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's Iraq Rationalization is Lame
Sep 15, 2006
WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration is relying on a slender thread to justify its disastrous war in Iraq: Saddam Hussein is now in jail.
"The world is safer because Saddam Hussein is no longer in power," President Bush insists, because "he was a clear threat."
Bush's rationalization comes up lame, given the administration's reluctant and deferred acknowledgement that Saddam had nothing to do with the 9/11 terrorist attacks and especially in view of the mounting casualty tolls of U.S. service members and Iraqi civilians.
Vice President Dick Cheney also says, "The world is better off today with Saddam Hussein out of power."
While holding no brief for Iraq's brutal dictator, I question whether we now live in a safer world.
The world would be better off without any dictators, of course. That's a given.
But I'm thinking of all the Americans and Iraqis who would be alive today had there not been a U.S.-waged war of choice.
Anti-terrorism experts regard the U.S. invasion and occupation as an alluring recruiting poster that is attracting more Islamic radicals to the ranks of suicide bombers in Iraq and elsewhere.
That may explain the insistence by Bush and Cheney that Iraq is the central front in the fight against terrorism. If it wasn't before the invasion, it is now.
The Middle East is aflame and the U.S. has lost its campaign for the hearts and minds of the people in the region.
Karen Hughes, the president's close confidante who is in charge of the State Department's public diplomacy, has been given the impossible mission of making friends for the U.S. in the Middle East. She will fail in this mission unless U.S. foreign policy is transformed.
Looking back, we had Saddam wrapped up tighter than a detainee in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. We had covered Saddam with strangling economic sanctions; regular bombings in the two no-fly zones had kept his military confined since the end of the first Gulf war in 1991; and intense U.S. satellite surveillance of Iraq kept tabs on what was going on.
U.N. inspectors and two U.S. task forces spent months and millions of dollars searching Iraq for evidence of weapons of mass destruction -- the centerpiece of Bush's rationale for going to war -- but found nothing.
Reminded of this inconvenient truth during his appearance on NBC-TV's "Meet the Press" last Sunday, Cheney had to fall back on the pathetic excuse that, even though Saddam didn't have such weapons, Iraq had the capability of obtaining them.
Against that yardstick, most of the world is a potential target for invasion and occupation.
The never-give-an-inch vice president concluded: The invasion was "the right thing to do" and "if we had it to do all over again, we'd do exactly the same thing."
That statement is outrageous, given the reality that none of the stated reasons for the U.S. invasion turned out to be accurate.
Meanwhile, White House press secretary Tony Snow is trying to brush aside the administration's tragic errors by saying, in effect, that the president wants to let bygones be bygones.
Snow told reporters last Friday that the president's view is, "OK, we'll let people quibble over (what happened) three years ago, the important thing is to figure out what you're doing tomorrow and the day after and the months after and the years after to make sure this war on terror is won."
Clearly, the president has no regrets about the Iraqi debacle as evidenced by the administration's fumbling efforts to fix the facts around his war policy and to fall back on contrived explanations for this tragedy.
This isn't the accountability we should expect from any White House, especially when it comes to the power to wage war.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. 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. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —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.
WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration is relying on a slender thread to justify its disastrous war in Iraq: Saddam Hussein is now in jail.
"The world is safer because Saddam Hussein is no longer in power," President Bush insists, because "he was a clear threat."
Bush's rationalization comes up lame, given the administration's reluctant and deferred acknowledgement that Saddam had nothing to do with the 9/11 terrorist attacks and especially in view of the mounting casualty tolls of U.S. service members and Iraqi civilians.
Vice President Dick Cheney also says, "The world is better off today with Saddam Hussein out of power."
While holding no brief for Iraq's brutal dictator, I question whether we now live in a safer world.
The world would be better off without any dictators, of course. That's a given.
But I'm thinking of all the Americans and Iraqis who would be alive today had there not been a U.S.-waged war of choice.
Anti-terrorism experts regard the U.S. invasion and occupation as an alluring recruiting poster that is attracting more Islamic radicals to the ranks of suicide bombers in Iraq and elsewhere.
That may explain the insistence by Bush and Cheney that Iraq is the central front in the fight against terrorism. If it wasn't before the invasion, it is now.
The Middle East is aflame and the U.S. has lost its campaign for the hearts and minds of the people in the region.
Karen Hughes, the president's close confidante who is in charge of the State Department's public diplomacy, has been given the impossible mission of making friends for the U.S. in the Middle East. She will fail in this mission unless U.S. foreign policy is transformed.
Looking back, we had Saddam wrapped up tighter than a detainee in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. We had covered Saddam with strangling economic sanctions; regular bombings in the two no-fly zones had kept his military confined since the end of the first Gulf war in 1991; and intense U.S. satellite surveillance of Iraq kept tabs on what was going on.
U.N. inspectors and two U.S. task forces spent months and millions of dollars searching Iraq for evidence of weapons of mass destruction -- the centerpiece of Bush's rationale for going to war -- but found nothing.
Reminded of this inconvenient truth during his appearance on NBC-TV's "Meet the Press" last Sunday, Cheney had to fall back on the pathetic excuse that, even though Saddam didn't have such weapons, Iraq had the capability of obtaining them.
Against that yardstick, most of the world is a potential target for invasion and occupation.
The never-give-an-inch vice president concluded: The invasion was "the right thing to do" and "if we had it to do all over again, we'd do exactly the same thing."
That statement is outrageous, given the reality that none of the stated reasons for the U.S. invasion turned out to be accurate.
Meanwhile, White House press secretary Tony Snow is trying to brush aside the administration's tragic errors by saying, in effect, that the president wants to let bygones be bygones.
Snow told reporters last Friday that the president's view is, "OK, we'll let people quibble over (what happened) three years ago, the important thing is to figure out what you're doing tomorrow and the day after and the months after and the years after to make sure this war on terror is won."
Clearly, the president has no regrets about the Iraqi debacle as evidenced by the administration's fumbling efforts to fix the facts around his war policy and to fall back on contrived explanations for this tragedy.
This isn't the accountability we should expect from any White House, especially when it comes to the power to wage war.
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.
WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration is relying on a slender thread to justify its disastrous war in Iraq: Saddam Hussein is now in jail.
"The world is safer because Saddam Hussein is no longer in power," President Bush insists, because "he was a clear threat."
Bush's rationalization comes up lame, given the administration's reluctant and deferred acknowledgement that Saddam had nothing to do with the 9/11 terrorist attacks and especially in view of the mounting casualty tolls of U.S. service members and Iraqi civilians.
Vice President Dick Cheney also says, "The world is better off today with Saddam Hussein out of power."
While holding no brief for Iraq's brutal dictator, I question whether we now live in a safer world.
The world would be better off without any dictators, of course. That's a given.
But I'm thinking of all the Americans and Iraqis who would be alive today had there not been a U.S.-waged war of choice.
Anti-terrorism experts regard the U.S. invasion and occupation as an alluring recruiting poster that is attracting more Islamic radicals to the ranks of suicide bombers in Iraq and elsewhere.
That may explain the insistence by Bush and Cheney that Iraq is the central front in the fight against terrorism. If it wasn't before the invasion, it is now.
The Middle East is aflame and the U.S. has lost its campaign for the hearts and minds of the people in the region.
Karen Hughes, the president's close confidante who is in charge of the State Department's public diplomacy, has been given the impossible mission of making friends for the U.S. in the Middle East. She will fail in this mission unless U.S. foreign policy is transformed.
Looking back, we had Saddam wrapped up tighter than a detainee in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. We had covered Saddam with strangling economic sanctions; regular bombings in the two no-fly zones had kept his military confined since the end of the first Gulf war in 1991; and intense U.S. satellite surveillance of Iraq kept tabs on what was going on.
U.N. inspectors and two U.S. task forces spent months and millions of dollars searching Iraq for evidence of weapons of mass destruction -- the centerpiece of Bush's rationale for going to war -- but found nothing.
Reminded of this inconvenient truth during his appearance on NBC-TV's "Meet the Press" last Sunday, Cheney had to fall back on the pathetic excuse that, even though Saddam didn't have such weapons, Iraq had the capability of obtaining them.
Against that yardstick, most of the world is a potential target for invasion and occupation.
The never-give-an-inch vice president concluded: The invasion was "the right thing to do" and "if we had it to do all over again, we'd do exactly the same thing."
That statement is outrageous, given the reality that none of the stated reasons for the U.S. invasion turned out to be accurate.
Meanwhile, White House press secretary Tony Snow is trying to brush aside the administration's tragic errors by saying, in effect, that the president wants to let bygones be bygones.
Snow told reporters last Friday that the president's view is, "OK, we'll let people quibble over (what happened) three years ago, the important thing is to figure out what you're doing tomorrow and the day after and the months after and the years after to make sure this war on terror is won."
Clearly, the president has no regrets about the Iraqi debacle as evidenced by the administration's fumbling efforts to fix the facts around his war policy and to fall back on contrived explanations for this tragedy.
This isn't the accountability we should expect from any White House, especially when it comes to the power to wage war.
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.