Tag: War in Iraq

Lies in, Lies out.

Building on the recent revelation by Bush Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill that the administration started planning a war in Iraq immediately upon taking office — a revelation that dovetailed all-too-well with the recent Carnegie Endowment report on the administration’s WMD deceptions — Senator Ted Kennedy puts the war in perspective. “President Bush said it all when a television reporter asked him whether Saddam actually had weapons of mass destruction, or whether there was only the possibility that he might acquire them. President Bush answered, ‘So what’s the difference?’ The difference, Mr. President, is whether you go to war or not. No President of the United States should employ misguided ideology and distortion of the truth to take the nation to war. In doing so, the President broke the basic bond of trust between government and the people. If Congress and the American people knew the whole truth, America would never have gone to war.” Quite a good speech and worth a read, if nothing else than because no less a right-wing freak show than Tom DeLay found it “sad” and “disgusting.”

In related news, Rick Perlstein examines Dubya’s electoral exit strategy: “George Bush is selling out Iraq. Gone are his hard-liners’ dreams of setting up a peaceful, prosperous, and democratic republic, a light unto the Middle Eastern nations. The decision makers in the administration now realize these goals are unreachable. So they’ve set a new goal: to end the occupation by July 1, whether that occupation has accomplished anything valuable and lasting or not. Just declare victory and go home…Such is the mess this president seems willing to leave behind in order to save his campaign.“

“We Got Him.”

In a hole in the ground lived a Hussein…until today. (There’s also a Gimli joke in here somewhere, but let’s not be too flippant.) Any way you cut it, this is excellent news. By capturing Saddam, we’ve struck a considerable blow against the continuing Iraqi resistance (even if this capture won’t faze many anti-American groups joining in the fight.) By capturing him alive, we’ve prevented his martyrdom. By turning him over to an international tribunal, we can now help bridge the widening gaps between the US and the world on Iraq. (And, for the Dems, it’s better for Saddam to have been found now, eleven months before the election, than for a October surprise later down the road.) Of course we still haven’t found anything to suggest our WMD casus belli was legitimate, but hopefully this capture will make the situation in Iraq much more stable and less deadly for our troops abroad. And, while it might be too much to ask, perhaps it will encourage the Bush administration to refocus on capturing America’s public enemy #1, Osama Bin Laden, before they launch any more military sideshows.

Touche.

General Clark digs into Dubya for his brazen boastfulness in Iraq earlier in the year. “You don’t make policy by taunting the enemy. Only someone who hasn’t seen war firsthand would ever say anything as fatuous as ‘bring ’em on.'” A little late, sure, but he’s still definitely on target. Meanwhile, with Dean up 30 in NH, it’s gotten so bad in Kerryland lately that Slate‘s Mickey Kaus is sponsoring a withdrawal contest. Ouch. For their part, though, the Kerry team seems unperturbed.

Second Thoughts.

Republican Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, generally a straight shooter (despite being on the wrong side of campaign finance), calls out Congress for abdicating to Dubya’s foreign policy. “We probably have given this president more flexibility, more latitude, more range, unquestioned, than any president since Franklin Roosevelt — probably too much. The Congress, in my opinion, really abrogated much of its responsibility.” Well said, Chuck…now when is your buddy John McCain going to say the same?

Patriot Act?

As the WP delves into the leadership qualities of Wesley Clark, Rick Perlstein wonders aloud about the opportunities for leadership missed — or avoided — during the General’s war correspondent days. If Clark’s going to emerge from the Democratic primary, he really needs to develop an answer to his Iraq position that doesn’t sound evasive or needlessly complicated. He’s not there yet.

A Line (and Figure) in the Sand.

By respective votes of 303-125 and 87-12, the Iraq funding bill passes the House and Senate. (In terms of the Dem contenders, Lieberman and Gephardt voted in favor of the bill, while Kerry, Kucinich, and Edwards did not.) So Dubya got his money this time…let’s hope it’s enough to get the job done. Perhaps it’s time for Congress to reconsider the Biden Amendment?

Shades of Watergate.

From out the mists of history, Watergate figures weigh in on Felonygate and this administration’s total lack of credibility: Nixon counsel John Dean calls the Bushies worse than his old employers, while Daniel Ellsberg argues that the Plumbers are back. Says Ellsberg of the Plame situation, “I see an almost identical pattern here [between his own experience and Plame’s]. Really, I don’t know of any analogy so close in the 30 years between now and then. This is not an everyday occurrence.” In related news, it turns out that the Bushies have lied again — this time, Wolfowitz & co. drastically overstated the health of the Iraqi oil industry, despite a Pentagon report to the contrary, so as to minimize the cost of Iraqi reconstruction for American taxpayers. Typical.

Between Iraq and a Hard Place.

Facing the lowest numbers of his presidency and a increasingly troubling lack of WMD, Dubya fails to garner any new international support for the reconstruction of Iraq. And what did he expect, after waltzing into the UN and insulting the intelligence of the world? Amateur hour continues at our nation’s peril.