No, We Didn't Know!

The latest mantra being repeated over and over to soothe our ravaged nerves, is- we know they had weapons of mass destruction. Over and over again, repeated with the belief I suppose that it helps to alleviate the damage done by a lie. While wmd’s may still be found in Iraq, as they were found a few weeks ago buried in the U.S. the quick and easy answer is, - no we didn’t know!

What we do know is that the Iraqis had something at one point; which they claimed were destroyed. Most of the world begged for more time to determine if there was anything in Iraq worth fighting about but were denied. The world begged because we were not sure, we did not know. In trying to prove a negative, we had U.N. inspectors scouring the country coming up with nothing. The nothing that they came up with was cited as proof by the administration that the Iraqis must have something to hide, since nothing was being found. A catch-22 was purposely created to further the administration’s agenda.

What is done is done and there is no turning back the clock. The Iraqi people are “free” and the administration has to deal with the political fall-out of their backward, convoluted, deceptive policies. The one thing they should stop doing immediately is promulgating the lie that we all knew that Iraq had wmd’s, we didn’t know. They should back track and admit that they were fed faulty intelligence. They more than likely twisted the intelligence, but the intelligence people would go along with the lie. More than a few heads should roll over the forged documents fiasco, the question is how high up are the heads that will go.

What they should do is call the inspectors back in to help with the hunt. If they wait too long before doing that, the conspiracy theorists will have their hackles on end asserting that the evidence was planted. Better to call in the inspectors now to prove that there are no wmd’s existing in Iraq. Better to call them back in to lend legitimacy to the process. Better that we should know the answer once and for all.

The administration should say that they acted with good intentions and ask the world a very simple question- would you prefer that Saddam were still in power? Who right now is upset that the Iraqi people are “free” and a brutal tyrant has been deposed? Let them stand up and publicly show their support for him. Let them stand up and publicly declare their love and adoration for his accomplishments.

Despite the hit that the administration will have to take and the failure once again of the intelligence community, the greater good has been achieved because of the invasion. The troubling part is the philosophical precedent that has been set. Two things happened: one, the stature of the U.S. has been diminished; 2, other nations can use the same warped logic to invade other sovereign lands. As great as it is that the Iraqi people are “free”, the world itself may suffer in the end. Who outside the U.S. will believe any accusations that are made against other nations, and who within the U.S. will believe it when a government official winks and nods when declaring, we have intelligence that proves beyond a doubt, but we cannot show it to you?

It is better for the administration to be contrite, apologetic, sincere, and believable- a lot rides in the balance. Better to say that we didn’t know for sure but could take no chances in this era of heightened threats and fears. Better to say that we will do better next time. Better to ask for forgiveness because forgiveness will be given. The administration can ill-afford to not be trusted and believed next time they make a claim. No one can afford to doubt the claims of the U.S., no one can afford not to trust the word of the U.S. government.

I don't think Bush deliberately created a catch-22. Here's the article I wrote on the subject (in case anyone cares...)
____________________________________________________________

Iraq: The Bush Administration’s Weapon Of Mass Destruction

Exclusive commentary by Cathryn Crawford

Mar 28, 2003

We all know the Bush administration's stated reasons for going to war: Saddam Hussein's brutal dictatorship, his proliferation of WMD's, his attempts to build or acquire nuclear weapons. We also know the argument of the protestors: that this entire war is based on the United States’ lust for control of an oil rich nation. However, there is another premise, one that deserves much more attention than it has received. The basic theory is this: that the Reaganites, hawks, neoconservatives – however you wish to classify them - in the Bush Administration are using the downfall of Iraq as their own private weapon of mass destruction - the mass destruction of any government in the Middle East that they deem to be a threat to democracy and stability within the region.

The hawks, characterized by Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Scooter Libby, found themselves at a distinct advantage after September 11, 2001. Suddenly they had a fully legitimate reason to do exactly what they had wanted to do for so long: completely restructure the Middle East. Consider the change in rhetoric concerning the regime in Saudia Arabia; our relationship with them went from being characterized as America’s "good friend in the Middle East" on September 10, to the Saudi family being suspected Al-Qaeda supporters on September 12. Coincidence? I don't think so. The hawks are using public rhetoric and private recriminations to set up the public for a series of American led attacks – whether they be financially, diplomatically, or militarily – on certain governments in the Middle East.

The chances of the current Operation Iraqi Freedom expanding into a regional war seem to be astounding. And the influential hawks that produce America's foreign policy have no qualms about admitting it. Richard Perle, resident fellow at AEI and one of Donald Rumsfeld’s main advisors at the Pentagon, says that with victory for the United States in Iraq, "We could deliver a short message, a two-word message: 'You're next.' " Perle is a man who know of which he speaks, as he was actively involved in the Pentagon before, during, and after the first Gulf War. The implication of that statement is that regimes like Iran, Syria, and Saudia Arabia could be the first to fall, followed shortly by Libya and Sudan...and so on and so forth.

The strategy in and of itself is brilliant. It began with the downfall of the Taliban. Do you remember all the talk of Afghanistan being ‘only the beginning’? Bush, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and company were quite serious when they said it. They were preparing the American people for a long campaign against dictatorships in every Middle Eastern country, with the long-term goal being the spread of democracy.

The Bush Administration has begun a chess game of monumental proportions. It is breathtaking in its sheer audacity. The premise is that America can and will reshape the Middle East in the coming years, and, thereby, reshape the entire world. The entire issue of worldwide American-imposed peace is a volatile one. Many countries view us as a bully, pushing our democracy and values on other nations. However, the real question is: Which is preferable - Pax Americana, or less-than-perfect and sometimes brutal governments?

The nothing that they came up with was cited as proof by the administration that the Iraqis must have something to hide, since nothing was being found. A catch-22 was purposely created to further the administration’s agenda.

I don't consider myself a Bushbot but I can refute this. The Iraqi government stated in their report to the UN after the first gulf war what WMD's they had. Those weapons from that time were never accounted for. No evidence was ever given that they were destroyed or sold. There was proof from attacks on kurds and use in the Iran-Iraq war that Iraq has had WMD's. In fact our government gave much of it to them. So, there is plenty of proof that Iraq had them in 1992 and before. Did they destroy them without telling anybody? Did they sell them and lie about it? Or did they hide them and lie about it? The US can't find Saddam or Bin Laden. Does that mean they never existed? Does that mean they no longer exist? What if the US never finds and WMD's, never finds Saddam, and never finds Bin Laden? We have plenty of proof that all three existed at one time. Where are they now?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.