18.6.03
Republicans not worried over Iraq WMD claims: NY Times
The NY Times reports that the Republicans are not worried over the lack of evidence so far to support the Bush regime's fearful pre-war claims. Nevertheless, they are moving to prevent any kind of "partisan" or "political" inquiry into the matter.
As usual, the hypocrisy and obfuscation of the Republicans is incredible:
The Republicans' number one hypocrite - no mean feat - comes out to have his say:
Nevertheless, I fear that Gingrich may turn out to be right on this one. In order to really make this an issue - and to defeat what Gingrich has correctly laid out as the Bush regime line of defence, the "defending the Saddam administration" argument - the Democrats are going to have to adopt the left/"liberal" approach and refer to history. They will have to point out that Republican administrations were the ones that made the "mass graves" possible, that Reagan - assisted by his errand-boy Rumsfeld - was the one who reestablished relations with Saddam while he was gassing Iranian soldiers by the thousands, that Bush I did nothing while Saddam was dropping chemical weapons on the Kurds. They will need to do this in addition to forcing an investigation into the pre-war intelligence and how it was used. In other countries besides America, the "international legitimacy"/UN argument would also be a powerful counterargument. But the Democrats have done their part in seeing respect for this eroded in the US, and now it is too late to really make a case that relies even in part on this.
Unfortunately, I do not think a serious challenge to the Bush administration over the Iraq WMD will be made. While the Democrats will probably get some kind of hearings or inquiries, the Republicans will be able to parry the charges with the argument that Gingrich laid out. In addition, they will use delaying techniques and procedures, and especially "national security considerations", to keep throwing up roadblocks to a real inquiry. In the end, that will win the day. The Democracts will refrain from using history - practicing "revisionist history", in a real, social scientific sense - to make a winning case for Americans because they will think that it will be perceived as "attacking America". To a certain extent, this would be true - it will lay open at least one unsavory episode in the history of the US's foreign policy. But this would likely lead to many more historical examinations of how America has acted abroad, and such an exercise is dangerous - especially in a place like the Middle East. It would be "attacking America" by showing that the US has not always been this beacon of hope and all that is good in the world. The Democrats won't dare risk something like this in the contemporary US, and especially during an election year. So Bush will most likely, barring a really determined and timely attack by the Democrats, pull this off.
The NY Times shows that it will do its part to prevent any kind of real investigation into the issue:
Finally, here's a taste of what kind of "oversight" Americans will likely get:
Critics have to get the American public demanding answers and smelling blood. Bush lied, people died, put the patsy on trial.
The NY Times reports that the Republicans are not worried over the lack of evidence so far to support the Bush regime's fearful pre-war claims. Nevertheless, they are moving to prevent any kind of "partisan" or "political" inquiry into the matter.
As usual, the hypocrisy and obfuscation of the Republicans is incredible:
"We see a very similar pattern to the commentary around the military campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq - the premature drawing of conclusions, based on a picture that is still incomplete," Dan Bartlett, Mr. Bush's director for communications, said today. "Americans are patient. They are willing to wait and see what we find."Of course, this kind of "wait-and-see" attitude on whether the weapons are there are not won't prevent Bush from taking credit as the "liberator president" in time for the next election - before we "wait and see" whether Iraq is going to blow up in the Americans' faces, or the go the way that Afghanistan is going.
The Republicans' number one hypocrite - no mean feat - comes out to have his say:
"The literary class that dislikes Bush and dislikes American activism is thrilled, whether in Europe or in the U.S., to have this question to raise," [Newt Gingrich] said. "But in the United States at least, given the mass graves, given the level of torture and brutality by the Baath Party regime, you're asking the American people to side with the apologists for replacing Saddam. Does even the most left-wing Democrat want to defend the proposition that the world would be better off with Saddam in power?"Literary class? Does he think that a jacquerie of English professors and Jean-Paul Sartre readers leading this campaign? Or did Gingrich mean "literate" class?
Nevertheless, I fear that Gingrich may turn out to be right on this one. In order to really make this an issue - and to defeat what Gingrich has correctly laid out as the Bush regime line of defence, the "defending the Saddam administration" argument - the Democrats are going to have to adopt the left/"liberal" approach and refer to history. They will have to point out that Republican administrations were the ones that made the "mass graves" possible, that Reagan - assisted by his errand-boy Rumsfeld - was the one who reestablished relations with Saddam while he was gassing Iranian soldiers by the thousands, that Bush I did nothing while Saddam was dropping chemical weapons on the Kurds. They will need to do this in addition to forcing an investigation into the pre-war intelligence and how it was used. In other countries besides America, the "international legitimacy"/UN argument would also be a powerful counterargument. But the Democrats have done their part in seeing respect for this eroded in the US, and now it is too late to really make a case that relies even in part on this.
Unfortunately, I do not think a serious challenge to the Bush administration over the Iraq WMD will be made. While the Democrats will probably get some kind of hearings or inquiries, the Republicans will be able to parry the charges with the argument that Gingrich laid out. In addition, they will use delaying techniques and procedures, and especially "national security considerations", to keep throwing up roadblocks to a real inquiry. In the end, that will win the day. The Democracts will refrain from using history - practicing "revisionist history", in a real, social scientific sense - to make a winning case for Americans because they will think that it will be perceived as "attacking America". To a certain extent, this would be true - it will lay open at least one unsavory episode in the history of the US's foreign policy. But this would likely lead to many more historical examinations of how America has acted abroad, and such an exercise is dangerous - especially in a place like the Middle East. It would be "attacking America" by showing that the US has not always been this beacon of hope and all that is good in the world. The Democrats won't dare risk something like this in the contemporary US, and especially during an election year. So Bush will most likely, barring a really determined and timely attack by the Democrats, pull this off.
The NY Times shows that it will do its part to prevent any kind of real investigation into the issue:
The images of Iraqis toppling the statue of Mr. Hussein or welcoming allied troops have created a positive glow about the war in the minds of voters that has not been dimmed substantially by the failure so far to find any banned weapons, ["Republican pollsters and strategists"] said.Naturally, it wouldn't pay for the Times to rain on the Republicans' parade and point out that the statue was pulled down by American soldiers and that the accompanying rally was staged. Or to do any kind of real, "unpatriotic" reporting.
Finally, here's a taste of what kind of "oversight" Americans will likely get:
In the House, where Intelligence Committee members are examining about 10 volumes of material provided by the C.I.A., there has been less partisanship over the progress of the review. But Representative Porter J. Goss, Republican of Florida and the chairman of the panel, said his intent is only to judge the performance of the intelligence agencies, not the way any information might have been manipulated.Interesting...dodging the whole point of an investigation into the matter. No indication of how a Republican from Florida is going to be able to dermine whether the CIA did a "good job" or not. What are the standards? Did they dot all of their i's?
"I'm not going into what the customer did with the intelligence," Mr. Goss said.
Critics have to get the American public demanding answers and smelling blood. Bush lied, people died, put the patsy on trial.
