Then, of course, there is Bush's own colorfully expressed intentions regarding Hussein in March of 2002, a full year before the invasion. "f*ck Saddam. We're taking him out," was Bush's interjection, according to Time magazine, when he interrupted a session between then National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice and a group of senators meeting to discuss ways of working with the UN to contend with Hussein.
Plausible Deniability
It is quite revealing that a president, so averse to acknowledging ineptitude ("Brownie, you're doing a hell of a job.") seems so anxiously forthcoming to declare incompetence regarding the quality of the intelligence gathered to justify attacking Iraq.
"It is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong," Bush blithely acknowledged during a speech made on the eve of the Iraq elections in December of 2005. "As president I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq, and I am also responsible for fixing what went wrong by reforming our intelligence capabilities, and we're doing just that."
What may shed light on Bush's motivations for this particular digression from his standard M.O. for matters such as these, is the direction in which the finger of blame for the acknowledged failure was pointed --- toward then-CIA director George Tenet, a Clinton Administration holdover whose status in that regard, appropriately insulates Bush's neo-con philosophy from culpability. Hence, plausible deniability and posterior covering is manifested by the transferal of blame to the CIA-emasculating Clinton Administration. Perhaps it is for that reason, Bush awarded Tenet the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2004, thus adding the disgraced director's name to an impressive list of luminaries that include Pope John-Paul II, President John F. Kennedy, and Jackie Robinson.
Of course, Bush's choice as the main deliverer of this faulty intelligence to the UN, then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, also seems suspiciously convenient. However tenuous, Powell, being the only significant non-neoconservative within Bush's inner circle, brought major credibility to what are now demonstrably incredulous assumptions. Taking into account the considerable weight of the historical baggage they bring, it would be hard to envision Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld or Paul Wolfowitz successfully presenting a case for a pre-emptive attack on a sovereign nation. Powell, on the other hand, carrying the unquestionable veneer of a combat-proven military specialist, thus turns out to be the perfect conveyance for the delivery of a thesis riddled with imperfections.
Due Process
The question of what we know now looms large when back dropped against what was presented then as it regards to a potential criminal case against this administration. That is because the back story to this question involves whether this level of governmental deception, now laid naked and exposed for all to see, will result in a precedent setting rebuke of due process for those who have been harmed by the deception. This rebuke, of course, would come in the form of an absence of any accountability by those responsible for these actions.
Genuine due process, on the other hand, would appropriately come in the form of criminal prosecution or, at the very least, impeachment proceedings. The main beneficiaries would include not only the people of Iraq, who have suffered death and destruction on so grand a scale, but just as importantly, the families of the thousands of soldiers who in their post-911 zeal to avenge a terrible act, were duped into taking a wrong turn toward retribution that ultimately cost them their lives.
Whereas Sen. John Kerry, in advocating against the Viet Nam war over 30 years ago, posed to Congress, the question, "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" the Iraqi debacle and all the events that lead to it beg the question: Did Second Lt. Therrel "Shane" Childers, deserve to be first in line to give his life fighting a war whose rational was based not on a mistake, but on a bold-faced lie?
Plausible Deniability
It is quite revealing that a president, so averse to acknowledging ineptitude ("Brownie, you're doing a hell of a job.") seems so anxiously forthcoming to declare incompetence regarding the quality of the intelligence gathered to justify attacking Iraq.
"It is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong," Bush blithely acknowledged during a speech made on the eve of the Iraq elections in December of 2005. "As president I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq, and I am also responsible for fixing what went wrong by reforming our intelligence capabilities, and we're doing just that."
Of course, Bush's choice as the main deliverer of this faulty intelligence to the UN, then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, also seems suspiciously convenient. However tenuous, Powell, being the only significant non-neoconservative within Bush's inner circle, brought major credibility to what are now demonstrably incredulous assumptions. Taking into account the considerable weight of the historical baggage they bring, it would be hard to envision Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld or Paul Wolfowitz successfully presenting a case for a pre-emptive attack on a sovereign nation. Powell, on the other hand, carrying the unquestionable veneer of a combat-proven military specialist, thus turns out to be the perfect conveyance for the delivery of a thesis riddled with imperfections.
Due Process
The question of what we know now looms large when back dropped against what was presented then as it regards to a potential criminal case against this administration. That is because the back story to this question involves whether this level of governmental deception, now laid naked and exposed for all to see, will result in a precedent setting rebuke of due process for those who have been harmed by the deception. This rebuke, of course, would come in the form of an absence of any accountability by those responsible for these actions.
Genuine due process, on the other hand, would appropriately come in the form of criminal prosecution or, at the very least, impeachment proceedings. The main beneficiaries would include not only the people of Iraq, who have suffered death and destruction on so grand a scale, but just as importantly, the families of the thousands of soldiers who in their post-911 zeal to avenge a terrible act, were duped into taking a wrong turn toward retribution that ultimately cost them their lives.
Whereas Sen. John Kerry, in advocating against the Viet Nam war over 30 years ago, posed to Congress, the question, "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" the Iraqi debacle and all the events that lead to it beg the question: Did Second Lt. Therrel "Shane" Childers, deserve to be first in line to give his life fighting a war whose rational was based not on a mistake, but on a bold-faced lie?
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
