The New Republic has a thoroughly damning article about the lies behind the Bush administration's push for war with Iraq. (Thanks to Dave Baer for the link.) It's three pages long but well worth the read; it covers the build-up to war and demonstrates how vital pieces of intelligence were either fabricated, distorted, or ignored as the administration tried to sell the war to the public.
A second TNR article, however, argues that the war in Iraq is justified because Saddam was bad and would have continued pursuing nuclear capability, and ultimately it's a winning strategy to bring an Arab democracy to the Middle East.
My problem with the Iraq War is that regardless whether the latter article's thoughts are correct, such issues were never the topic of debate. Moreover, we have reasonably convincing evidence that the administration willfully, intentionally, and systematically lied to the American public about Saddam's arsenal and nuclear/WMD capability. This is incredibly distressing for two reasons, which I will state as questions:
(1) Does the administration think the American public does not or can not be consulted on critical matters of policy? Perhaps a serious discussion about the future of the Middle East, long-term domestic security, our moral imperative for regime change, etc. was deemed above the heads of most people and unsuited for the soundbyte-based, talking/shouting-head format that characterizes most news TV today?
(2) Did the administration have some third, ulterior motive in pushing for war with Iraq? If not, then why, in the aftermath of the war and in the midst of accusations of misleading the public, doesn't the administration boldly and righteously proclaim the principles cited in the second TNR article as the real reasons for Iraq?
Why were we lied to? Are we still being lied to? These questions sound rhetorical but they absolutely are not. It is the duty of the President to protect the American people and execute policy to that end; if he must conceal information for the purposes of national security, so be it; but if he has waged a campaign throughout the government to misrepresent his policies and motivations to the public, he has an obligation to explain himself.
Posted by Peter at June 24, 2003 11:15 PM