Tuesday, November 22, 2005
Reprehensible!
Vice President Cheney finds Iraq War revisionism "reprehensible." For once, I fully agree with him. It is indeed reprehensible, shameful, and even unforgivable for anyone to try to make political gain today by distorting what the Bush Administration told us about Iraq prior to the U.S. invasion.
What were we told?
1. It was necessary to invade Iraq because Iraq had WMDs.
2. It was necessary to invade Iraq because Iraq had an ongoing program to build nuclear weapons (Dick Cheney, Meet The Press, 16 March 2003)
3. The U.S. had secret evidence proving the above that could not be made public (nor shared with allies).
On points 1 & 2, CIA analysts have repeatedly charged that when they suggested differently they were pressured by the administration to reconsider. On point 3, well, we don't hear anything about this any more.
It is indeed reprehensible to distort the historical record. We know that the Bush adminsitration began developing its invasion plans in its first week in the Whitehouse (see Treasury Secretary O'Neill's account in "The Price of Loyalty"). We know that Bush publicly used to the false claim of Iraqi attempts to obtain uranium in Niger long after it had been discredited. We know from the Downing Street Memo that it was obvious to Blair's government that the Bush administraion had decided on war long before it publicly admitted this. We know that the neocon chickenhawks greatly misjudged the aftermath of the invasion, stating publicly that Americans would be treated as liberators, that Iraq would quickly adopt democracy, and that Iraq itself would pay (us) for reconstruction with oil.
Yes, Mr. VP, it is reprehensible to now attempt rewriting history...the string of lies and deceptions from the Whitehouse in the runup to the war shouldn't be forgotten.
What were we told?
1. It was necessary to invade Iraq because Iraq had WMDs.
2. It was necessary to invade Iraq because Iraq had an ongoing program to build nuclear weapons (Dick Cheney, Meet The Press, 16 March 2003)
3. The U.S. had secret evidence proving the above that could not be made public (nor shared with allies).
On points 1 & 2, CIA analysts have repeatedly charged that when they suggested differently they were pressured by the administration to reconsider. On point 3, well, we don't hear anything about this any more.
It is indeed reprehensible to distort the historical record. We know that the Bush adminsitration began developing its invasion plans in its first week in the Whitehouse (see Treasury Secretary O'Neill's account in "The Price of Loyalty"). We know that Bush publicly used to the false claim of Iraqi attempts to obtain uranium in Niger long after it had been discredited. We know from the Downing Street Memo that it was obvious to Blair's government that the Bush administraion had decided on war long before it publicly admitted this. We know that the neocon chickenhawks greatly misjudged the aftermath of the invasion, stating publicly that Americans would be treated as liberators, that Iraq would quickly adopt democracy, and that Iraq itself would pay (us) for reconstruction with oil.
Yes, Mr. VP, it is reprehensible to now attempt rewriting history...the string of lies and deceptions from the Whitehouse in the runup to the war shouldn't be forgotten.
