Rebuttalpalooza; or, I'm Rubber, You're Glue...
When those of us who oppose the war against Iraq point out that the Bush administration fabricated intelligence and lied about weapons of mass destruction, some, especially proponents of the war, like to offer the rebuttal that many left-wing politicos took the same position as the Bush regime. Here is an example of the quotes they use.
Where does that leave us? Well, for one thing, it's not as if we on the left are going to say, "Damn! I never though of that! The republicans must have been right all along! I mean, if Hillary and Teddy were saying the same thing..!" I say, If right-wing analyists could be mistaken, then so could those on the left. All it proves is that the "bad intelligence" was spread around, shall we say, liberally. We also know that PNAC had these plans cooking a long time ago, so false or misleading intelligence may have been released over a long period of time.
In fact, the timing of the quotes is very telling. Note the dates. Most of the quotes are from late 2002, with one in Jan of 2003. Now, check this timeline of the Iraq war. Notice that the quotes to which right-wingers refer were made before Blix's report was issued. The quotes were based on - what? Doctored data from PNAC neocons, like the Downing Street documents?
It should also be noted that we who oppose the war are not naive - too idealistic, maybe, but not naive. We do not think that Saddam Hussein didn't want to amass a horde of weapons of all kinds; after all, America was his supplier and he was our point man in the Iran-Iraq war. We turned a blind eye to some atrocities. We helped make the monster, and it stands to reason that he kept some of the stuff we supplied him with. But, a dozen years and a crapload of bombing sorties later, his inventory was, evidently, depleted.
Another thing these pro-war bloggers always add when citing these quotes is the statement, "Maybe these people should be held accountable" [add snarky/sarcastic vocal inflection]. Well, certainly, they should; however, how many of the people cited in the list of quotes used those lies/errors as justification for invasion and conquest of Iraq? I mean, really pushed for it, the way the Bush regime did? How many were aware of the lies and false data contained in their remarks, the way the Bush regime was? You see, it's the lying and manipulation that need to be held to account. Not just the rhetoric, but the inappropriate action - using disinformation to deceive people into supporting their aggresive conquest for oil.
My point is: the notion that the [wholly misguided] march to war against Iraq was a bipartisan effort does not lessen the importance of opposing an unjust war. It does not weaken our position, nor does it weaken our resolve. All it does is illustrate the complexity and enormity of the geopolitical machinery that was put in place to invade and conquer the middle east. In the end, no WMD's were found, contrary to a lot of lies from the president and his associates that they existed and had been found.
And don't get me started on all that b.s. about the connection between Iraq and 9/11 (but oh, how Bush and Cheney cling to it because it fires up their base to no end).
So, a lot of democrat politicians were wrong about the war. Many of them changed their tune when it became apparent that they had been played for saps. If they realize they were wrong and make an effort to correct the error, then that's about the best we can hope for. The ones who ignore reality and continue to insist the emperor does have clothes are a problem.
But, hey, right-wing commenters and bloggers, know this: the quotes by democrats in favor of the war are not the intellectual secret weapon you would like them to be. You'll have to do a lot better to justify this.
Where does that leave us? Well, for one thing, it's not as if we on the left are going to say, "Damn! I never though of that! The republicans must have been right all along! I mean, if Hillary and Teddy were saying the same thing..!" I say, If right-wing analyists could be mistaken, then so could those on the left. All it proves is that the "bad intelligence" was spread around, shall we say, liberally. We also know that PNAC had these plans cooking a long time ago, so false or misleading intelligence may have been released over a long period of time.
In fact, the timing of the quotes is very telling. Note the dates. Most of the quotes are from late 2002, with one in Jan of 2003. Now, check this timeline of the Iraq war. Notice that the quotes to which right-wingers refer were made before Blix's report was issued. The quotes were based on - what? Doctored data from PNAC neocons, like the Downing Street documents?
It should also be noted that we who oppose the war are not naive - too idealistic, maybe, but not naive. We do not think that Saddam Hussein didn't want to amass a horde of weapons of all kinds; after all, America was his supplier and he was our point man in the Iran-Iraq war. We turned a blind eye to some atrocities. We helped make the monster, and it stands to reason that he kept some of the stuff we supplied him with. But, a dozen years and a crapload of bombing sorties later, his inventory was, evidently, depleted.
Another thing these pro-war bloggers always add when citing these quotes is the statement, "Maybe these people should be held accountable" [add snarky/sarcastic vocal inflection]. Well, certainly, they should; however, how many of the people cited in the list of quotes used those lies/errors as justification for invasion and conquest of Iraq? I mean, really pushed for it, the way the Bush regime did? How many were aware of the lies and false data contained in their remarks, the way the Bush regime was? You see, it's the lying and manipulation that need to be held to account. Not just the rhetoric, but the inappropriate action - using disinformation to deceive people into supporting their aggresive conquest for oil.
My point is: the notion that the [wholly misguided] march to war against Iraq was a bipartisan effort does not lessen the importance of opposing an unjust war. It does not weaken our position, nor does it weaken our resolve. All it does is illustrate the complexity and enormity of the geopolitical machinery that was put in place to invade and conquer the middle east. In the end, no WMD's were found, contrary to a lot of lies from the president and his associates that they existed and had been found.
And don't get me started on all that b.s. about the connection between Iraq and 9/11 (but oh, how Bush and Cheney cling to it because it fires up their base to no end).
So, a lot of democrat politicians were wrong about the war. Many of them changed their tune when it became apparent that they had been played for saps. If they realize they were wrong and make an effort to correct the error, then that's about the best we can hope for. The ones who ignore reality and continue to insist the emperor does have clothes are a problem.
But, hey, right-wing commenters and bloggers, know this: the quotes by democrats in favor of the war are not the intellectual secret weapon you would like them to be. You'll have to do a lot better to justify this.
posted by SheaNC at 10:56 PM
12 Comments:
Hi Shea!
Am I one of those "right-wingers"? ha!
Again I will offer my perspective. I am against "fundamentalism" unless its fundamentally correct. I think that "fundamentalists" are often faith-guided zealots who found their reality on fundamentalist arguments. From my perspective in the Iraq War we have fundamentalists on each side. On one side we have those who think it was completely justified, and on the other we have those who say it wasn't justified at all. Both of these sides have an "absolutist" point of view--which in order to have in this circumstance would require an almost God-like omniscience, or a child-like faith. Since the former is not attainable, we must assume the latter. It is my observation that either side is fundamentalist and rigid in their mindset, so sum total neither side can convince the other of anything because facts are irrelevant, it is only what one "believes" that is important.
Overall I like your post. I think you do concede in part, Shea, but I still think that in order to take an absolute position on this situation, one has to be privy to much more information than is readily available.(It has been my observation that the availability of information via the WWW has not particularly imparted wisdom along with it.) If not, then one has to fall back on their fundamentalist belief that what was done was for the best...or for the worst.
(Shea, the advancement of religion historically has been through the proliferation of some fact mixed with much interpretation and hearsay. I think that this is the case with this war--it all depends on what variety of religion floats your boat. In this case I remain agnostic:)
Regards,
-Jack
P.S. None of this is directed at you personally, Shea. Its just a viewpoint I have of the situation.
Oh, let me throw out a question about the "oil" theory. If it is about oil for the Bush Admin and the Republicans, then how come drilling in ANWR was struck from the bill?
On the oil tip, it's not Republicans, necessarily, who are oil tycoons and only have financial gain in mind. It is Bush, Cheney, Rice, and the people closest to them that benefit from oil revenues. If it were up to only them, we would have been drilling in Alaska eons ago.
Actually, Shea, the quotes, as well as the Silberman-Robb commission's findings, show that your whole argument for the war being "unjust", that Bush allegedly lied, is bunk. Was there bad intelligence? Yes. Did everyone in Washington believe the bad intelligence? Yes. Did every major intelligence organization in the world conclude the same? Yes.
See how quickly the meme about Bush "lying" falls apart? Darn those facts!
As for the Iraq-9/11 connection, get real. Iraq, as far as we know, did not participate in 9/11. We are not in Iraq because we think they participated in 9/11. This is a strawman argument of the Left. Time to let it go. But I guess you think that if you tell this lie long enough people will believe it.
The fact is, Clinton implemented the U.S. policy of regime change in Iraq. That made it official U.S. policy. Looking at Iraq through the lens of 9/11, it was concluded that a madman with WMD programs could not be allowed to flout the UN inspections programs any longer. Lest you forget, he kicked out inspectors for a period of years. So, the same people who said Bush should have looked at the pre-9/11 intelligence and acted more forcefully, are whining that he did exactly that with Iraq.
The Democrats were never "played for saps". They received the same information as Bush, and reached the same conclusion. The intelligence Clinton used to evaluate the situation and determine the official U.S. policy of regime change in Iraq was the same as Bush used to argue for the invasion. Cripes. The Democrats changed their tune for political purposes only, to feed the hard-core leftists some raw meat and retain their positions in Congress.
Those are the facts. You can spin them any way you choose. After all, you're "rubber", so none of this is going to stick anyway.
Sean, you're wrong.
1. Yes, the Bush administration did lie. They said they had absolute proof. They did not just say they "we believe," or anything that could be weasled out of later on. They said they had absolute, irrefutable proof, and they were lying. They knew they had no proof. It was not a mistake, it was not just incompetance (a hell of an excuse for them to use, by the way), it was a lie.
2. You want the left to "let go" of the fact that the Bush administration married Iraq and 9/11 in practically every speech they made. When cornered, they might snarl a concession, only to go out and repeat that tactic again and again. They drove that point home repeatedly over a long period of time. Too bad you missed it.
3. The democrats did not receive the same information as the Bush administration. Neither did Republicans or independents. The notion that everyone shared the same intelligence is a myth that the Bush administration has been repeating for a long time, to fool people into thinking that it was all just a big misunderstanding - "Whoops! Not our fault! Somebody else told us the wrong thing, so we invaded - oops!" Sorry, that's not how it happened. What you call "the facts" are just a bunch of right-wing media talking points.
4. Finally, I love the way you Bush supporters can't defend his policies without saying it was all Clinton's fault. And yours takes the cake. The whole regime change policy was all Clinton's idea! Bush was just trying to be... just like Clinton! Gosh! I kind of missed that during his campaign speeches. Too bad he didn't mention it before the 2000 presidential election: "I, George Bush, promise to forge ahead with the Clinton policy of regime change in Iraq!" Ha Ha Ha!
Bush administration lies and lies and lies and lies... (one of about a bazillion sources of examples)
I often ask myself why I bother. I presume that Shea will be open minded enough to look at actual facts and then (gasp!) consider those facts.
So Shea, if I ask you what the weather is like outside, and you turn to a trusted employee/friend/whatever and ask them to check it out and get back to you, this employee/friend/whatever comes back and offers you evidence that its sleeting. You then turn and tell me you have evidence its sleeting out. Turns out your employee/friend/whatever, was wrong and the evidence they gave you was bunk. Are you now a liar? Answer honestly.
And are you denying that it was official U.S. policy to enact regime change in Iraq? And that this policy was enacted under and by Clinton? Are you actually denying that? Or are you trying to imply that its irrelevant? Just clarifying here.
Perhaps you should read this, carefully.
Sean, I'll read the article you cite with an open mind. But before I go off to do that, I just want to address your request for clarification in your statement, "And are you denying that it was official U.S. policy to enact regime change in Iraq? And that this policy was enacted under and by Clinton? Are you actually denying that? Or are you trying to imply that its irrelevant? Just clarifying here."
No, I am not denying that it was official U.S. policy to enact regime change in Iraq, or that the policy was enacted under and by Clinton. As Jack Mercer knows, I am not a Democrat or a Clinton apologist. I am an independent, and while I think Clinton was a better president than Bush, I am not like so many today who worship political figures "right or wrong". I condemn some things and applaud others. As for "regime change in Iraq", it is one thing to encourage it through peaceful and/or diplomatic means and another to try to achieve it through violence and bloodshed.
You may be interested to know that I am currently trying to chase down an article described in a friend's blog (right now the link is messed up) which states: "Bill Clinton killed more people in Iraq than George W. Bush - some say a baby every 6 seconds through starvation and disease for a period of time during his 8 years of sanctions, no fly zones and weekly missile attacks." I do not doubt the accuracy of that statement, and I look forward to writing a post soon that desribes how we have been ripping the shit out of Iraq for many years, yes, during the Clinton administration. To quote Jack Mercer from another post, "principles are principles".
Okay, but I have to warn you that if you track down that article I'll likely comment in disagreement if you contend Clinton is responsible for those deaths. (The deaths caused by disease and starvation.) Not because I have some knee-jerk reaction to disagree with you no-matter-what, but because I blame Hussein for those deaths. He stole the money from the oil-for-food program and built palaces rather than buy food and medicine. But I'll wait until you actually post that story before getting into it with you.
I was oddly impressed by the well-considered analysis in this post. I agree with the neo-con strategy in Iraq; namely, we are taking the battle to the terrorists and not letting them set the time and place for battle (no more Trade Center-style attacks, knock on wood). It's the same tactic employed by all great military commanders, from Robert E. Lee to George S. Patton. Conversely, I've been waiting for someone to voice a contrary opinion I can respect and not just an excuse to bash the opposition. Your post does that. It also omits the typical ad hominim attacks most libs sling at conservatives. Good job. Too bad you're wrong and I'm right.
Actually, Kevin, the neocon strategy is not to "take the battle to the terrorists", it is to establish a permament military presence in the middle east, to gain control of their resources (per the PNAC plan of global military domination). So, actually, you're wrong and I am right, but thanks for the kind words :)
Where exactly did the "neo-cons" state that as their policy, Shea? So far, everything I've seen indicates our goal was to topple a criminal regime that posed a serious threat to our safety because of repeated failures to account for its WMD's, contrary to U.N. requirements and the terms of the cease-fire agreement. I must have missed the memo letting us know that the real purpose was empire building and natural resource theft.
Post a Comment
<< Home