18.9.03
Bush, the Iraq war, and the paper trail
Via the invaluable Tom "Buy My Book" Tomorrow we get a convenient paper trail that shows very, very clearly the dishonesty and contempt for the American public that characterizes the Bush administration:
Stripped down further, we have Bush telling Congress that invading Iraq is part of the "war on terror" that began with the September attacks.
But now we have Bush - the same George W. Bush, president of the United States of America, who signed the letter above - joining Rumsfeld and Rice in saying that "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th."
Is there a contradiction here? Of course there is. It is clear that the White House was implying in the letter above that the Iraqi government, at some level, played a part in the September 11 attacks.
However, it should also be clear that this letter was written in such a way to provide a loophole through which the Bush administration could slither through if things started to go badly (which they have). This loophole concerns the phrase "...including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001". This phrase indicates that "nations, organizations, or persons" who had a hand in 9/11 are part of the larger "war on terror" (i.e., they are a subset of the larger set of targets).
So, with this in mind, we can postulate that the interpretation that the Bush administration will apply to its declaration of war will be something like this: "Attacking Iraq was consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including, but not limited to, those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001". In other words, if anyone feels like confronting the administration with this apparent contradiction, Bush will be told to answer that Iraq was part of the larger "war on terror", even though they are admitting now that there was never an Iraqi connection with Al Qaeda or 9/11.
People who see kind of some smoking gun here showing the Bush administration's deceit are too optimistic and are forgetting what kind ofscumbags professional liars officials we're dealing with here. Bush may be an imbecile, but his handlers certainly are not. How many times have we heard Cheney, Rice, and Rumsfeld using some variation of the phrase "I didn't say that; I was careful not to say that" when confronted when an apparent claim they've made? This letter was no different; it was carefully formulated by a group of deeply dishonest people who knew there was no evidence of Iraqi involvement in 9/11 but who wanted to give the impression that there was anyway. It is another instance where the wording gives one impression (here, that Iraq was involved with 9/11) while leaving the way open for another interpretation (here, that attacking Iraq was simply part of the larger "war on terror", which may or may not include nations, etc., involved with 9/11).
What this line of defence (if it is used, and I am confident that it will be at some point) says about the Bush administration is not so much that they are dishonest, lying cheats - they are, even if technically this time they didn't lie - as that they hold an extremely low opinion of the intelligence of the American public. Confronted with the charge that Bush lied to the American public, members of the administration will be able to say "No, we didn't - and it is isn't our problem if you're too much of an idiot to understand what we're saying".
This is the general problem facing anyone who is fed up with having his or her intelligence insulted by this clown and his minions. There is no smoking gun. Everything can be explained away one way or another: through semantic games like I demonstrated above, through denial, through claims of ignorance ("we didn't know that we didn't know"), or, as a last resort, through claims of incompetence - which will be pawned off on underlings, as was the case with the CIA. And thanks in part to America's media, these feeble explanations will be more than enough to keep Bush in the White House.
Via the invaluable Tom "Buy My Book" Tomorrow we get a convenient paper trail that shows very, very clearly the dishonesty and contempt for the American public that characterizes the Bush administration:
Text of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the SenateOk, we can summarize the above document - the declaration of war against Iraq - as follows: Bush determined that attacking Iraq (i.e., implementing Public Law 107-243) was consistent with the US taking action against "international terrorists" and "terrorist organizations", including nations, organizations, or persons who had some part in 9-11.
March 18, 2003
Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)
Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
Sincerely,
GEORGE W. BUSH
Stripped down further, we have Bush telling Congress that invading Iraq is part of the "war on terror" that began with the September attacks.
But now we have Bush - the same George W. Bush, president of the United States of America, who signed the letter above - joining Rumsfeld and Rice in saying that "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th."
Is there a contradiction here? Of course there is. It is clear that the White House was implying in the letter above that the Iraqi government, at some level, played a part in the September 11 attacks.
However, it should also be clear that this letter was written in such a way to provide a loophole through which the Bush administration could slither through if things started to go badly (which they have). This loophole concerns the phrase "...including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001". This phrase indicates that "nations, organizations, or persons" who had a hand in 9/11 are part of the larger "war on terror" (i.e., they are a subset of the larger set of targets).
So, with this in mind, we can postulate that the interpretation that the Bush administration will apply to its declaration of war will be something like this: "Attacking Iraq was consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including, but not limited to, those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001". In other words, if anyone feels like confronting the administration with this apparent contradiction, Bush will be told to answer that Iraq was part of the larger "war on terror", even though they are admitting now that there was never an Iraqi connection with Al Qaeda or 9/11.
People who see kind of some smoking gun here showing the Bush administration's deceit are too optimistic and are forgetting what kind of
What this line of defence (if it is used, and I am confident that it will be at some point) says about the Bush administration is not so much that they are dishonest, lying cheats - they are, even if technically this time they didn't lie - as that they hold an extremely low opinion of the intelligence of the American public. Confronted with the charge that Bush lied to the American public, members of the administration will be able to say "No, we didn't - and it is isn't our problem if you're too much of an idiot to understand what we're saying".
This is the general problem facing anyone who is fed up with having his or her intelligence insulted by this clown and his minions. There is no smoking gun. Everything can be explained away one way or another: through semantic games like I demonstrated above, through denial, through claims of ignorance ("we didn't know that we didn't know"), or, as a last resort, through claims of incompetence - which will be pawned off on underlings, as was the case with the CIA. And thanks in part to America's media, these feeble explanations will be more than enough to keep Bush in the White House.
