Thursday, January 13, 2005
When the justification for war falls in a forest . . .
Does anyone hear it?
It would appear not. Note the placement of this article at the top of page A-5 in yesterday's Philly Inquirer--a few paragraphs crammed in above an almost full-page ad for a local department store.
Not that it should come as any surprise. Yes, Saddam did have some weapons capabilities in the 1980s and early 90s (much of it enhanced by US patronage back in those heady dictatorial days), but as the interim Duelfer Report showed, they primary rationales for those weapons were as a deterrent toward Iran, a threat to internal enemies, and the general sense of regional machismo that germ warfare provides the average tin-horn despot.
Who needs a valid rationale for war anyway? Not TeamBush, clearly. To be completely non-partisan about this, LBJ was also on shaky ground with the Gulf of Tonkin resolutions in 1964--but Vietnam was never nearly as crucial to the world as the Middle East.
But why worry about truth when there are so many well-worn soundbites waiting to be dusted off from the recent November election cycle?
When asked about the findings, Executive mouthpiece Scott McClellan said:
"Based on what we know today, the President would have taken the same action," press secretary Scott McClellan said, "because this is about protecting the American people."
Of course it is. And anyway, George has a forty million dollar party to go to next week. I'm sure he's busy getting his hair done or cowboy boots polished or something (such a man of the people, that one).
Does anyone hear it?
It would appear not. Note the placement of this article at the top of page A-5 in yesterday's Philly Inquirer--a few paragraphs crammed in above an almost full-page ad for a local department store.
Not that it should come as any surprise. Yes, Saddam did have some weapons capabilities in the 1980s and early 90s (much of it enhanced by US patronage back in those heady dictatorial days), but as the interim Duelfer Report showed, they primary rationales for those weapons were as a deterrent toward Iran, a threat to internal enemies, and the general sense of regional machismo that germ warfare provides the average tin-horn despot.
Who needs a valid rationale for war anyway? Not TeamBush, clearly. To be completely non-partisan about this, LBJ was also on shaky ground with the Gulf of Tonkin resolutions in 1964--but Vietnam was never nearly as crucial to the world as the Middle East.
But why worry about truth when there are so many well-worn soundbites waiting to be dusted off from the recent November election cycle?
When asked about the findings, Executive mouthpiece Scott McClellan said:
"Based on what we know today, the President would have taken the same action," press secretary Scott McClellan said, "because this is about protecting the American people."
Of course it is. And anyway, George has a forty million dollar party to go to next week. I'm sure he's busy getting his hair done or cowboy boots polished or something (such a man of the people, that one).
Comments:
Post a Comment
