Friends Don't Let Friends Drive Drunk
Via TNR, this astonishing post from the sixth anti-terrorism chief under Bush, John Craig:
George W. Bush was right to order the invasion of Iraq, a former White House adviser from Elizabethtown said during a rare public speaking appearance Tuesday."I believe the decision to use military force in Iraq was the right decision at the time," John B. Craig, former senior director for combating terrorism, said during a panel discussion at Elizabethtown College, where he serves as scholar in residence.
Craig argued that war discussions took place in public meetings and that the decision to invade Iraq was ultimately based on polling data.
"In our system, the majority of the public is the applause meter, the gauge, for setting policy," he said. "The idea that the administration needed a justification for invading Iraq wasn't raised until after the decision had been made. If the public was against this, the public should have stood up and asked some really tough questions."
Huh. Really. Any such questioning was swept aside when WMD came into the picture. By intimating that it "knew" there were WMD in Iraq, the administration was able to prevent the debate on nation building from ever happening. Those persons advancing the "invade Iraq" policy knew they'd lose the public debate, if it came to that, on the simple risk/reward analysis. They needed a wildcard, and they didn't have one.
So they made one up.
on
| § 5
§ 5 Comments
[ You're too late, comments are closed ]
Ross,
Ross,
Are you arguing that Bush was baldfaced lying in claiming that Iraq held WMD?
I mean, it was the same claim that had been going 'round the UN for 12-odd years. The only difference was that Bush went to war over it; the issue of actual possession was never in doubt much before the ramp up for the war. They may have been wrong, but didn't believe so at the time.
Not that I think the war was a good policy.
My point is precisely this:
My point is precisely this: The Administration conveyed, through indirect words and actions, that they had _hard evidence_ of WMD. They did not have hard evidence; they merely had a strong belief.
I can't argue on what they believed. But they acted as if they had proof.
OK.
OK.
I do believe they believed in
I do believe they believed in the WMD. Iraq had had WMD. He had used them against his own people. It was entirely plausible he still had them and might use them.
I do not believe they believed Iraq/Saddam Hussein had anything to do with Al Quaeda/September 11. Nor do I believe they believed oil revenue would cover the costs of war and occupation. And if they truly believed we would be welcomed as liberators, they were smoking things they know better than to smoke.
In my opinion, not all the justifications given for war were honest. I wish they had stuck to the honestly held justifications instead of coupling the valid with the dishonest and disingenuous. Kinda dilutes the strength of one's argument.
GP:
GP:
Agreed, somewhat - pick a story, a solid story, and stick to it until you're done or it turns out to have been wrong. If the latter, admit it and make things right. It can be complex, it can be multifaceted, but it can't be a merry-go-round of rationale.
With all due respect to John Craig: Polling data, my ass - this administration is the opposite of poll-driven, which would be just fine if they could make themselves communicate clearly.
There were multiple reasons put forth, some even valid, for the Iraq action. Not to speak for Ross, since he does just fine speaking for himself, but I would guess that, among other things, the absurdity of a rotating list of "most important reasons" doesn't pass his giggle-test.
Mine either - but that's why I long ago filtered the list of stated reasons, discarded several, chose an order of my own for their importance, and quit listening to the spin. Thus, I can be comfortable that there's more reason for us to be there than there is to have ignored it until we could do so no longer. I can also be disappointed at aspects of the implementation without calling the thing a hoax.
Regardless, in my capacity as Mr. Obvious, I'm forced to conclude that it is what it is, and must be dealt with in that way, not as we'd prefer it to be. Luckily, I believe that it can still be dealt with successfully.