The easy path to war through panic & revenge
How long will our country hum along practically oblivious to the great spasms of incredible cognitive dissonance like those on display in the President’s Tuesday news conference? Threat mongering through juxtaposition was always the way 911 and Iraq have been linked. This presidential agitprop is clever, but it is becoming a very stale case to make. I hope people are beginning to realize that all the times he says “Iraq” and “Saddam Hussein” within a few sentence radius of “al Qaeda” or “September the 11th” is not automatic proof of Iraqi involvement in the attacks and that war was “the right thing to do.” It seems to have been easy to panic America and whip up flames of reprisal, even though the main target of the president’s choice had zero to do with the attack.
This pattern continued when Helen Thomas asked Mr. Bush on Tuesday to explain why he went to war, given that all of his pre-war claims about Iraqi weapons turned out to be false. Here is how the president answered:
Excuse me, excuse me. No President wants war. Everything you may have heard is that, but it’s just simply not true. My attitude about the defense of this country changed on September the 11th. We — when we got attacked, I vowed then and there to use every asset at my disposal to protect the American people. Our foreign policy changed on that day, Helen. You know, we used to think we were secure because of oceans and previous diplomacy. But we realized on September the 11th, 2001, that killers could destroy innocent life. And I’m never going to forget it. And I’m never going to forget the vow I made to the American people that we will do everything in our power to protect our people.
Part of that meant to make sure that we didn’t allow people to provide safe haven to an enemy. And that’s why I went into Iraq — hold on for a second — [emphasis added]
Okay, the radius between “September the 11th, 2001” and “That’s why I went into Iraq” is about four sentences with sixty words. The clauses clearly are linked. And that’s how Bush and other administration figures have always peddled the war–so much so that 4 out of 5 US troops in Iraq thinks of the war as some sort of vengeance for 911.
Helen tried to point out the clear truth that Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism in the US, especially not 911. Just like the 911 Commission reported:
Bin Ladin also explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan, despite his opposition to Hussein’s secular regime. Bin Ladin had in fact at one time sponsored anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan. The Sudanese, to protect their own ties with Iraq, reportedly persuaded Bin Ladin to cease this support and arranged for contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting Bin Ladin in 1994. Bin Ladin is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded. There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after Bin Ladin had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior Bin Ladin associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States.
A ways back, I assembled a few more quotes that illustrate the rhetorical device of proximity Mr. Bush and other figures almost always use to link Saddam’s Iraq to 911. If they never said directly this was so, they implied it so often and so effectively that at one point they had 2 out of 3 Americans believing it. Here are some of the examples I dug up.
Mr. Bush directly responded on June 17, 2004 after a Cabinet meeting to the 911 Commission finding quoted above:
The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda, because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and al Qaeda. We did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. For example, Iraqi intelligence officers met with bin Laden, the head of al Qaeda, in the Sudan. There’s numerous contacts between the two.
I always said that Saddam Hussein was a threat. He was a threat because he had used weapons of mass destruction against his own people. He was a threat because he was a sworn enemy to the United States of America, just like al Qaeda. He was a threat because he had terrorist connections — not only al Qaeda connections, but other connections to terrorist organizations; Abu Nidal was one. He was a threat because he provided safe-haven for a terrorist like Zarqawi, who is still killing innocent inside of Iraq.
No, he was a threat, and the world is better off and America is more secure without Saddam Hussein in power.
But how about these? Setting aside the meaningless nonsense images of intelligence officers meeting, do you think any of the following quotes make it look like this administration said “the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and al Qaeda”??
As former Secretary of State Kissinger recently stated: ‘The imminence of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the huge dangers it involves, the rejection of a viable inspection system, and the demonstrated hostility of Saddam Hussein combine to produce an imperative for preemptive action.’ If the United States could have preempted 9/11, we would have, no question. Should we be able to prevent another, much more devastating attack, we will, no question. This nation will not live at the mercy of terrorists or terror regimes.
Vice President Cheney, August 26, 2002
Iraq’s government openly praised the attacks of September the 11th. And al Qaeda terrorists escaped from Afghanistan and are known to be in Iraq…. With every step the Iraqi regime takes toward gaining and deploying the most terrible weapons, our own options to confront that regime will narrow. And if an emboldened regime were to supply these weapons to terrorist allies, then the attacks of September the 11th would be a prelude to far greater horrors.
President Bush, September 12, 2002
The danger to our country is grave and it is growing. The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given. The regime has long-standing and continuing ties to terrorist groups, and there are al Qaeda terrorists inside Iraq. This regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year.
President Bush, Radio address, September 28, 2002
We will break up terror networks, hold to account nations that harbor terrorists, and confront aggressive tyrants holding or seeking nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons that might be passed to terrorist allies. These are different faces of the same evil. Terrorists need a place to plot, train, and organize. Tyrants allied with terrorists can greatly extend the reach of their deadly mischief. Terrorists allied with tyrants can acquire technologies allowing them to murder on an ever more massive scale. Each threat magnifies the danger of the other. And the only path to safety is to effectively confront both terrorists and tyrants.
For these reasons, President Bush is committed to confronting the Iraqi regime, which has defied the just demands of the world for over a decade. We are on notice. The danger from Saddam Hussein’s arsenal is far more clear than anything we could have foreseen prior to September 11th. And history will judge harshly any leader or nation that saw this dark cloud and sat by in complacency or indecision.
Dr. Condoleeza Rice, October 1, 2002
The president’s October 7, 2002 speech in Cincinnati was so loaded I’ll just refer you there.
Oh, and here’s what Mr. Bush’s 2004 presidential campaign sounded like:
September the 11th taught a lesson I will never forget and America must never forget: America must confront threats before they full materialize. My administration looked at the facts and the history and looked at the intelligence in Iraq, and we saw a threat. Members of the United States Congress from both political parties looked at the same intelligence, and they saw a threat. The United Nations Security Council looked at the intelligence and it saw a threat. The previous administration and the previous Congress looked at the intelligence and made regime change in Iraq the policy of our country.
In 2002, the United Nations Security Council — yet again — demanded a full accounting of Saddam Hussein’s weapons programs. They did so because they saw a threat. And as he had for over a decade, Saddam Hussein refused to comply. He deceived the inspectors. He did everything he can to deny access to the truth. And so I had a choice to make: Either take the word of a madman, or defend the United States of America. And given that choice, I will defend America every time. (Applause, USA! USA! USA!)
Although we have not found stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, we were right to go into Iraq. And America is safer today because we did. (Applause.) We removed a declared enemy of America who had the capability of producing weapons of mass destruction and could have passed that capability to terrorists bent on acquiring them. In the world after September the 11th, that was a risk we could not afford to take.
President Bush, July 13, 2004
Congress is far from off the hook for this. In the October 2002 war resolution, there is this:
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;…
In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and
(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
Then, bloody hell, this reads like a well-edited version of the same answer Mr. Bush gave Helen on Tuesday:
President Signs Iraq Resolution
I hope the good people of Iraq will remember our history, and not pay attention to the hateful propaganda of their government. America has never sought to dominate, has never sought to conquer. We’ve always sought to liberate and to free. Our desire is to help Iraqi citizens find the blessings of liberty within their own culture and their own traditions. The Iraqi people cannot flourish under a dictator that oppresses them and threatens them. Gifted people of Iraq will flourish if and when oppression is lifted.
The terrorist attacks of last year put our country on notice. We’re not immune from the dangers and hatreds of the world. In the events of September the 11th, we resolved as a nation to oppose every threat from any source that could bring sudden tragedy to the American people. This nation will not live at the mercy of any foreign power or plot. Confronting grave dangers is the surest path to peace and security. This is the expectation of the American people, and the decision of their elected representatives.
To shrink from this threat would bring a false sense of temporary peace, leading to a future in which millions live or die at the discretion of a brutal dictator. That’s not true peace, and we won’t accept it.
Like the members of Congress here today, I’ve carefully weighed the human cost of every option before us. If we go into battle, as a last resort, we will confront an enemy capable of irrational miscalculations, capable of terrible deeds. As the Commander-in-Chief, I know the risks to our country. I’m fully responsible to the young men and women in uniform who may face these risks. Yet those risks only increase with time. And the costs could be immeasurably higher in years to come.
When Iraq has a government committed to the freedom and well-being of its people, America, along with many other nations, will share a responsibility to help Iraq reform and prosper. And we will meet our responsibilities. That’s our pledge to the Iraqi people. [emphasis added]
Of course, what the war has really done is create a predictable spiral of violence that has a great probabilty of coming home to roost in the worst way, not to mention the devastation of Iraq.
