[Peace-discuss] Was the Case for Invasion Built on Deception?

[patton paul]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 19:27:41 -0500 (CDT)
From: patton paul <ppatton at staff.uiuc.edu>
To: peace-action at lists.cu.groogroo.com
Subject: [Peace-action] Was the Case for Invasion Built on Deception?

Here's more about the fallout from the failure to find WMD's in Iraq.
-Paul P.


Published on Wednesday, May 28, 2003 by the  Baltimore Sun
Was the Case for Invasion Built on Deception?
by Jules Witcover


WASHINGTON -- Pardon me, but has anyone noticed the similarity between the
recent deceptions by a New York Times reporter and the Bush
administration's rationales for invading Iraq?

At the top levels of both the Times and the administration, major reviews
are under way over their particular embarrassments. The notable exception
is that the Times has admitted that somebody was blowing smoke -- big
time, as Vice President Dick Cheney might say.

President Bush continues to talk about links (unproved) between Osama bin
Laden and Saddam Hussein and saving the world from Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction (WMD), which haven't been found.

Meanwhile, the Central Intelligence Agency investigates whether there was
much validity in the "facts" presented by U.S. officials as justification
for the invasion.

Although it's abundantly clear now that the president's objective always
was "regime change," also known as getting rid of Mr. Hussein, he peddled
the al-Qaida link and WMD as the better bet to get the U.N. Security
Council to go along. He understood it was not about to sanction a blatant
overthrow of a sovereign state, as despised as Mr. Hussein was.

You'll recall how Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, with assurances of
an imminent threat from Iraq, laid his considerable personal prestige on
the line to squeeze a definitive war-making resolution out of the Security
Council. In place of hard intelligence, he presented, among other things,
computer-simulated mock-ups of mobile chemical and biological weapons
factories to make the case.

The council didn't buy it, and neither did most of the rest of the world,
but President Bush, with a hard patriotic sell, got the American public on
his side and went ahead. With those WMD so elusive, the administration's
pitch now is that the invasion confirmed the Iraqi dictator's bestiality,
which we already knew, and that that is enough justification.

The corollary apparently is that it really doesn't matter whether such
weapons are ever found. But what about the obligation that Mr. Bush had to
level with Congress in insisting that the threat from Iraq was so imminent
that its constitutional power to declare war should be ceded to the head
of the executive branch?

The Senate's 85-year-old dean, Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia, is
dismissed as a ranting relic when he insists that the Constitution he
carries in his coat pocket like a pacemaker continue to be observed and
that the United States not use its superpower clout to remake the world in
its image.

Mr. Byrd's proposition hardly seems academic in light of reports that the
administration is now turning its eye on Iran as the next target of its
advocacy of "anticipatory self-defense" justifying pre-emptive war,
conducted unilaterally, if necessary.

A warning of an imminent threat from Iranian possession of WMD may well
have more validity than the one used to win congressional approval of the
Iraq invasion. But the Democrats who were so willing to buy that rationale
from Mr. Bush then may be harder to convince the next time around.

Another administration sales pitch for the Iraq invasion was that it would
be accepted by the Iraqi people as a "liberation," not an occupation. But
that hope has now been dispelled, not only by the unruly behavior of many
of the "liberated," but also by the new American czar on the ground, L.
Paul Bremer III. In a recent interview with The Washington Post, he was
quoted as saying: "Occupation is an ugly word, not one Americans feel
comfortable with, but it is a fact."

It will be most interesting to see what the CIA comes up with in its
investigation into the quality and assessment of the intelligence used by
the administration to persuade Congress and, unsuccessfully, the Security
Council to sanction the invasion of Iraq.

If it reveals any intentional misrepresentation by the White House, the
State Department or the Pentagon, the whole concept of "anticipatory
self-defense" and pre-emptive war will be undermined, and should be.

Jules Witcover writes from The Sun's Washington bureau. His column appears
Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays.

Copyright (c) 2003, The Baltimore Sun

_______________________________________________
Peace-action mailing list
Peace-action at lists.cu.groogroo.com
http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-action


__________________________________________________________________
Dr. Paul Patton
Research Scientist
Beckman Institute  Rm 3027  405 N. Mathews St.
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign  Urbana, Illinois 61801
work phone: (217)-265-0795   fax: (217)-244-5180
home phone: (217)-328-4064
homepage: http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~ppatton/index.html

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious.  It is the
source of all true art and science."
-Albert Einstein
__________________________________________________________________