When you have an enemy so vague as The Terrorists, or even Evil itself, there are always threats to be fought. Deadly threats, immediate threats. Threats that have to be headed off, even if it means going to war against countries that don’t threaten us, or postponing elections that The Terrorists or other Evil Ones might somehow someway exploit.
Our legitimate president on Monday went down to Tennessee to give the latest justifications for the war and his defense – such as it was – of just making up the reasons for going to war. You’d think he would be hesitant to even go to Old Hickory’s home state, for fear that the General would rise from his grave and show up in person to tell him what he thinks about economic royalists who think they can decide to postpone elections if they feel like it. Andrew Jackson would leave even the foul-mouthed Dick Cheney trembling like a scared toddler.
Anyway, the text of Bush’s speech is available at the White House Web site, which at least up until now has not been accused of materially altering the content of the speeches they reproduce there.
Bush was at the Oak Ridge Laboratory to highlight the presence there of machinery recently turned over by Libya from part of its rudimentary nuclear weapons program that it recently publicly announced it was discontinuing. Bush claims that this is a reflection of the success of the Iraq War.
These materials are the sobering evidence of a great danger. Certain regimes, often with ties to terrorist groups, seek the ultimate weapons as a shortcut to influence.
This is not an accident of literary style that Bush defines the terrorist threat in connection with “certain regimes.” The Bush Doctrine of preventive war is based in large parrt on the notion that terrorist threats are largely due to sponsorship of terrorism by governments. The jihadist threat is primarily a transnational threat, not one primarily resulting from government sponsorship. An endless series of Iraq-style wars of “liberation” will only make the jihadist threat worse and expose the US to the kinds of disaster the Bush crew has created in Iraq.
He elaborated further on his policy to emphasize wars against “rogue states” over a focus on combating the international jihadist threat:
America's determination to actively oppose the threats of our time was formed and fixed on September the 11th, 2001. On that day we saw the cruelty of the terrorists, and we glimpsed the future they intend for us. They intend to strike the United States to the limits of their power. They seek weapons of mass destruction to kill Americans on an even greater scale. And this danger is increased when outlaw regimes build or acquire weapons of mass destruction and maintain ties to terrorist groups.
The Bush administration intends to justify future wars against Iran and Syria and who knows who else, a massive military draft which is absolutely necessary to carry forward the “preventive war” program of wars of liberation in the Middle East, assassinations, torturing prisoners, postponement of US elections, anything it decides to do in the name of fighting The Terrorists, by invoking 9/11. Those who imagine the Bush Doctrine as having no more serious consequences for themselves than being able to always have entertaining war footage and accompanying polemics to watch on Fox News will continue to be surprised as reality intervenes on their war fantasies.
Yes, jihadist groups – and domestic terrorist groups that are Christian- or cult-related or based on some other ideology far from fanatical Islam – do seek “weapons of mass destruction.” When are Bush and his bizarre Attorney General going to make a bust in the 2001 anthrax case? What kind of cooperation can they expect from European Union governments like Germany and Spain - both of which have made far more substantial progress in busting actual jihadist networks than the pathetic Ashcroft’s Justice Department has – when we continue to alienate them by bullying them to join “wars of liberation” that blatantly violate international law?
We refuse to live in fear. We are making steady progress.
Yeah, we’re so fearless that the administration wants us to believe they should be given formal authority to postpone national election out of fear of what some The Terrorists maybe might conceivably do.
In reality, of course, Bush’s entire election campaign is based on fear.
Every element of our homeland security plan is critical, because the terrorists are ruthless and resourceful -- and we know they're preparing to attack us again. It's not possible to guarantee perfect security in our vast, free nation.
Be afraid, be very afraid. But in a fearless way, of course.
We are using the Patriot Act to track terrorist activity and to break up terror cells. Intelligence and law enforcement officials are sharing information as never before. We've transformed the mission of the FBI to focus on preventing terrorism. ... But I can assure our fellow Americans, many fine professionals in intelligence and national security and homeland security and law enforcement are working around the clock doing everything they can to protect the country.
At the risk of being redundant, when are Bush and his bizarre Attorney General going to make a bust in the 2001 anthrax case?
Why we fight - 07/12/04 version
The core of Bush’s current justification of the Iraq War relates to three points.
First, we are defending the peace by taking the fight to the enemy. We will confront them overseas so we do not have to confront them here at home. (Applause.) We are destroying the leadership of terrorist networks in sudden raids, disrupting their planning and financing, and keeping them on the run. Month by month, we are shrinking the space in which they can freely operate, by denying them territory and the support of governments. (my emphasis)
It’s not too hard to figure out that devoting essentially every available soldier, including most of the Special Forces who know Arabic, to invading occupying Iraq was not “taking the fight to the enemy” that pulled off the 9/11 attack, Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda, which was based physically primarily in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to a significant degree still is. (I haven’t read it, but Laura Rozen is recommending a new book on the way Bush “took the fight to the enemy” in the critical Battle of Tora Bora in Afghanistan, when there was a real chance of wiping out Bin Laden and a major portion of the al-Qaeda leadership: Al Qaeda’s Great Escape by Philip Smucker.)
But it’s important to remember that Bush is pushing his policy of wars of liberation against “rogue states” here, not a focused campaign against jihadist groups. The notion, in an important sense left over from the Cold War, that terrorism is primarily a matter of state sponsorship, is one of the worst strategic weaknesses of the Bush Doctrine.
In the end, this justification amounts to: as long as we’re killin’ foreigners somewhere, we’re fightin’ The Terrorists and gittin’ revenge for 9/11.
Second, we're protecting the peace by working with friends and allies and international institutions to isolate and confront terrorists and outlaw regimes. America is leading a broad coalition of nations to disrupt proliferation. ... The global threat of terrorism requires a global response. To be effective, that global response requires leadership -- and America will lead.
Actually, the Bush administration has badly damaged our international standing and the willingness of even our (recently) closest allies to cooperate with US policies – or to trust US intelligence claims. The administration has opposed new international nuclear non-proliferation and the international treaty enforcing tougher sanctions against chemical and biological weapons, it has abandoned the anti-ballistic missile treaty. It couldn’t even be bother to secure nuclear waste sites after the invasion of Iraq, giving jihadist and other groups the opportunity to take material that could be used for “dirty bombs.”
Third, we are extending the peace by supporting the rise of democracy, and the hope and progress that democracy brings, as the alternative to hatred and terror in the broader Middle East. In democratic and successful societies, men and women do not swear allegiance to malcontents and murderers; they turn their hearts and labor to building better lives. And democratic governments do not shelter terrorist camps or attack their neighbors. When justice and democracy advance, so does the hope of lasting peace.
Extending democracy by example, cooperation and encouragement, of which the European Union expansion in the last decade is a brilliantly successful example, is one thing. Conducting wars of “liberation” by military conquest and occupation, and using widespread torture as a terror method against the occupied population, is a whole different thing. The US should be doing the first. Not the second.
Today, Afghanistan is a world away from the nightmare of the Taliban. That country has a good and just President. Boys and girls are being educated. Many refugees have returned home to rebuild their country, and a presidential election is scheduled for this fall. The terror camps are closed and the Afghan government is helping us to hunt the Taliban and terrorists in remote regions. Today, because we acted to liberate Afghanistan, a threat has been removed, and the American people are safer.
Those who have been following the news from Afghanistan – which meager help from our “press corps” – know that this rosy picture of the present situation in Afghanistan is almost as much a complete fantasy as Iraq’s “weapons of mass destruction.” (See my following post for more on Bush's comments on Afghanistan.)
Three years ago, terrorists were well-established in Saudi Arabia. Inside that country, fundraisers and other facilitators gave al Qaeda financial and logistical help, with little scrutiny or opposition. Today, afterthe attacks in Riyadh and elsewhere, the Saudi government knows that al Qaeda is its enemy. Saudi Arabia is working hard to shut down the facilitators and financial supporters of terrorism. The government has captured or killed many first-tier leaders of the al Qaeda organization in Saudi Arabia -- including one last week. Today, because Saudi Arabia has seen the danger and has joined the war on terror, the American people are safer.
Texas oil men have a truly touching faith in our friends in the House of Saud.
After this litany, he made a defense of sorts to the failure to find the non-existent WMDs:
Although we have not found stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, we were right to go into Iraq. We removed a declared enemy of America, who had the capability of producing weapons of mass murder, and could have passed that capability to terrorists bent on acquiring them. In the world after September the 11th, that was a risk we could not afford to take. …
[B]ecause America and our coalition helped to end the violent regime of Saddam Hussein, and because we're helping to raise a peaceful democracy in its place, the American people are safer.
Then why are we talking about the need to postpone national elections for fear of The Terrorists? And when are Bush and his bizarre Attorney General going to make a bust in the 2001 anthrax case?
Today, because America has acted, and because America has led, the forces of terror and tyranny have suffered defeat after defeat, and America and the world are safer.
I’m sure that will be a great applause line when the Republican Party gathers to celebrate Bush the Magnificent, Liberator of Peoples, in New York in August. But the reality is that the Bush Doctrine of preventive wars of liberation is making the US more isolated, imposing huge costs in dollars and increasingly lives, and is distracting in a massive way from the most important measures needed to fight the jihadists that still do threaten the United States and other democracies.
So, the president’s current justification for the Iraq War is taking the fight to the enemy, an example of global cooperation (?!?) against Evil, and wars of liberation to lift up the backward peoples we choose to help.
An earlier version
It’s worth remembering the justifications Bush gave for War in his 2003 State of the Union speech, as the invasion of Iraq was imminent. (Just for fun, go search the official White House Web site for the text of this speech and see how long it takes to find it.)
The job of the [UN WMD] inspectors is to verify that Iraq's regime is disarming. It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see, and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened.
The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it. … 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure … as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands … upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents … Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions … several mobile biological weapons labs …
.. an advanced nuclear weapons development program … a design for a nuclear weapon and … five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. [That sentence was the now-infamous “16 words.”] Our intelligence sources tell us that hehas attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities.He clearly has much to hide.
Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes.
A day of horror like none we have ever known. Scary stuff, no doubt: 25,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, 500 tons of deadly gases, an advanced nuclear weapons program. All of it bogus. Non-existent. Not there.
A day of horror like none we have ever known. And now this liar goes down to Tennessee and says: we conned you suckers big time on those WMDs. Now shut up about it and cheer for my wars anyway.
No comments:
Post a Comment