I read this in a coffee shop this morning, and if I'd had a pen & the time, I would have annotated every copy of it in the place. Here is a link, and a couple of paragraphs of it:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2001861257_mariana20.htmlWhy did we invade Iraq? Why are we fighting a war against terrorism? Why do we want free-flowing international information regarding weapons of mass destruction?
<snip>
It was a threat on Jan. 30, 2001, 10 days after George W. Bush was sworn in as president, during the now famous meeting referenced by dismissed Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill in a book designed to cast doubt on the president's decisions.
Al-Qaida was a threat so real that it was an implied factor when considering the capabilities of all rogue nations. And Iraq was the government best known both for harboring a hatred of freedom and for a willingness to spare no cost to destroy those it hated.
<snip>
Weapons inspector David Kay says they have found clear evidence of ongoing programs to develop chemical, nuclear and biological weapons. They have found proof of Iraq's efforts to hide these programs from the world. They have found evidence of Iraqi attempts to develop ballistic missiles with a range greater than that allowed by the United Nations. And they have found that Iraq was in clear violation of U.N. Resolution 1441, the last of many U.N. resolutions ignored by Saddam.
They found that Iraq was every bit as dangerous as Bush said it was. NOW, you're probably as steamed as I was, even just reading those paragraphs. I can't believe editors in mainstream newspapers would even consider publishing something like this! Well, actually I can, but I *shouldn't* be able to. Here's my response:
Marianna Parks column is full of misleading statements and specious arguments. She continues to perpetuate the false association of Al Qaeda and Iraq, for example, the John Snow meeting she mentions refers to Hussein, but through its placement in the article, she makes it seem that it was regarding Al Qaeda. Throughout the article, Parks switches back and forth between Al Qaeda and Iraq as if they are interchangable entities, when they are not. A CIA report published before the invasion said that Hussein was only likely to use or sell his WMD if Iraq was invaded or he felt personally threatened. It also mentions that Hussein hated Al Qaeda, and viewed it as a threat to himself, and his power. She states Iraq was "willing to spare no cost to destroy those it hated". It obviously was not, or it would have used the WMD it did possess during the 1991 Gulf War.
Parks argues that Hussein was dangerous dictator. Many of our allies fit that category, and the US continues to pressure the UN and international community to do nothing about them. From what I have read, no country has done more to install dangerous, but friendly to the US, dictators than any other. That's not "America hating," that's just the truth -- the US was instrumental in the installation or maintenance of oppressive regimes from Iran to Chile.
Parks once again mentions the tired retread of Hussein's use of "chemical weapons against Iran and countless Iraqi citizens." while neglecting to mention key facts regarding this. Fact #1: He didn't use these weapons yesterday, or last year, but more than 15 years ago. Fact #2: Hussein was an American ally at the time, and the US diplomatically made a number of excuses to help cover up Hussein's chemical weapons use. Fact #3: Previous to the weapons deployment in the 1980's, Hussein was specifically dropped from a list of terrorist nations so that the US could legally sell to him components of the very weapons systems used against Iranians and Iraqis. So, while his use of chemical weapons is a reprehensible thing, the US is one of the last nations in the world that should be unilaterally condemning it.
Of course, Parks mentions the "unaccounted for stockpiles" of weapons. Does she realize that it was just in the last year that the US Army found some "lost" American chemical and biological weapons, right here? Millions of dollars have been "lost" by the Pentagon and are unaccounted for here in the US. Can we provide the kind of evidence and accountability for military programs that we required of Hussein? Probably not.
UN resolution 1441 did not authorize any type of military force against Iraq in and of itself. It stated that the matter remained "seized of the Security Council" and required that another resolution be passed before military force could be used. By allowing the inspectors unfettered access to all requested facilities, Hussein was abiding by that resolution. Bush has said since March 2003 several times that "He didn't let the inspectors in." -- maybe Hans Blix, the UN Inspectors in Iraq, and all of the people begging the US to let the inspectors complete their work should have that explained to them. And I won't even get into the issues pertaining to rabid UN resolution enforcment when it comes to Hussein, but blocking their enforcement when it comes to US allies.
The most dangerous specific argument in the entire article is that "Iraq was every bit as dangerous as Bush said it was." That is plainly not true. Members of the administration, like Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, baldly stated we knew that Hussein actually had nuclear weapons, and that we knew exactly where the biological and chemical weapons stockpiles were. Since none has been found, it is obvious that these statements were false. Bush or Bush officials said that Iraqi "drones" that were revealed to be little more than model airplanes, actually threatened the US mainland. Ask any model aircraft enthusiast if he could fly his aircraft thousands of miles. The fact is, Iraq was every bit as dangerous as the Administration stated during early 2001 -- it was a contained, delusional, but weapons-free nation that did not threaten the US.
Arguments like Ms. Parks' are dangerous because not only do they juxtapose unrelated items (international terrorism and Iraqi dictator Hussein), but they also "cherry pick" facts out of context to make the argument instead of looking at the whole picture. The US cannot make right policy decisions by looking only at the facts we like. Only by watching the world with unblinkered eyes can we truly establish policies and make actions that make us safer from terrorism and promote peace and self determination in all nations.
Susan
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(156 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
