20 May 2015

"The Iraq war wasn’t an innocent mistake.... America invaded Iraq because the Bush administration wanted a war. The public justifications for the invasion were nothing but pretexts, and falsified pretexts at that. We were, in a fundamental sense, lied into war."

Surprise! It turns out that there’s something to be said for having the brother of a failed president make his own run for the White House. Thanks to Jeb Bush, we may finally have the frank discussion of the Iraq invasion we should have had a decade ago.
But many influential people — not just Mr. Bush — would prefer that we not have that discussion. There’s a palpable sense right now of the political and media elite trying to draw a line under the subject. Yes, the narrative goes, we now know that invading Iraq was a terrible mistake, and it’s about time that everyone admits it. Now let’s move on. 
Well, let’s not — because that’s a false narrative, and everyone who was involved in the debate over the war knows that it’s false. The Iraq war wasn’t an innocent mistake, a venture undertaken on the basis of intelligence that turned out to be wrong. America invaded Iraq because the Bush administration wanted a war. The public justifications for the invasion were nothing but pretexts, and falsified pretexts at that. We were, in a fundamental sense, lied into war.
The fraudulence of the case for war was actually obvious even at the time: the ever-shifting arguments for an unchanging goal were a dead giveaway. So were the word games — the talk about W.M.D that conflated chemical weapons (which many people did think Saddam had) with nukes, the constant insinuations that Iraq was somehow behind 9/11.
And at this point we have plenty of evidence to confirm everything the war’s opponents were saying. We now know, for example, that on 9/11 itself — literally before the dust had settled — Donald Rumsfeld, the secretary of defense, was already plotting war against a regime that had nothing to do with the terrorist attack. “Judge whether good enough [to] hit S.H. [Saddam Hussein] ...sweep it all up things related and not”; so read notes taken by Mr. Rumsfeld’s aide.
This was, in short, a war the White House wanted, and all of the supposed mistakes that, as Jeb puts it, “were made” by someone unnamed actually flowed from this underlying desire. Did the intelligence agencies wrongly conclude that Iraq had chemical weapons and a nuclear program? That’s because they were under intense pressure to justify the war. Did prewar assessments vastly understate the difficulty and cost of occupation? That’s because the war party didn’t want to hear anything that might raise doubts about the rush to invade. Indeed, the Army’s chief of staff was effectively fired for questioning claims that the occupation phase would be cheap and easy.
Why did they want a war? That’s a harder question to answer. Some of the warmongers believed that deploying shock and awe in Iraq would enhance American power and influence around the world. Some saw Iraq as a sort of pilot project, preparation for a series of regime changes. And it’s hard to avoid the suspicion that there was a strong element of wagging the dog, of using military triumph to strengthen the Republican brand at home.
Whatever the precise motives, the result was a very dark chapter in American history. Once again: We were lied into war. allowed themselves to be intimidated into going along. For there was a definite climate of fear among politicians and pundits in 2002 and 2003, one in which criticizing the push for war looked very much like a career killer.
On top of these personal motives, our news media in general have a hard time coping with policy dishonesty. Reporters are reluctant to call politicians on their lies, even when these involve mundane issues like budget numbers, for fear of seeming partisan. In fact, the bigger the lie, the clearer it is that major political figures are engaged in outright fraud, the more hesitant the reporting. And it doesn’t get much bigger — indeed, more or less criminal — than lying America into war.
But truth matters, and not just because those who refuse to learn from history are doomed in some general sense to repeat it. The campaign of lies that took us into Iraq was recent enough that it’s still important to hold the guilty individuals accountable. Never mind Jeb Bush’s verbal stumbles. Think, instead, about his foreign-policy team, led by people who were directly involved in concocting a false case for war.

Read More:http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/18/opinion/paul-krugman-errors-and-lies.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=opinion-c-col-right-region&region=opinion-c-col-right-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-right-region&_r=0

3 comments:

  1. ONE party .... TWO names ............ Democan/Republicrat....
    They are not even PRETENDING ...... They are RUBBING IT in your FACES
    "daddy" Bush has been BFF with Billy Clinton for decades.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/12/05/george-w-bush-hillary-clinton-is-like-my-sister-in-law/
    George W. Bush: Hillary Clinton is like ‘my sister-in-law’ By Jose A. DelReal December 5 at 10:16 AM
    Former President Bush has spoken at length about his close ties to former President Bill Clinton, at times calling him his "brother from another mother."
    CNN's Candy Crowley asked Bush during an interview published Friday where that leaves Hillary Clinton: "My sister-in-law!" the president responded light-heartedly.
    JEB's company "hired" Hillary -- http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/05/18/report-jebs-education-company-paid-hillary-225k-for-speech/
    Two families ----- ONE Crime Syndicate
    A vote for a BUSH is a vote for a CLINTON

    ReplyDelete
  2. It's no mystery why they attacked Iraq: they wanted to take Iraqi oil, which is the cheapest in the world (produces at $1/barrel) offline, to raise the price (mission accomplished: gas was $1.20/gallon when Bush was elected). They wanted the political capital that a wartime president receives. They wanted to create a neocon economic paradise in Iraq, where the transfer of public money into private hands was so efficient that in some cases they simply shrink-wrapped pallets of billions of dollars, took them over there and "lost" them. Over seventy companies were found to be simply shell companies receiving multi-million dollar military contracts and producing nothing. And psychopaths got to torture and kill a lot of people. The bad guys won. And guess what? They're still winning.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Orwell's Talmudic double-speak: lesson from Baghdad - 'sexed-up documents' = propaganda lies.

    ReplyDelete