SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Bush Shows No Sign of Learning His Lesson About Pre-emptive War
Jul 21, 2004
If President Bush has any grand plan for another pre-emptive war, he had better forget it.
Bush has crashed landed on the fallacy of the invasion of Iraq. It will take time for the self-described "war president" to make a recovery.
It brings to mind an old saying: "Some day they will give a war and nobody will come."
The Senate Intelligence Committee recently delivered a thorough trashing to the U.S. intelligence that nourished administration hawks in their rush to invade Iraq. The senators -- Republicans and Democrats --unanimously rejected the reasons Bush had given to justify his attack.
The panel summed up the U.S. intelligence about Iraq's links with al-Qaida and Iraq's weapons programs as "false, overstated and deeply flawed."
If nothing else, that condemnation should rid Bush of any ideas he may have for other ill-advised pre-emptive wars in the Middle East or for "preventive wars," as they are euphemistically called.
The bad news is that Bush shows no indication that he has learned the lesson.
Earlier this week, Bush told a campaign rally in Marquette, Mich., that "America must remember the lessons of Sept. 11. We must confront serious dangers before they materialize."
This is another indication that he still endorses pre-emptive war. The president's comment also stands as further evidence of the administration's dishonest -- and continuing -- propaganda program aimed at merging the war on terrorism with the war on Iraq.
Days after the Senate committee's report, a British inquiry also found its government intelligence "seriously flawed" in drumming up excuses for the war.
Although the U.K. inquiry absolved Prime Minister Tony Blair of "deliberate distortion" or "culpable negligence," Blair said he assumed "full personal responsibility" for the fact that no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, despite his frightening warnings of imminent danger.
Faced with the grim reality that their original public rationales for war have been demolished, Bush and Blair have resorted to a vague feel-good generalization that "the world is better off" without Saddam Hussein in power.
While Blair did a mea culpa, we have yet to hear a similar refrain from Bush.
If it matters at this stage of the game, unprovoked attacks against other nations are illegal under international law and the United Nations charter, which American leaders helped draft after World War II.
Meanwhile, Bush's vaunted "coalition of the willing" -- never much to begin with -- is facing vaporization.
A small troop contingent from the Philippines is pulling out of Iraq at the end of the month to save the life of a Filipino captive held by Iraqi insurgents.
Four countries already have left: Spain, the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua and Honduras. Planning to depart soon: Norway, Thailand and New Zealand.
These allies trickle out as the White House and the Pentagon struggle with credibility problems created by their sorry record in truth telling about the war.
One wonders if the administration can ever recover the trust it needs to rally the necessary public support for the war against terrorism.
There are two other institutions that should indulge in serious self-examination.
One is the U.S. news media, which -- generally speaking -- accepted the administration's jingoistic march to war without skepticism.
The other is Congress, which gave Bush a blank check to invade without deeply probing the reasons. The lawmakers should be asked if they still would have voted to go to war, knowing what they know now.
Although popular support for the Iraq war is waning, both Sens. John Kerry of Massachusetts and John Edwards of North Carolina -- the presumed Democratic Party standard bearers in the Nov. 2 election -- are playing it politically safe -- too safe.
It's incredible that both continue to defend their pro-war votes in the Senate, instead of saying that they, like the American public, were misled by the Bush administration.
Challengers are expected to make a difference. On the question of the Iraq war, Kerry has passed up a chance to offer voters a choice.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
© 2023 Seattle Post-Intelligencer
Helen Thomas
Helen Thomas was an American author and former news service reporter, member of the White House Press Corps and columnist. She worked for the United Press International (UPI) for 57 years, first as a correspondent, and later as White House bureau chief. She was an opinion columnist for Hearst Newspapers from 2000 to 2010, writing on national affairs and the White House. Among other books, she was the author of "Front Row at The White House: My Life and Times" (2000) and "Watchdogs of Democracy?: The Waning Washington Press Corps and How It Has Failed the Public" (2007). Helen passed away on July 20, 2013.
If President Bush has any grand plan for another pre-emptive war, he had better forget it.
Bush has crashed landed on the fallacy of the invasion of Iraq. It will take time for the self-described "war president" to make a recovery.
It brings to mind an old saying: "Some day they will give a war and nobody will come."
The Senate Intelligence Committee recently delivered a thorough trashing to the U.S. intelligence that nourished administration hawks in their rush to invade Iraq. The senators -- Republicans and Democrats --unanimously rejected the reasons Bush had given to justify his attack.
The panel summed up the U.S. intelligence about Iraq's links with al-Qaida and Iraq's weapons programs as "false, overstated and deeply flawed."
If nothing else, that condemnation should rid Bush of any ideas he may have for other ill-advised pre-emptive wars in the Middle East or for "preventive wars," as they are euphemistically called.
The bad news is that Bush shows no indication that he has learned the lesson.
Earlier this week, Bush told a campaign rally in Marquette, Mich., that "America must remember the lessons of Sept. 11. We must confront serious dangers before they materialize."
This is another indication that he still endorses pre-emptive war. The president's comment also stands as further evidence of the administration's dishonest -- and continuing -- propaganda program aimed at merging the war on terrorism with the war on Iraq.
Days after the Senate committee's report, a British inquiry also found its government intelligence "seriously flawed" in drumming up excuses for the war.
Although the U.K. inquiry absolved Prime Minister Tony Blair of "deliberate distortion" or "culpable negligence," Blair said he assumed "full personal responsibility" for the fact that no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, despite his frightening warnings of imminent danger.
Faced with the grim reality that their original public rationales for war have been demolished, Bush and Blair have resorted to a vague feel-good generalization that "the world is better off" without Saddam Hussein in power.
While Blair did a mea culpa, we have yet to hear a similar refrain from Bush.
If it matters at this stage of the game, unprovoked attacks against other nations are illegal under international law and the United Nations charter, which American leaders helped draft after World War II.
Meanwhile, Bush's vaunted "coalition of the willing" -- never much to begin with -- is facing vaporization.
A small troop contingent from the Philippines is pulling out of Iraq at the end of the month to save the life of a Filipino captive held by Iraqi insurgents.
Four countries already have left: Spain, the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua and Honduras. Planning to depart soon: Norway, Thailand and New Zealand.
These allies trickle out as the White House and the Pentagon struggle with credibility problems created by their sorry record in truth telling about the war.
One wonders if the administration can ever recover the trust it needs to rally the necessary public support for the war against terrorism.
There are two other institutions that should indulge in serious self-examination.
One is the U.S. news media, which -- generally speaking -- accepted the administration's jingoistic march to war without skepticism.
The other is Congress, which gave Bush a blank check to invade without deeply probing the reasons. The lawmakers should be asked if they still would have voted to go to war, knowing what they know now.
Although popular support for the Iraq war is waning, both Sens. John Kerry of Massachusetts and John Edwards of North Carolina -- the presumed Democratic Party standard bearers in the Nov. 2 election -- are playing it politically safe -- too safe.
It's incredible that both continue to defend their pro-war votes in the Senate, instead of saying that they, like the American public, were misled by the Bush administration.
Challengers are expected to make a difference. On the question of the Iraq war, Kerry has passed up a chance to offer voters a choice.
Helen Thomas
Helen Thomas was an American author and former news service reporter, member of the White House Press Corps and columnist. She worked for the United Press International (UPI) for 57 years, first as a correspondent, and later as White House bureau chief. She was an opinion columnist for Hearst Newspapers from 2000 to 2010, writing on national affairs and the White House. Among other books, she was the author of "Front Row at The White House: My Life and Times" (2000) and "Watchdogs of Democracy?: The Waning Washington Press Corps and How It Has Failed the Public" (2007). Helen passed away on July 20, 2013.
If President Bush has any grand plan for another pre-emptive war, he had better forget it.
Bush has crashed landed on the fallacy of the invasion of Iraq. It will take time for the self-described "war president" to make a recovery.
It brings to mind an old saying: "Some day they will give a war and nobody will come."
The Senate Intelligence Committee recently delivered a thorough trashing to the U.S. intelligence that nourished administration hawks in their rush to invade Iraq. The senators -- Republicans and Democrats --unanimously rejected the reasons Bush had given to justify his attack.
The panel summed up the U.S. intelligence about Iraq's links with al-Qaida and Iraq's weapons programs as "false, overstated and deeply flawed."
If nothing else, that condemnation should rid Bush of any ideas he may have for other ill-advised pre-emptive wars in the Middle East or for "preventive wars," as they are euphemistically called.
The bad news is that Bush shows no indication that he has learned the lesson.
Earlier this week, Bush told a campaign rally in Marquette, Mich., that "America must remember the lessons of Sept. 11. We must confront serious dangers before they materialize."
This is another indication that he still endorses pre-emptive war. The president's comment also stands as further evidence of the administration's dishonest -- and continuing -- propaganda program aimed at merging the war on terrorism with the war on Iraq.
Days after the Senate committee's report, a British inquiry also found its government intelligence "seriously flawed" in drumming up excuses for the war.
Although the U.K. inquiry absolved Prime Minister Tony Blair of "deliberate distortion" or "culpable negligence," Blair said he assumed "full personal responsibility" for the fact that no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, despite his frightening warnings of imminent danger.
Faced with the grim reality that their original public rationales for war have been demolished, Bush and Blair have resorted to a vague feel-good generalization that "the world is better off" without Saddam Hussein in power.
While Blair did a mea culpa, we have yet to hear a similar refrain from Bush.
If it matters at this stage of the game, unprovoked attacks against other nations are illegal under international law and the United Nations charter, which American leaders helped draft after World War II.
Meanwhile, Bush's vaunted "coalition of the willing" -- never much to begin with -- is facing vaporization.
A small troop contingent from the Philippines is pulling out of Iraq at the end of the month to save the life of a Filipino captive held by Iraqi insurgents.
Four countries already have left: Spain, the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua and Honduras. Planning to depart soon: Norway, Thailand and New Zealand.
These allies trickle out as the White House and the Pentagon struggle with credibility problems created by their sorry record in truth telling about the war.
One wonders if the administration can ever recover the trust it needs to rally the necessary public support for the war against terrorism.
There are two other institutions that should indulge in serious self-examination.
One is the U.S. news media, which -- generally speaking -- accepted the administration's jingoistic march to war without skepticism.
The other is Congress, which gave Bush a blank check to invade without deeply probing the reasons. The lawmakers should be asked if they still would have voted to go to war, knowing what they know now.
Although popular support for the Iraq war is waning, both Sens. John Kerry of Massachusetts and John Edwards of North Carolina -- the presumed Democratic Party standard bearers in the Nov. 2 election -- are playing it politically safe -- too safe.
It's incredible that both continue to defend their pro-war votes in the Senate, instead of saying that they, like the American public, were misled by the Bush administration.
Challengers are expected to make a difference. On the question of the Iraq war, Kerry has passed up a chance to offer voters a choice.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.