March 07, 2010
A history of the Iraq war, told entirely in lies
Sam Smith in Harper's Magazine:
All text is verbatim from senior Bush Administration officials and advisers. In places, tenses have been changed for clarity.
Once again, we were defending both ourselves and the safety and survival of civilization itself. September 11 signaled the arrival of an entirely different era. We faced perils we had never thought about, perils we had never seen before. For decades, terrorists had waged war against this country. Now, under the leadership of President Bush, America would wage war against them. It was a struggle between good and it was a struggle between evil.
It was absolutely clear that the number-one threat facing America was from Saddam Hussein. We know that Iraq and Al Qaeda had high-level contacts that went back a decade. We learned that Iraq had trained Al Qaeda members in bomb making and deadly gases. The regime had long-standing and continuing ties to terrorist organizations. Iraq and Al Qaeda had discussed safe-haven opportunities in Iraq. Iraqi officials denied accusations of ties with Al Qaeda. These denials simply were not credible. You couldn't distinguish between Al Qaeda and Saddam when you talked about the war on terror.
The fundamental question was, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer was, absolutely.
More here.
Posted by Abbas Raza at 03:59 AM | Permalink




















Comments
This is a pathetic, silly and sophomoric article which is an embarrassment to Harper's as well as to 3quarks for reproducing it: Paint a caricature of your opponent in an attempt to discredit him. A far more worthy exercise, but much harder work, would be to try to understand the decisions the Bush administration was facing and the information (and disinformation) they had to work with.
Posted by: Max Sebastian | Mar 7, 2010 9:40:28 AM
The entire exercise of the Bush II regime was to exploit the innate human fear of death.
Their propaganda is a textbook case.
Posted by: Dredd | Mar 7, 2010 10:20:06 AM
The article was a brilliant idea. Hilarious and scary at the same time.
Posted by: Belgian Beer | Mar 7, 2010 10:28:56 AM
The fabrication of lies also applies to the events of 9.11 itself, a bizarre series of inconsistencies and "errors" that were immediately used as a legitimizing vehicle to occupy "the prize" of Iraq's oilfields.
There are literally thousands and thousands of pilots, engineers, architects, firemen, victim's families, and even some Kean Commission members, calling for a full independent criminal investigation of the Sept 11 events. But this seems to have no effect on those who have drunk the koolaid of "the official conspiracy theory" .
Posted by: David | Mar 7, 2010 4:05:33 PM
The only real conspiracy theory is by those paranoid people who believe that 9/11 was done by the U.S. Govt. It is a pathetic claim by weak and scared minds.
As far as Iraqi oilfields being the prize. Take a look at who currently owns the Iraqi oilfields and also at the TSC contracts awarded. Iraqi govt owns them and the auction for the TSC contracts for intl companies was done at very tight margins, very little profit for the winning bids, most of which were won by non-U.S. companies.
Because of the gigantic expenses incurred by the U.S. taxpayer to fund the removal of Saddam Hussein, the U.S. should actually be given some oilfields as compensation. Instead, we got nothing. We should also have some Kuwaiti oilfields for liberating them.
Posted by: Max Sebastian | Mar 8, 2010 6:25:33 AM
Most of the writers and commentators who criticize the Bush administration have no experience in high-level government and no experience in the military leadership. Furthermore, the information and facts available to the public is quite limited. Most members of the Bush administration were faced with very difficult practical decisions, short-term, medium-term, and long-term. Layman, bystanders, consuming public news, are in no position to judge whether they made the right decisions.
Posted by: Max Sebastian | Mar 8, 2010 6:31:11 AM
"Furthermore, the information and facts available to the public is quite limited....Layman, bystanders, consuming public news, are in no position to judge whether they made the right decisions."
By design, naturally. God forbid the consuming public should be given all the information, so that they will understand the decisions that were made, why they were right (or wrong), and support or oppose them on their own merits, aye, Max Sebastian? One might have to wonder, in such a situation, on what basis a consuming public could decide for whom to vote, since clearly the decision must be based on something other than accurate information. In fact, there's just no way to judge, so why vote at all?
Is that about the size of it, Max?
Posted by: lambness | Mar 8, 2010 7:25:11 PM
Dear Lambness, yes, that is the size of it. Actually, it can be taken a step further. Because of the short term cycles, elected politicians spend a disproportionate amount of time focused on policies and propoganda aimed principally to get themselves re-elected, instead of simply running the government and designing the best medium term and long term policies. The short-term re-election focused strategies are crafted to appeal to a lowest common denominator intelligence quotient of the population, and are very damaging for crafting wise medium-term and long-term policies.
Posted by: Max Sebastian | Mar 11, 2010 11:44:14 AM
None of which justifies the carnage. There was, in fact very reliable information that clearly showed the holes in the Bush administration's justifications for the war.
As for the US being OWED something in return, surely the cost to Iraqis of over a million dead, huge areas that will be contaminated with radiation for thousands of years and birth defects and leukemia rates up 600%, the entire infrastructure destroyed - still no safe drinking water, sanitation systems or electricity while the larger-than-the-Vatican American Embassy enjoys numerous swimming pools, bowling alleys, movie theaters, etc, powered 24/7 - as well as up to 4 million displaced mitigates their 'debt' to us somewhat?
As for politicians being focused on their re-election, it is their choice to do that. The purpose of voters in electing them is not for them to be re-elected, but to legislate. That it is accepted that legislators then make a career out of it is to be blamed on a lack of vigilance and rigor in the voting public. The voters in this country definitely are a very weak link!
But have you ever talked to anyone in Congress? I have, and I've been lied to right to my face. I have friends who regularly speak to them and their aides, and all are astonished at their general lack of knowledge.
Posted by: Alice de Tocqueville | Mar 11, 2010 1:14:10 PM
Post a comment