Bush shot back a few hours later at a campaign rally in Wisconsin. Bush
quoted Kerry, who wondered aloud in a speech two years ago whether
Saddam Hussein might invade allies in the region or let the weapons of mass
destruction he was suspected of possessing slide off to one group or
another in a region where weapons are the currency or the trade.
Now today, my opponent tries to say I made up reasons to go to
war, Bush told cheering supporters at an outdoor rally. Just who’s
the one trying to mislead the American people?
You are, dummy.
John Kerry’s faults are many–and that’s especially true on assault on Iraq. But speculating about a dangerous possibility is different from asserting that it is actually so. Thus, Kerry favored inspections to determine whether or not this possibility was the case–backed by the threat of military force. That was a stupid-ass position, but not nearly as stupid-ass a position as the one held by Mr. Bush–who proclaimed as fact, in front of God and everybody, that Saddam Hussein’s regime possessed biological and chemical weapons, was in the process of developing nuclear weapons, and posed a grave and gathering threat to the people of the United States, and so decided to force an end to inspections for no reason whatsoever (other than the time-table of his war planners).
Kerry damn well should have known better from the start. So much the worse for him, but in light of new evidence he’s admitted that he made a mistake about Iraq. Bush, on the other hand, intends to show us how resolute a Commander-in-Chief he is by insisting that it just doesn’t matter whether or not he told a bunch of lies, and that America is safer today with Saddam Hussein in prison.
Just in case you were wondering, it’s official. George W. Bush looked us in the eye and he told us a bunch of damned lies. Colin Powell stood up in front of the United Nations and told a bunch of damned lies. Dick Cheney has told lie after lie in front of everyone.
Charles Duelfer, the chief U.S. weapons investigator in Iraq, told Congress
today that Saddam Hussein destroyed his stocks of chemical and biological
weapons and agents in 1991 and 1992 and that his nuclear weapons program
had decayed to almost nothing by 2003.
Duelfer, a former U.N. inspector and the personal representative of the CIA
director, said the former Iraqi dictator had intentions to restart his program,
but after weapons inspectors left Iraq in 1998, Hussein instead focused his
attention on ending the sanctions imposed by Western governments following
his incursion into Kuwait and the Persian Gulf war of 1991.
Thanks to the lie, more than 10,000 Iraqi civilians have been murdered, and more than 1,000 American soldiers have been sent to their deaths in order to conquer a foreign country that posed no threat whatsoever to people in the United States. Messrs. Bush and Cheney have responded by saying, Well, it’s the thought that counts:
The White House has responded that the Iraqi leader had an intent to restart
his programs, some of which he could do quickly, and that he was working on
developing prohibited missiles that, if armed with chemical or biological
agents, would threaten the region.
So Saddam Hussein didn’t pose a threat, but hey, he thought that maybe some day he might want to start working towards pose a threat… to somebody or another in the region.
Mr. Bush also likes to point out that the intelligence he had before the war looked like a good reason for invading at the time. Now, that’s a damned lie, but set that aside for the moment. Suppose you did make such a monstrous mistake and killed so many people over something that turned out not to be true, after all? Would you have a good laugh about it at press events? Would you keep on stumping for re-election on your choice to invade a country over claims that turned out to be completely false?
What kind of man can look at the more than 11,000 deaths, with more casualties coming in every goddamned day, find out that the reasons he gave to justify the war were completely specious, and then just say Oops, my bad?
In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense
of the indefensible. Things like the continuance of British rule in
India, the Russian purges and deportations, the dropping of the
atom bombs on Japan, can indeed be defended, but only by arguments
which are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not
square with the professed aims of the political parties. Thus
political language has to consist largely of euphemism,
question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness. Defenseless villages
are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the
countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with
incendiary bullets: this is called pacification. Millions of
peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the
roads with no more than they can carry: this is called
transfer of population or rectification of frontiers. People are
imprisoned for years without trial, or shot in the back of the neck
or sent to die of scurvy in Arctic lumber camps: this is called
elimination of unreliable elements. Such phraseology is needed if
one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of
them. Consider for instance some comfortable English professor
defending Russian totalitarianism. He cannot say outright, I
believe in killing off your opponents when you can get good results
by doing so. Probably, therefore, he will say something like
this:
While freely conceding that the Soviet regime exhibits certain
features which the humanitarian may be inclined to deplore, we
must, I think, agree that a certain curtailment of the right to
political opposition is an unavoidable concomitant of transitional
periods, and that the rigors which the Russian people have been
called upon to undergo have been amply justified in the sphere of
concrete achievement.
George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Tony Blair, Donald Rumsfeld, and several other senior government officials in the U.S. and U.K. told us that Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. They told us that they were actively trying to find nuclear weapons. They told us that they had connections with the al-Qaeda terrorist network, and that therefore Iraq posed an imminent threat to the security of the United States. Therefore pre-emptive war was necessary, and nothing short of regime change would do.
Iraq had no stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons.
Iraq had no connections with al-Qaeda.
Iraq was not any threat to the United States whatsoever.
Or, to put it another way: they are a bunch of big fat fucking liars and as a result some 600 British and American troops, and somewhere between 8,000 and 10,000 Iraqi civilians are dead.
The administration’s line now is that in spite of all of this, it was really no-one’s fault that the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom went off to war on a lie. We got it all wrong, the story goes, but from the evidence that we had in front of us, it looked pretty reasonable to us at the time. To which the obvious response is: What you mean we, paleface? As Scott Ritter points out, IHT: Not everyone got it wrong on Iraq’s weapons [IHT].
In case you have forgotten, there were lots of people—gosh, maybe even a whole movement of people—who said that Iraq posed no imminent threat.
We showed that the administration’s case for war was based on shaky evidence, leaky-bucket arguments, politicized manipulation of data, and constantly shifting rationalizations.
We argued that there was no good reason at all to believe that there were links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.
We also said, by the way, that the assault on Iraq would kill thousands of civilians and that it would result in a nasty, rudderless, destructive, costly, and hopeless occupation.
I am all for careful examination of the data on the table. But when the data on the table is this clear there are certain sorts of politically expedient mincing—much loved by blowhard teevee experts and newspaper columnists—that common decency demands we put to one side.
We didn’t get it wrong, Messrs. Bush and Blair and Cheney and Rumsfeld. You did. The facts are: the anti-war movment was right, and you were wrong. We told the truth, and you lied. But because you had the guns and the tanks and the bombs to do it, you unleashed this dirty war anyway. There’s no way to fudge that or qualify that or get around that, and the blood of the dead and maimed is on your hands. There is no we about it. There’s some moral clarity for you; stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
One of the favorite satirical devices of Karl Kraus, an acerbic critic writing in the last days of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, was to simply print verbatim quotes from prominent Viennese figures, without any additional commentary. Sadly, the tactic has only become more necessary since the end of the Great War–particularly within the discursive world of televised debate.
While inspectors in Iraq continue searching for weapons of mass destruction, some Americans are outraged at the president that so far no weapons of mass destruction have been found. Our next guest thinks that’s grounds for impeachment.
We’re joined by the publisher of Harper’s magazine, John MacArthur, who’s with us. And the author of the best selling book, Treason, Ann Coulter is with us.
It’s not even really intellectually worth discussing. After reading your article, my first reaction is to bubble and fizz and get mad. My second reaction is this is beyond silly, you know, but you really believe this?
Why do you invite me to go on the show if you think it’s beyond discussion?
Because Alan wanted you on. That’s why.
OK. But clearly…
It wasn’t my first choice.
Clearly, if the president of the United States has lied on a grand scale to Congress…
Name me one lie. Name me one lie.
Let me finish.
If you’re going to call him a liar, back it
up.
I will, yes. I’ll talk about what he said
to Bush…Blair at the press conference on September 7 at Camp
David. He said…he cited a non-existent report from the
International Atomic Energy Agency, saying that Saddam was six
months away from developing a nuclear weapon and infamously said,
What more evidence do we need? And from there…
We don’t have time for a speech.
… we moved on to aluminum tubes. We
moved on to connections with Al Qaeda.
Did you call…
We talked about an atomic bomb threat
that did not exist. Sean, this didn’t exist. This didn’t exist.
This isn’t a speech time.
You need me to give you the facts.
I’ve got to ask you, did you call for the
impeachment of Bill Clinton?
I wasn’t interested in the impeachment of
Bill Clinton.
You weren’t interested? So you’re only
interested in the impeachment of Republicans?
No, no, no, no. I mean, it’s…Listen, I
can’t stand Bill Clinton.
Did Bill Clinton lie to the American
people?
Yes.
Why do you have one standard for him and
another standard for a Republican?
I have the same standard for both of
them.
No, you don’t. Because you didn’t write an
article asking for his impeachment.
Actually, what I’m trying to tell you is
that if you, as Senator Graham put it a few months ago very
intelligently, if you apply the same standard to Bush that was
applied to Clinton, then it’s impeachable. He should be impeached.
Absolutely.
Ann…
Because as Alexander Hamilton said in
The Federalist Papers, this has to do with the
immediate consequences and harm done to society. What could be
greater harm than the deaths of American soldiers…
Excuse me. The immediate
consequences…Sir, you have yet to…
… in Iraq, who have been sent to Iraq
on a fraudulent pretext, utterly…
My patience is really running thin.
… and they’re dying.
Could you please be quiet, because there
are other people on the panel?
OK. Sure.
The idea here, he cannot give a specific
example.
I did give a specific example.
He’s full of crap.
I did give an example.
And this is just, hatred of George W. Bush
now has become a sport for these guys.
Ann Coulter?
First of
all, I agree with you. I hate to treat this seriously by
responding, but the particular lie that he cited as his leading,
case in chief of the president lying, yes, Bush cited something
like the Atomic Energy Commission. He misspoke.
Right.
It was the International Institute for
Strategic Studies or something. He misspoke about the name of the
institute.
No, he didn’t. He didn’t.
It’s my turn now. You stop that.
OK.
Point two, as you know, I’m something of an
authority on the grounds for impeachment. And this is precisely the
sort of thing that impeachment is not for. I mean, it’s not for
policy disagreements. It’s certainly not for something that is in
the president’s prerogative, such as waging war, for example.
To take a decision that I think is appalling, but is not grounds
for impeachment. Bill Clinton sending a small Cuban boy back to a
Bolshevik monster in Cuba. That is not grounds for impeachment,
because that is part of the president’s authority.
Ann…
You don’t impeach for disagreements over
policy. It is for misbehavior; that is what misdemeanor means. It’s
for bad decorum.
Ann, we didn’t let Rick make a speech. You
can’t make a speech, either.
Well, actually, you did.
I know it’s hard, but if you look to your
left, I know that’s difficult.
Look, I don’t think he should be impeached. I disagree with Rick
about that.
That’s very big of you.
Thank you. I think I’d rather put our time
and effort toward 2004, and just like I don’t think Bill Clinton
should have been impeached, I don’t.
But I understand Rick’s point. There are many Americans who
increasingly seem to feel that we were not leveled with, for
whatever reason, whether it was Bush who did it or people in his
administration who gave him false information.
He did say the IAEA reported that Iraq was six months away from a
nuclear capability, which turned out not to be true. It’s a scare
tactic.
He got the name of the institute wrong.
Saying I misspoke, and they said they
misspoke about a number of things. Misspoke about uranium. They
misspoke about tubes, misspoke about how many things.
Right.
Misspoke lets him off the hook?
No. Liberals don’t want to fight terrorism.
You want there to be lots of 9/11’s.
