Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsA Dishonest History of the Last War
A Dishonest History of the Last WarBy Jamelle Bouie at Slate
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/05/the_iraq_war_wasn_t_an_honest_mistake_republicans_are_still_defending_the.html
"SNIP...............
For the last week, liberals and conservatives have been arguing over the Iraq war. They agree that it was a mistake. But where liberals see lies and misinformationAmerica invaded Iraq because the Bush administration wanted a war, writes Paul Krugmanconservatives see an honest error. [C]learly there were mistakes as it related to faulty intelligence in the lead-up to the war and the lack of focus on security, said Jeb Bush in one of his four follow-ups to a now-consequential question on the Iraq war last week. The intelligence was clearly wrong, said former CEO Carly Fiorina, And so had we known that the intelligence was wrong, no, I would not have gone in.
Outside of the presidential race, conservative writers have tried to highlight the honest part of the mistake by emphasizing the national consensus around Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction. Though certainly not unanimous, writes Matt Lewis for the Daily Caller, the truth is that there was a strong bipartisan consensus that Iraq had WMDs. This included President Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, and even Nancy Pelosi. Lewis ends there, but the intended argument is clear: You cant accuse Bush of misleading the public when everyone, independent of the administration, also believed that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.
Except that you can. As Jonathan Chait notes for New York, misleading the public into a war of choice isnt mutually exclusive to having faulty intelligence, especially given the official conclusion that the administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent. As Chait writes, The Bush administration was the victim of bad intelligence, but also the perpetrator. Its defense lies in pretending that those two things cannot both be the case. And at Mother Jones, David Corn points to the long trail of evidence showing the extent to which Bush officials exaggerated existing evidence and actively deceived the public about Iraqs threat to the United States. Not only did Vice President Dick Cheney insist there was very clear evidence Hussein was developing nuclear weapons (there wasnt), but healong with President Bush and other members of the administrationworked to link Hussein to the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. In November 2002, notes Corn, Bush said Saddam is a threat because hes dealing with Al Qaeda.
But theres more to this dispute than the details of the run-up to the Iraq war. Conservatives dont just want to avoid the extent to which the invasion was an active decision and not the passive result of faulty intelligence. They also want to enshrine the underlying logic of the war. The argument that the Iraq war was an honest mistake from bad assessments is also an argument that the invasion was the proper response to the potential threat of a WMD-equipped Saddam. Its an endorsement of the Bush-Cheney strategy of preventive war.
...............SNIP"
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
0 replies, 359 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (1)
ReplyReply to this post