[CLUE-Talk] a new note in the usa/iraq tune

[Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier]

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 15:05:40 -0700
"Jed S. Baer" <thag at frii.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 11:16:45 -0700
> "Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier" <jzb at dissociatedpress.net> wrote:
> 
> > The administration continually sold the war with Iraq as something that
> > had to be done to protect the U.S. -- right now! That assertion is being
> > proven wrong -- there was no immediate threat from Iraq. 
> 
> Yeah, that's why Bush, in his 2003 SOTU Address, stated that we had to act
> *before* the threat was immenent.
> 
> This whole "immenent threat" hogwash has been repeated so many times under
> the guise of truth, that people just believe it without question.

You might want to read this: 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html

It's dated October 7, 2002, where Bush says:

"Tonight I want to take a few minutes to discuss a grave threat to peace, 
and America's determination to lead the world in confronting that
threat."

...

"Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is 
already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam 
Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for 
the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even 
more dangerous weapons?"

The work "immanent" is not used, but if you read this speech, it surely
is what Bush is trying to get across. This is also the speech where Bush
explicitly drew the Iraq / Al Qaeda connection. (Or at least one of the
speeches.) 

Bush also said in October:

"Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof, the 
smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud,"

I have a hard time believing that you can claim, with a straight face
and good conscience, that this statement isn't equivalent to "immanent
threat." 

> > Oh, nice way to toe the party line. Shift the blame to the intelligence
> > agencies.  
> 
> Which party line would that be? The party line of the Clinton
> administration? Geez. I'm not going to bother digging up the quotes.
> Anyone paying attention to this knows what the official position of the
> U.S. Govt. has been, ever since Bush41 pulled back from Iraq. But no,
> Madeleine Albright reverses herself, and nobody cares. 8 years of a
> Democratic administration were touting the WMD line, but now it's Bush's
> lie? Phooey!

Bush is the one that used it as the key selling point to the American
people as the reason for going to war. Clinton wasn't on TV several
times prior to March 2003 trying to convince the American people that we
desperately needed to invade Iraq, Bush (and several members of his
administration) was. If Clinton were in office now (aside from being
blatantly unconstitutional...) and spouting the same lies, I'd be taking
Clinton to task. The Clinton administration isn't the administration
that took us to war with Iraq, it's the Bush administration. 

And by "party line" I was referring to the echo chamber mentality of the
Bush apologists -- "Bush can't be wrong, he'd never lie! It must have
been the intelligence services. Yeah, that's it! The intelligence
services! Those lousy bastards... we were happy to take their word for
it when they seemed to support our cause, but obviously, they're wrong
and poor 'ol Dubya was mislead!" 

That party line has been built up by the GOP faithful since immediately
after the war. (Here's one example:
http://www.irregulartimes.com/iraqhistory.html)

> And you know what? Intelligence is a tremendously difficult business. It
> would be a difficult business, even if the U.S Justice Department hadn't
> been stepping all over its own toes under Janet Reno. (Yes that was a
> factor, I can't find the article I'd point to though.) The point is that
> there's a significant difference between reaching a conclusion based on
> available data, and deliberately misleading people. I don't believe Bush
> is mendacious. And, as Randy, I, and others keep pointing out, WMD wasn't
> the only reason for invading Iraq.

And I believe he is -- there was plenty of "intelligence" that suggested
that Iraq *didn't* have WMD -- but it was summarily ignored so that they
could make the case against Iraq. The decision to go to war with Iraq
was made even before 9/11 by many accounts -- which doesn't jibe with
the public statements and the Bush administration's public reasoning for
the war. 

An actual threat to the United States is the only reason that most
people would support the war -- and that's why Bush and his cronies
played it up. The other reasons for going to war wouldn't have sold the
public. 

> So why is this suddenly Bush's lie?

Because Bush used it to sell the war -- and because it is bloody obvious
that the administration used the threat of WMD as the selling point to
go to war. It wasn't "Iraq has WMD, we'd better go to war," it was
"we're going to war with Iraq, how can we sell it?" There's a huge
difference between the two.   

Here's what Bush had to say in August, 2002 about Iraq:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/08/20020816-3.html

"There should be no doubt in anybody's mind this man is thumbing his 
nose at the world, that he has gassed his own people, that he is trouble 
in his neighborhood, that he desires weapons of mass destruction. I will use 
all the latest intelligence to make informed decisions about how best to keep 
the world at peace, how best to defend freedom for the long run." 

Apparently, "desires" wasn't strong enough, so they went looking for
stronger "evidence" to sell the war. 

Here's Bush trying to sell the war again in August, 2002:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/08/20020810-3.html

"Well, Stretch, I think most people understand he is a danger. But as I've 
said in speech after speech, I've got a lot of tools at my disposal. And 
I've also said I am a deliberate person. And so I'm -- we're in the process of 
consulting not only with Congress, like I said I do the other day, but with 
our friends and allies. And the consultation process is a positive part of 
really allowing people to fully understand our deep concerns about this 
man, his regime and his desires to have weapons of mass destruction."

Note again: "desires" to have WMD. 

Here's more on Bush deliberately ignoring intelligence that went against
the decision to go to war, from the Washington Post (on another site b/c
the Washington Post copy is archived or something...)
http://www.independent-media.tv/item.cfm?fmedia_id=1577&fcategory_desc=Under%20Reported

"President Bush and his national security adviser did not entirely 
read the most authoritative prewar assessment of U.S. intelligence on 
Iraq, including a State Department claim that an allegation Bush would later 
use in his State of the Union address was "highly dubious," White House 
officials said yesterday."

Read the next paragraph there -- the Bush administration was quick to
declassify an intelligence report to try to get off the hook, but they
sure as hell don't want to share anything else with the public...
particularly as it regards 9/11 and Cheney's little energy policy
meetings.  

Weren't you and Randy trying to say how the White House advisors were
giving Bush the best non-partisan advice? Making sure he had all the
facts? 

Nothing in what I've read or heard from or about the administration has
given me any reason to believe that the decision to go to war with Iraq
was a result of intelligence. Instead, what I have heard and read has
led me to believe that the decision was already made, and the
intelligence available was tailored to suit that decision. Any
inconvenient reports that said that Saddam didn't have WMD were ignored
or downplayed so that the American people would feel we urgently needed
to counter the "threat" from Iraq. 

So, yeah, I would say it is Bush's lie. Maybe he wasn't the only one who
used it, but he sure as hell claimed it as his own. 

Zonker