That’s the image that came to mind reading this swill from Glenn Reynolds and former Christian Right architect Marshall Whitman.
Here’s the facts of how we were led into war:
The Bush administration tried to sell the threat of Al Qaeda-Iraq ties, but that didn’t sell well. Then they said we were under threat of WMDs. Many people – including myself – believed Iraq had WMDs of some sort, but it was the coupling of this with the terrorist threat that the Bush administration used as its main justification for the war on Iraq. I did not support the war because I felt that inspections and flyovers had rendered Hussein as a non-threat to America or our allies, while the actual terrorists that killed us remain priority one. I tried to be persuaded by the administration’s claims that Al Qaeda worked out of Iraq, but it just wasn’t compelling. When Colin Powell made his presentation to the UN, I said out loud “that’s it?”.
All of this happened at the same time that the weapons inspectors said that Hussein’s WMD capacity had been essentially depleted, and the Bush administration had information in their hands that said as much — and continue to stonewall the release of how they manipulated that data, all the way up to yesterday.
It wasn’t until they thought England might not join in that the Bush administration also tacked on the idea of “liberating” the Iraqi people. This is an argument that could only have worked on Europeans, because us Americans are generally not in the liberating business, especially not when we have a larger threat to take care of (aforementioned terrorists who killed 3,000 Americans on George Bush’s watch).
It was only after we had invaded Iraq, defeated the Hussein army, and found that whoops – there were no WMDs to speak of – that folks like Reynolds began yammering on about how great it was that 2,000 Americans died so we could build a school in Tikrit.
And it’s why the war is increasingly unpopular. The Bush administration and their enablers threw s*** against the wall to encourage support for the war, and now that folks have called them on it, they claim that weapons of mass destruction just weren’t a part of the justification for the war and that Democrats claimed they were there all along (pray tell, where is this newfound reverence for Bill Clinton coming from, and why did we see none of it when he was actually our nation’s Commander In Chief?).
When the two groups of people most wrong on the Iraq war – Right wing blogs & the DLC – agree on something, you can be most assured it stinks to high heaven.
UPDATE: Let me add Scott McClellan to the steaming pile of garbage.
Q Isn’t your statement in error when you say that the previous administration came to the same conclusion? The previous administration did not come to the same conclusion –
MR. McCLELLAN: I said the same conclusion, that Saddam Hussein –
Q — to intervene militarily.
MR. McCLELLAN: — that Saddam Hussein’s regime was a threat.
Q But they didn’t go to war.
Q But isn’t the point of the –
MR. McCLELLAN: You want to talk about their comments? Let’s talk about their comments.
Q But the point of what they raised yesterday is the President’s decision to move militarily into Iraq. Are you saying –
MR. McCLELLAN: There’s no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. His regime “threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region, and the security of all the rest of us” — President Clinton, remarks to the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff, February 17, 1998.
Q But he didn’t take us to war.
Q But isn’t the specific issue –
MR. McCLELLAN: The conclusion they came to was that Saddam Hussein’s regime is a threat and a destabilizing force in a dangerous part of the world.
Q But he didn’t take us to war.
If you liked this post, please consider subscribing to my Patreon to fund more posts like it. Join today, save the world!