Matthews correctly assails him for saying what he says.
As Gaffney talks over Matthews claiming “the capability mattered”, Matthews exclaims:
The vice president said he would have fought the war otherwise. We would have fought the war -- you know, capability is not the case that was made. It was presence of stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. That was the case made by the leaders of this country. And you [Mr. Gaffney and his colleagues] were wrong…
…The utter shamelessness of Dick Cheney, as our vice president, not to admit he made a major mistake that caused a war that wouldn't otherwise be justified by the lights of the American people is profound. That's why I brought it up tonight.
The capability was not the reason for going to war.
Members of the Bush Administration especially Cheney and policymakers like Gaffney know the drums of war would not have beat if they had simply made a claim that Iraq had the capability. They knew they had to create a worst case scenario and conjure up images that would create fear like the image of a “smoking gun” that would “come in the form of a mushroom cloud.”
Just imagine what would have happened if these words from Bush, which he uttered in his State of the Union speech in January 2003 focused on the capability instead:
Today, the gravest danger in the war on terror, the gravest danger facing America and the world, is outlaw regimes that have the capability to seek and possess nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. These regimes could, with the knowledge they possess, conceivably develop and use such weapons for blackmail, terror, and mass murder...
Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction.
For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. He maintained the capability and knowledge necessary to pursue chemical, biological and nuclear weapons even while inspectors were in his country...
The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary, he is deceiving. [bold words added]
For one, the case for war would have been much more difficult because many countries have the capability to commit terrible and evil acts. The U.S. possesses the capability to wage all-out nuclear war and we also have the capability to send aerosol cans with biological or chemical agents. The U.S., like many other countries, could commit acts of terrorism, biological or chemical, just like Iraq could have in 2003.
In fact, there is evidence that much of the case for war stemmed from the fact that Americans in government were recalling American history.
Geoffrey Holland from the University Sussex claims “the United States breached the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC) by supplying warfare-related biological materials to Iraq during the 1980s, at a time when that nation was at war with its neighbour, Iran.”
Again, what if the language had been different?
What if the words Bush said in his final ultimatum to Iraq on March 18th, 2003, had focused on the Saddam’s capability?
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
