As the Bush administration continues to justify its hasty decision to launch a war on Iraq — these days with much-deserved squirming — let's not accept the terms of debate established by the White House.

They're still peddling this argument: So far as we knew, based on intelligence — which "everybody" agreed with — Saddam Hussein posed an immediate (and yes, officials used the word "imminent") threat to the United States. He was so dangerous that we might soon see the evidence of his mad perfidy in the form of a "mushroom cloud." Therefore, we had no choice but to eliminate this dire threat. Immediately. In March 2003.

The president and Vice President Cheney are now lobbing this fairy tale again and again, in hopes of bamboozling the public one more time. But the public isn't buying any more, and Bush partisans have descended into cowardly ad hominem attacks and pitiful attempts to deflect blame.

But of course, those options — invade ASAP or face devastating attack — were far from the only ones available. U.N. weapons inspectors were steadily confirming that Saddam's Iraq not only posed no threat to America, but was so emasculated after the first Gulf War and years of sanctions that it couldn't have attacked a Kuwaiti pajama party.

Option No. 3: Let the inspections proceed, confirm that Saddam — bastard that he is — posed no threat, and go to work figuring out how to change Iraq's government without destroying a nation, killing tens of thousands of innocents and sacrificing the lives of thousands of duty-bound American soldiers.

Don't believe me? Have a look at what Bush administration officials were saying before 9/11:

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell, on Feb. 24, 2001: "And frankly, (sanctions) have worked. (Saddam) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors."

Then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice in July 2001: "Saddam does not control the northern part of the country. We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."

So we're to believe that in two years, Saddam went from being "in a box" and unable to "build his military back up or to develop weapons of mass destruction" (Powell, May 15, 2001) to posing an imminent threat to the United States? And that this preening secular dictator had established ties to the rigidly Islamist al-Qaida, a spurious tale the CIA knew to be false? Remember, the war was not sold to us on some idealistic notion of bringing democracy to the Arab world.

So yes, this was all a lie, teetering on cherry-picked, politically laundered intelligence. Millions of people around the world weren't fooled, arguing that the best approach was to continue inspections. But the president couldn't wait for his war. To claim, two and a half bloody years later, that we had no choice only compounds the lie.

Most Americans seem to recognize that now. But, many — including amajority in Congress — believe we must "finish the job."

Newsflash: This thing is already finished. The "bloodbath" isn't waiting for the withdrawal of U.S. troops, and there will be no shining democracy in Iraq. Iraq's own leaders — "our" guys, sort of — at a Cairo conference midwifed by the United States, last week declared that Iraqis have a "legitimate right" to resist foreign occupation — i.e. kill Americans; asked that foreign troops leave within a year; and say that once that catalyst for violence is removed, they believe they can handle their own affairs, and begin to reduce the bloodshed.

Re George W. Bush's belated, fanciful rationale that we will create a garden of democracy in Iraq: Iran is busily cozying up to the Shi'ite majority, now offering official support to help end the largely Sunni insurgency. All the precursors of civil war — sectarian attacks on mosques, torture of enemies — are happening right now.

What's the answer? Withdraw, the sooner, the better. I agree with U.S. Rep. John Murtha that we should be out of Iraq in six months. And that's not immediate, pell-mell withdrawal, with helicopters trailing kite tails of desperate bodies a la Vietnam, as crafty hawks have tried to spin it.

Call it "cutting and running," if you like. But this is a failed war, and even the generals know it cannot be won militarily. Anyone who argues that we should stick around to make some point about "pride" should be forced to look into the eyes of the widows and mothers of every soldier killed between now and our certain withdrawal and explain that their sons and daughters died to bolster someone's misguided sense of manhood.

Will Iraq become a haven for terrorists? Again, that damage already is done. We took down a heinous, but relentlessly secular, dictatorship despised by radical Islamists and turned Iraq into a finishing school for fanatics the world over. Iraqis, once rid of occupation, likely won't stand for another "occupation" a la al-Qaida's usurpation of Taliban-ruled Afghanistan — they learned well from Saddam how to deal with dissent. If they do, the United States and its allies will have just cause to bomb terrorist encampments.

We rushed into war when we did not have to. Now, dawdling on the road to withdrawal will only delay Iraq's return to some semblance of order. And every American life — every Iraqi life — sacrificed on the altar of pride between now and our departure will be tragically ill spent.

© 2005 The Daily Camera

###