I try to keep up. I really do. But the official positions on the retroactive reasons for war shift so fast it will make your head spin. Maybe that's why they call it "spin."
I was still shaking my head in amazement about Dick Cheney's claims on Sunday about links between the 9/11 attacks and Saddam's Iraq. But now I see that Rummy and Condi Rice are both saying that, no, we never said anything about connections between Iraq and 9/11. Or, rather, strongly implying that; one has to read their lips rather carefully, to revive a signature phrase of the first Bush Administration.
To be fair, the main prewar reason given for going to war was the "weapons of mass destruction." Now, it looks like we would have needed a time machine to go after Saddam's WMDs. But the Saddam-9/11 connection was also claimed as a supplemental incentive, though that claim was even more tendentious than the WMD hype.
George Paine at Warblogging has a good analysis of this latest turn. But I'm not sure that the Bush Administration's method of deception counts as a Big Lie technique, as he suggests. It seems more like a multiple-lie approach. Or even two lies forward, one lie back.
10 comments:
Dear Bruce,
Perhaps some of the recent testimony from the Hutton Inquiry may reduce your confusion. You haven't posted many stories on Hutton, so I assume you've not been following it. I have though.
Today, for example, BBC reporter Andrew Gilligan admitted under oath that he had made a series of errors and had been wrong to state that the Government had included the claim that some Iraqi weapons could be deployed within 45 minutes, knowing that it was probably wrong. (Part One)
Dear Bruce,
Perhaps some of the recent testimony from the Hutton Inquiry may reduce your confusion. You haven't posted many stories on Hutton, so I assume you've not been following it. I have though.
Today, for example, BBC reporter Andrew Gilligan admitted under oath that he had made a series of errors and had been wrong to state that the Government had included the claim that some Iraqi weapons could be deployed within 45 minutes, knowing that it was probably wrong.
Over the past few days Sir John Scarlett, chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee, and (in an unprecedented appearance) Sir Richard Dearlove, head of MI6 ("C" in James Bond films), both testified that the intelligence they had on Iraqi WMDs - including the 45 minute claim - seemed legitimate to them, and they had both put it in their reports to the government at the time and still stood behind it. (Part Two)
Meanwhile, I saw another story today that Hans Blix believes Saddam Hussein successfully deceived Western intelligence agencies about the continued existence of Iraqi WMDs, and that most of them were destroyed ten years ago. Saddam Hussein wanted to maintain the fiction of their existence to deter an invasion. (Part Three)
If true, and I believe it's still too early to establish the truth about Saddam Hussein's WMDs, such a scenario would illustrate the high degree of intelligence and cunning Saddam Hussein had and has, as well as his stupidity. He was smart enough to be able to deceive MI6 and the CIA into believing that Iraq still possessed WMDs, but stupid enough not to perceive the resolve and courage of Bush and Blair in wanting to get rid of those WMDs. (Part Four)
So some issues do seem to be becoming clearer. Blair's essential truthfulness in effectively conveying to the public the conclusions of the British intelligence services regarding Iraqi WMDs that were presented to him before the Iraqi invasion seems clear, and with that in mind you might want to consider apologizing to him for some of the mean things you've been saying about him recently! (Part Five)
You can reach his e-mail address at: www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page3.asp
I'm sure he'll be happy to hear from you!
David
David, thanks for forwarding Tony's e-mail address. But I think I'll have to get a couple of other things done first, like retranslating the Gospels from English into Greek. :) I'm sure Tony appreciates your optimism for him. But it sounds like he's in for a rough few weeks ahead. On Cheney's particular charge on 9/11 and Saddam, the Bush crew seems to have distanced themselves from that one.
Oh come on Bruce, it's not like you to bear grudges! As the economy shows increasing signs of improving, so do George Bush's chances of being reelected. With another four years of Bush, Tony Blair's role as conciliator between the US and the UN/Old Europe will be crucial to the world's wellbeing. So you might want to take a deep breath and wish him well! I suspect it's the BBC that is going to have a rough time over the next few weeks, though Tony will not escape unscathed. David
Oh, I don't bear grudges against poor old Tony. His main problem is that he fell into a bad crowd on this Iraq War business. If the Labour Party boots him as the PM, he can always get a job as official spokesperson at the Pentagon. :) But as for his mediator role between Europe and the Bush, I'm not sure his track record shows a lot of promise for the future, even if he stays as PM. (And technically, I'm not sure "re"-election would be the right word for Bush in 2004, even if he wins.) - Bruce
Post a Comment