Four years ago tomorrow, George W Bush, the president of the United States of America launched the world into an unnecessary war that has cost 3218 American dead, over 23,000 American injured, anywhere from 59,000 to 650,000 Iraqi dead, over $379 billion in direct costs to the American taxpayer, a civil war that has destroyed the Iraqi nation, a conflict that has destabilized the region, a quagmire that has energized religious extremists, and a blunder that has damaged American diplomacy and diminished American credibility for decades to come.
The delusion began with these words:
My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger.
On my orders, coalition forces have begun striking selected targets of military importance to undermine Saddam Hussein’s ability to wage war. These are opening stages of what will be a broad and concerted campaign. More than 35 countries are giving crucial support — from the use of naval and air bases, to help with intelligence and logistics, to the deployment of combat units. Every nation in this coalition has chosen to bear the duty and share the honor of serving in our common defense.
…
We come to Iraq with respect for its citizens, for their great civilization and for the religious faiths they practice. We have no ambition in Iraq, except to remove a threat and restore control of that country to its own people.
…
Our nation enters this conflict reluctantly — yet, our purpose is sure. The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder. We will meet that threat now, with our Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard and Marines, so that we do not have to meet it later with armies of fire fighters and police and doctors on the streets of our cities. [Emphasis added by me.]
For Mr. Bush, it was always about fighting them there so we do not have to fight them here. Today the delusion persists.
One of the great enablers of this fatal delusion has been the Washington Post editorial page. The Washington Post is my hometown newspaper. It is the paper of Woodward and Bernstein – a paper that inspired a generation of investigative reporters. The editorial board does not carry on that tradition.
Today the Washington Post editorial page continues to delude itself:
The easy way out is to blame President Bush, Vice President Cheney or former defense secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld: The decision was right, the execution wrong. There’s no question that the execution was disastrous. Having rolled the dice on what everyone understood to be an enormous gamble, Mr. Bush and his team followed up with breathtaking and infuriating arrogance, ignorance and insouciance. Read Post reporter Rajiv Chandrasekaran’s account of the first year of occupation, "Imperial Life in the Emerald City," and weep at the tales of White House operatives sending political hacks to overhaul Baghdad’s stock exchange and tinker with its traffic rules as a deadly insurgency gathered strength.
…
Clearly we were insufficiently skeptical of intelligence reports. It would almost be comforting if Mr. Bush had "lied the nation into war," as is frequently charged. The best postwar journalism instead suggests that the president and his administration exaggerated, cherry-picked and simplified but fundamentally believed — as did the CIA — the catastrophically wrong case that then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell presented to the United Nations.
…
Unquestionably, for example, the experience has shown the risks of preemptive war. Yet it remains true in an era of ruthless, suicidal terrorists and easily smuggled weapons of unimaginable destructive power that not acting also can be dangerous. The risks of war with North Korea or Iran are evident; but the cost of leaving nuclear weapons in the hands of a Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or a Kim Jong Il may not become evident until the price has been paid. And while Iraq illustrates the importance of challenging intelligence estimates, there will also be risks in waiting for certainty that may never be achievable.
…
It’s tempting to say that if it was wrong to go in, it must be wrong to stay in. But how Iraq evolves will fundamentally shape the region and deeply affect U.S. security. Walking away is likely to make a bad situation worse. A patient, sustained U.S. commitment, with gradually diminishing military forces, could still help Iraq to move in the right direction.
The Washington Post editorial page bends over backwards not to blame Mr. Bush for the war. The editorial says that Mr. Bush and his administration "exaggerated, cherry-picked and simplified" the intelligence on Iraq, yet since they "believed" it, they should not be blamed for the war. The Bush administration mixed and served the kool-aid, but since they also drank it, they are blameless for mixing it and serving it. Then there is this curious formulation in the editorial: the administration "fundamentally believed — as did the CIA — the catastrophically wrong case that then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell presented to the United Nations" Am I to understand from this nugget that Mr. Powell’s presentation at the UN convinced Mr. Bush to go to war? This is an astonishing example of the self-delusion at the Washington Post editorial board. Mr. Powell was used to serve the kool-aid to the American people – that very same kool-aid had already been prepared by the Bush administration, specifically the office of the Vice President.
The editorial board cannot bring itself to admit that the decision to attack Iraq was wrong. It hides behind the "execution" argument still. In doing so, it keeps the door open for its cheerleading us into another war – this time with Iran.
Make no mistake, in 2002 and 2003, the media helped the Bush administration sell the Iraq War to the American people. The Washington Post editorial board, with its drums beating loudly, helped mislead this country into the quagmire of Iraq. Even today, this editorial board blames everyone else except Mr. Bush and itself.
The editorial board perpetuates the argument that the continued occupation of Iraq "could still help Iraq to move in the right direction". What is the "right direction" and how do we get there? It is long past time to simply parrot the "stay the course" talking point. I want to hear why it makes more sense to stay than to leave. Why will "walking away" make "a bad situation worse"?
Until and unless the Bush administration and the kool-aid drinkers at places like the Washington Post editorial board can explain to the American people why a continued presence in Iraq is better than the alternative, withdrawal must be seen as the default course of action. Let’s start the discussion at withdrawal, and let us demand of the delusional crowd why their delusions must be taken seriously.
Let us not allow them to cut and run from making their case to the American people.
On 9/11/2001, nearly 3000 people died horrible deaths and tens of billions of dollars in damage were incurred.
In direct response to these ghastly attacks, the Bush administration deposed Saddam Hussein.
Four years later, `several hundred thousand Iraqis have been maimed or murdered, 3218 Americans have been killed, 23,000 Americans have injured, and over $379 billion in direct costs have been paid by the American taxpayer’.
This is what the Bush admin has done in response to the ghastly attacks of 9/11.
WTF?
Sword of Lies, let me fill in the blanks…
Four years after we invaded, we have not captured Osama bin Laden, allowed the Taliban to regroup, and are no closer to carrying out our “mission” than we were when we started.
In your own words, WTF?
> In direct response to these ghastly attacks, the Bush administration deposed Saddam Hussein.
This is a “direct response” the same way that if my dog bites my ankle, I take the opportunity to go kick my cat. It may be a direct response in my nervous system, but it isn’t direct in terms of what the stimulus and response were. The belief that Saddam Hussein was “behind” the attacks of 9/11 is the best piece of completely accepted disinformation I’ve ever seen.
Robbie, there’s so much more: In addition to re-vitalizing Sunni fundamentalists, the Bush admin has vastly empowered the Shiite fundamentalists whom the US will have to fight without a doubt in the future.
Again, this is what the Bush admin has done in response to the ghastly attacks of 9/11.
WTF?
Rivkeleh, the debacle in Iraq is the direct result of Bush admin’s direct reponse to the ghastly attacks of 9/11.
On 9/11, planes, buildings, etc. came down and then later on the flag of Islamic fundamentalism was raised throught out the ME.
As for disinfo, one may also wish to consider the disinfo campaign to portray Iraq as a free and democratic society loyal to the USA.
No, it’s an INDIRECT response when you are attacked by one bad guy and then go invade another (admittedly not good) guy’s country, depose him, and insist on rebuilding it in your own image.
So, if the French were to come blow up my garage, but I wasn’t real sure that the English weren’t going to do something bad too later, the DIRECT response would be to deal with the French, but the INDIRECT response would be to go take over England, Ireland, Scotland, and maybe parts of Wales.
Rivkeleh,
I am concentrating on the end result, on what has happended since 9/11, on what has arisen in direct response to 9/11.
The govt we see in Iraq is the US’ direct but inadvertent response to 9/11.
That is to say…
The Bush admin **directly** AND **inadvertently** caused the installation of the burgeoning Islamic fundamentalist republic in Iraq.
The Bush admin **directly** AND **inadvertently** unleashed the Al-Dawa and the SCIRI who have been fighting to transform Iraq into an Islamic fundamentalist republic for over twenty years.
The pro-extremist-Iranian, pro-Hamas, pro-Hizbollah govt in Iraq is not what the US wanted to bring about in Iraq.
It is the precise opposite.
Still, the govt in Iraq, as described above, is in fact the direct and unintended outgrowth of the US’ deposing of SH.
The empowering of the Al-Dawa and the SCIRI is directly linked to 9/11.
Without the independent demise of SH or the help of the US, they would not have ascended to power.
9/11 —> disinfo campaign –> deposing of SH –> election of Al-Dawa and the SCIRI, a govt that is pro-extremist-Iranian, pro-Hamas, pro-Hizbollah
Your examples are unclear.
“I wasn’t real sure that the English [Saddam Hussein] weren’t going to do something bad too later”
That makes no sense. The Bush admin had an extensive dis-info campaign as you pointed out. They linked SH to 9/11. They **directly** pre-emptively attacked Iraq to (supposedly) prevent another 9/11
Try using 9/11, Al-Qaeda, Saddam Hussein, Al-Dawa and the SCIRI.
Of course the current Washington Post editorials would say so. Mash, you need to check into the regular invitees to the Bilderberg, if memory serves me correctly, the WP has had their share of off-the-record visits with no way of knowing how these ‘fine’ ladies and gentlemen decide on what and which and whose agenda to further..
check it out
Ingrid
Sword, wow — sounds like we’re actually in agreement, and I suggest a nuance of terminology I didn’t think of until last night. A direct response versus a MIS-directed response. I suppose then you could have an INTENTIONALLY mis-directed response.
But I’m relieved to find out that what you appeared to be saying and what you clearly ARE saying now are two different things.
Shake?