatives who fomented this war were nonchalant, or worse, about mass murders by Central American death squads in the 1980’s. But the important point is that this isn’t about Saddam: it’s about us. The public was told that Saddam posed an imminent threat. If that claim was fraudulent, the selling of the war is arguably the worst scandal in American political history — worse than Watergate, worse than Iran-contra. Indeed, the idea that we were deceived into war makes many commentators so uncomfortable that they refuse to admit the possibility.

But here’s the thought that should make those commentators really uncomfortable. Suppose that this administration did con us into war. And suppose that it is not held accountable for its deceptions, so Mr. Bush can fight what Mr. Hastings calls a “khaki election” next year. In that case, our political system has become utterly, and perhaps irrevocably, corrupted.

[osprey4]

Originally posted by MTAtech
If that claim was fraudulent, the selling of the war is arguably the worst scandal in American political history — worse than Watergate, worse than Iran-contra.

?? Selective, short-term memory problem here.

[MTAtech]

Yes, worse. Watergate did not cause deaths, hundreds of billions of dollars or a reduction of U.S. standing in the world. They impeached Clinton for lying about a blow job. This is orders of magnitudes worse.

[ClubMed]

Apparently the great thinker Mr. Friedman has got all the answers, you can check out his article in RADAR1979's thread.

[cyphen]

Gee ... a NY times columnist who's against the war. Whoda tought.

First, the left is aghast in wondering why the war isn't over a week after it started. Then they clamour about how horribly many deaths there will be. They make no mention of the lives saved by deposing Hussein. They don't care about whether or not this was in America's best interest, they just care about their own transparent political agenda. Then, while before the war they stated UN inspectors should be given all the time they need to find the illicit weapons that the entire world believed they had (very much due to Saddam Hussein's own actions) the day the war is over, they are barking about "where the supposed weapons are". We already identified items that he was not allowed to posess by international resolutions. UN inspectors themselves stated several times that Iraq wasn't in compliance with 1441 or any previous resolution. If the left wants to get any respect or credibility back, they really should just drop it. Stop being accusatory, the motives are so transparent they're almost invisible.

The same people who argued and argued that "these things take time" are now the most impatient people in the world. Hypocites. We're talking about not only the most sophisticated regime capable of quickly and effectively hiding weapons, but also a regime that - due to a very unhelpful stalling tactic - had months upon months to facilitate the hiding, or exportation of these weapons.

"It’s long past time for this administration to be held accountable. Over the last two years we’ve become accustomed to the pattern. Each time the administration comes up with another whopper, partisan supporters — a group that includes a large segment of the news media — obediently insist that black is white and up is down. Meanwhile the “liberal” media report only that some people say that black is black and up is up. And some Democratic politicians offer the administration invaluable cover by making excuses and playing down the extent of the lies."

Yeah right. So what happens to this guy if he's just making it up? Nothing. He can spout off as much bs as he wants in a vain attempt to sway opinion, and can do so indefinitely. Where is HIS credibility? Must be easy for him to sit there and do nothing but criticise without a shred of proof to what he's saying, and make unreasonable demands.

2 words. Bush hater. That's all it boils down to. He's got no journalistic integrity. Deposing Hussein - it was the right thing to do. And the tasty way to do it. The left has been soooooo wrong about every aspect of this it's driving them crazy. I think they are actually upset that there weren't tons of casualties.

[Chuckiechan]

Well, I guess we threw the murderous tyrant out by mistake!

WWAGD....(What Would Al Gore Do?)

Since he wouldn't have been "duped" I presume Saddam would still be in power?

Would the Palensinians and Israli's be sitting down together like they are now?

Would Osama even have attacked America?

Oh, for a crystal ball!

[CERuppel]

All of you sit down and take a deep breath.

There now, thats better.

Now for some facts: Polititions lie. News reporters get their facts wrong.

Beyond those self evident facts, I am not certain of anything.

WMD: Before the war Bush stated that he had proof of the existence of WMD in Iraq. That would seem to indicate that he had at least a general idea of at least one location. And not of small stuff that could be used for WMD, but the WMD themselves.

Taxes: Again we the people were bent over and told to take it. Over seventy MILLION working households will receive $100 or less in benefits from this new tax "cut". The bulk of the cut will go to the wealthy, who will put it in away out of circulation.

WAR: I have said it before; There was no rational reason for the US to act in this manner at this time. Going against the UN, acting without due process, and then taking on the role of occuppying force... Why is turning over the occupation of Iraq to the UN not an option?