Signs of the Times

ROTFL! Very good points, Greyhawk. Thanks for pulling it all together in one place.

The NY Times amazes me with the silly garbage they print that is taken as gospel by the "elite". I trackbacked with a piece giggle smacking a screed by Maureen Dowd today that is even sillier, if that is possible, than the editorial you cite. These people can't be trusted with serious matters, but it's funny to poke 'em in the eye.

Cordially,

Uncle J

Greyhawk said, "after all, it hardly reflects credit on a democracy when the elected representatives of the people can't set aside partisan bickering and appoint ministers in a timely fashion." I wonder if he wanted to use the word judges. Even if he didn't intend it that way I still love the line because I read it that way.

I BLOGGED ABOUT THIS ON 3/23/05:

EXCERPTING FROM BUSH'S SEPTEMBER 12, 2002 - YUP 2002 SPEECH BEFORE THE UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY:

"[...] If we meet our responsibilities, if we overcome this danger, we can arrive at a very different future. The people of Iraq can shake off their captivity. They can one day join a democratic Afghanistan and a democratic Palestine, inspiring reforms throughout the Muslim world."

IN THE SAME SPEECH - BEFORE ANY UN RESOLUTION AND SIX MONTHS BEFORE THE WAR - BUSH ALSO LISTED THESE OTHER NON-WMD REASONS FOR AN ULTIMATUM AGAINST SADDAM:

The United States helped found the United Nations. We want the United Nations to be effective, and respectful, and successful. We want the resolutions of the world's most important multilateral body to be enforced. And right now those resolutions are being unilaterally subverted by the Iraqi regime. Our partnership of nations can meet the test before us, by making clear what we now expect of the Iraqi regime.
[...]
If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose, and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles, and all related material.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all support for terrorism and act to suppress it [emph added], as all states are required to do by U.N. Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shi'a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans, and others, again as required by Security Council resolutions.
[...]
If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program [emph added]. It will accept U.N. administration of funds from that program, to ensure that the money is used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people.

ANYONE AND EVERYONE WHO SAYS THAT THE GULF WAR II WAS ALL ABOUT WMD(OR "WMD LIES") AS A PRETEXT FOR GETTING OIL IS A MORON OR A LIAR.

Who's revising history here? This administration
used the threat of WMD's in Iraq to sell this war both to congress and the american people. Look it up. It was in all the papers.

Sure, Nick. Problem was he had like 9 reasons, and that was only one of them. You just weren't listening becuase you hated the man. Once one of those reasons proved wrong, you went back, found it, and harped on it. If had been something else, THAT's what you would be citing as "the only reason he gave."

If he had said it was about oil, and there was no oil, you'd be banging him for that, too.

No doubt the NY Times thinks it was THEIR pressure that made the Iraqis agree.

Yes, but any threat must be taken seriously until it is proven otherwise..... We had enough reason to think that he had them, Saddam ACTED like he had them, so would you rather sit around and wait to get hit or be proactive?

nick foresta:
"...Look it up. It was in all the papers."

I assume this comment is tongue-in-cheek, right?

"... It was in all the papers." You know, you are a very funny guy.

Very well said, GH. But you do realize for the NYT and their fellow travelers, it's all about power, nothing else, right? They will say or do anything to keep their guys in power, or return them to power in this case. Intellectual integrity, or plain honesty, is of zero real interest. How do we know this? Because that is exactly what they accuse their enemies of doing.

When we criticize the faults of others....[w]e reprove them not so much to correct [their faults] as to persuade them to believe that we ourselves are free from their faults.

-- Francois duc de la Rouchefoucauld

The NYT, "The millions of brave Iraqis who risked their lives to vote in Jnuary didn't expect that nearly three months later, their squabbling politicans would still be struggling to form a government."
What about the millions of Americans who risked their lives during the Revolutionary, Civil, WW's, Korean etc. wars who probably didn't expect that up to two hundred (plus) years later that the squabbling politicians would still be squabbling about forming a government every two years or so and then arguing about whether it's right to start and then support Democracy elsewhere?

What the hell does the NYT think democracy is all about?

Sure, Nick. Problem was he had like 9 reasons, and that was only one of them.

Bzzzzzzzzzzt. WRONG.

Before the invasion of Iraq...THE reason given to the American people was WMD. Period. There was no talk of democracy. There was no talk of liberation. There was an imminent and immediate threat to the shores of the United States.

After the invasion all of this other BS came down.

No WMD in Iraq. And it wasn't moved to Syria, either. It just flat wasn't there.

The actual reason for the invasion never existed. It's time to stop pretending, kids.

a brief message to all liberal pukes:
Shut Up,Shut Up,Will you PLEASE SHUT UP????!!!!
Thank you.

If you want to know all the reasons for the invasion, try reading all the whereas's on the resolution authorizing the war.

Wouldn't that be the proper research? Or should should we speculate about the politcal reasoning and civic psychology behind the pre-war debate?

"Before the invasion of Iraq...THE reason given to the American people was WMD. Period. There was no talk of democracy. There was no talk of liberation."

Aren't people such as Carla aware that we can read and research (and have memories as well)? How can one make such a statement and expect to be taken seriously?

This is a facinating study in human nature. In the face of all the facts people are unwilling to see the truth right in front of them. After other have pointed out the facts that are on the record about what was said before the war, people like Carla are not only willing to see it they will try to say the exact opposite. What Bush said is not a matter of opinion. It is recorded on video tape and published in many different places. Yet Carla ignores all of that and says "There was no talk of democracy. There was no talk of liberation." She could easily follow one of the links above or search Google herself and find that her statement is far from true but she'd rather continue to wear her blinders and spout the propaganda that she has accepted and say "Period" afterwards as if others should just accept something that is blatantly untrue like she does.
Facinating.

carla,

"Before the invasion of Iraq...THE reason given to the American people was WMD. Period."

The reason the MSM gave you was WMD, period. There were 23 reasons in the Senate Resolution Authorising Action. The fact that you only heard about 1 reason was that you trusted the MSM to tell you the WHOLE story.

Do you really think the 10 seconds of sound byte that is delivered on the evening news is the whole story?

Here's the actual resolution -

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105–338)
expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy
of the United States to support efforts to remove from power
the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic
government to replace that regime;

screw you, you patronizing hosebag.

More on the subject.

We really need to smack down this erroneous idea before it becomes fully revised into history.

Essentially, Carla's position follows:

Stick Fingers in your ears, put a blindfold on, and repeat after me:

I CANNNNNNNN'T HEARRRRRRRRR YOU. I CANNNNNNNN'T REEEEEEADDDDD WHAT YOU SAAAAAAAAY. I WONNNNNNN'T READ WHAT BUSH SAID BEFORE THE INVASION. I KNOW WHAT I THOUGHT THEN, AND I WAS RIGHT AND BUSH WAS WRONG.

Aren't you all being rather disingenuous about this. Yes, Bush repeatedly suggested his desire for a democratic Iraq, but his overwhelming emphasis was the clear and present danger the U.S. faced from Iraqi WMDs.
In his UN speech, Bush gave one line to the notion of democracy in Iraq, while he repeatedly decried Saddam's WMD program with nuggets such as: "[r]ight now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons" and "Iraq likely maintains stockpiles of VX, Mustard and other chemical agents" and "Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon." None of which turned out to be correct, but all of which, according to poll after poll over the last two years, left people with the notion that Iraq was hiding WMDs, and that Saddam was willing to turn them over to terrorists. The House Joint Resolution authorizing the war even asserted that "members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq."
At best, this is obfuscation; at worst it's outright deception. And, according to the most recent Gallup numbers, half of the American public agrees that Bush deliberately misled them on the WMD issue.
So, yes, the NY Times is incorrect. But complaining about it is just sophistry.

Oh, and one other thing. I encourage you to read the Whitehouse.gov press releases in the months and days before the war.
Can you find any that have a banner other than "Iraq: Denial and Deception?"
I can't.
I guess that's what the Whitehouse wanted emphasize, huh?

It is certainly true that there were several reasons for the action. People who deny this are misinformed at best.

I suspect it is also true that without the allegations about WMD (and purported links to Osama style terrorists) a majority of the American people would not have supported the action.

carla declared:
After the invasion all of this other BS came down.

Uh-huh. So why does the "other BS" appear in speeches and news reports pre-dating the invasion?

Take your time, carla. Oh wait, you're using the "repeat it often enough and it'll magically come true" technique.

Actually, whats4lunch, it's more like the media gave the WMD argument more attention. Not to mention certain people were trying to seize upon it as an excuse to not invade. Like, oh, claiming we had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Saddam had WMD before going in, nevermind that the ceasefire agreement from the Gulf War dictated that Saddam had to prove he had dismantled his WMD program and any stockpiles. Oops.

I just want to thank everyone of you guys that are in the military. I know this message is somewhat ill-placed, but I couldn't find a more main page for all of milblogs. Sorry for any inconvience. But on to what I was talking about, you guys do a heck of a lot for America, and I just thought the least I could do is stop by and thank you. Keep up the great work, god bless.

Actually justification to go to war can be boiled down to the fact that Saddam never lived up to the armistice agreements of Gulf War I. This in and of itself is reason enough to continue hostilities. Iraq is really still a continuaition of Desert Storm, and what should have happened 10 years ago....

Patrick,

These are excerpts from Bush's State of the Union speech, 29 January 2003:

"Today, the gravest danger in the war on terror, the gravest danger facing America and the world, is outlaw regimes that seek and possess nuclear, chemical and biological weapons."

"These regimes could use such weapons for blackmail, terror and mass murder. They could also give or sell those weapons to terrorist allies, who would use them without the least hesitation."

"This threat is new; America's duty is familiar."

"Now, in this century, the ideology of power and domination has appeared again and seeks to gain the ultimate weapons of terror."

"Once again, this nation and our friends are all that stand between a world at peace, and a world of chaos and constant alarm. Once again, we are called to defend the safety of our people and the hopes of all mankind."

"Our nation and the world must learn the lessons of the Korean Peninsula and not allow an even greater threat to rise up in Iraq. A brutal dictator, with a history of reckless aggression, with ties to terrorism, with great potential wealth will not be permitted to dominate a vital region and threaten the United States."

"Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these weapons: not economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities."

"...Saddam Hussein had biological weapons materials sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax; enough doses to kill several million people."

"...Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin; enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure."

"...Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands."

"...Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents."

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

"Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."

"Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate or attack."

"And this Congress and the American people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own."

"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."

"If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option."

"The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or disfigured."

And then way down, near the end of the speech, he said this:

"And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country, your enemy is ruling your country. And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation."

And finally this:

"Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world; it is God's gift to humanity."

That's it, two paragraphs about liberation and freedom for the people of Iraq. Bush doesn't even mention the word "democracy."

And you're telling me that the media didn't accurately report what he said? Or that some raggedy-assed hippy peaceniks distorted his meaning?

Get real man.

If you somehow heard the drumbeat of the March of Freedom in all that apocalyptic noise, I'm impressed. Or perhaps you just heard what you wanted to hear, in which case, I'm even more impressed. You're clearly more concerned with the condition of your fellow man than I am.

I encourage you to keep up the crusade with frequent letters to the Whitehouse, pressing for the immediate invasion of North Korea and the removal of that country's psychopathic despot.

Hm. I wonder where I said anything about my beliefs being based solely on the 2003 SoTU address?

From a speech Feb 26th, 2003:
"The safety of the American people depends on ending this direct and growing threat. Acting against the danger will also contribute greatly to the long-term safety and stability of our world. The current Iraqi regime has shown the power of tyranny to spread discord and violence in the Middle East. A liberated Iraq can show the power of freedom to transform that vital region, by bringing hope and progress into the lives of millions. America's interests in security, and America's belief in liberty, both lead in the same direction: to a free and peaceful Iraq.

"The first to benefit from a free Iraq would be the Iraqi people, themselves. Today they live in scarcity and fear, under a dictator who has brought them nothing but war, and misery, and torture. Their lives and their freedom matter little to Saddam Hussein -- but Iraqi lives and freedom matter greatly to us.

"Bringing stability and unity to a free Iraq will not be easy. Yet that is no excuse to leave the Iraqi regime's torture chambers and poison labs in operation. Any future the Iraqi people choose for themselves will be better than the nightmare world that Saddam Hussein has chosen for them."

Hm. Feburary. 2003. One month before it started. So much for carla's claim. I guess I was paying more attention than some of you were. Oh, the speech does include the WMD issue... do you want me to make a word count to see which one got more focus? You know, so you can claim the "apocalyptic noise" drowned it out and such...

BTW: Do you have a problem with Seoul?

Oh wait, you probably don't have a problem, since you just threw in NK as a strawman and didn't bother to research any possible complications to invading that nation. The usual "but what about (nation)?!" cry used to declare that since we're not liberating all the other hellholes on Earth, we shouldn't try it anywhere.

Wow, I was reading some really good points until the left made a few posts. I agree that the whole motivation behind this frantic revisionism on the left is bitterness and especially deep embarrassment about being caught blatantly on the wrong side of history. They are trying to "save face." This bankrupt mentality is summed up by whats4lunch in his typical leftie "point" that it's not OK to deal with one threat if other threats still exist. how can anyone be that retarded?

YO, "What's for Lunch",

This is the blogoshere, not the MSM editorial room. Show some etiquette. Don't suck up our bandwidth to pull excerpt out of the State of the Union Address that fit your agenda, just link the whole thing. We're all big boys and girls here. We can decipher and decide without your MSM style of editing. Thank You.

Thanks for reading the Times so I don't have to suffer thru it. I'm grateful to you for providing me with laughter, tears, and info for the past year. Must be time to donate!

Patrick,

First, I'll get one-liner out of the way:

Apparently the Iraqi war planners "didn't bother to research any possible complications to invading that nation" either.

Next, I should say that this has nothing to do with your "beliefs." The fact is that during the run-up to the war, a majority of Americans somehow got it into their heads that Iraq was hiding WMDs and that Saddam Hussein was going to hand them over to terrorists, as this March 13, 2003 Fox News poll shows:

"Preventing Saddam from aiding terrorists is seen by a plurality as the most important reason to take military action. By a three-to-one margin Americans say the top reason for action is to keep Iraq from supplying weapons to terrorists, with 14 percent say the most important reason is to promote democracy and human rights and 10 percent say to secure oil supplies. Twenty percent say it is a combination of these."

Were Americans worried about Saddam supplying weapons to terrorists because of Fox News' slanted reporting? No, they were worried because the President repeatedly said that the U.S. was under threat.

That's what he told the Congress in the State of the Union speech, broadcast live to a nation rapidly gearing up for war and that's what he told the world when the war began on March 19:

"The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder."

And yes, you're right, somewhere in between he did address the American Enterprise Institute during their gala dinner at the Washington Hilton and talk about the spread of democracy.

And yes, you're right, he did, on other occasions, discuss his democratic domino theory. But only as an issue secondary to the threat of WMDs.

If you want to do a word count on his speeches, go ahead. We both know what it will show.

Finally, I'll note that, no, I don't have a problem with the capital of South Korea. Why should I? I do have a problem with North Korea, however. It is, as Bush said, "an oppressive regime [that] rules a people living in fear and starvation" and that "retreat before a dictator guarantees even greater sacrifices in the future."

You see, I don't have a problem with making war on humanitarian grounds, for someone else's freedom. At least we would know that our men and women in uniform died for the best possible reasons.

Put the issue squarely to the public and let us make up our minds. If we decide to go, let's go.

But don't piss in my ear and tell me it's raining.

Lunch, you are doing a good job of steering the conversation away from the actual point. So I'll repost the quote from the Times we are discussing:

"The only plausible reason for keeping American troops in Iraq is to protect the democratic transformation that President Bush seized upon as a rationale for the invasion after his claims about weapons of mass destruction turned out to be fictitious."

By your own posts you have proven that quote to be just what we are saying it is, a lie. All the rest of your post is just electronic mastubation aimed at changing the subject.

Okay, Greyhawk! I finally figured out the whole standalone trackback thang. Next time, the post I link with will actually contain a Mudville Gazette link. Thanks!

whats4lunch:

You see, I don't have a problem with making war on humanitarian grounds, for someone else's freedom. At least we would know that our men and women in uniform died for the best possible reasons.

This is why the anti-war Left are such poor strategists. They have no long-term understanding of what's at stake (e.g., access to oil, new markets, and a secularized Muslim Middle East). They have no appreciation for the evolution of our war aims because they do not know their history.

Could Lincoln have successfully prosecuted the war against the South if he had begun by telling the North that they were sending their boys to die for the liberation of negro slaves? No. Would there have been as much support for the war for Iraq if Bush had said it was only for humanitarian or democratizing purposes? I doubt it.

Even today, we still don't know the extent of the Saddamites' WMD programs. For all we do know, there are tons of anthrax hidden away in Damascus by Ba'athist nutjobs who fled Iraq prior to the invasion. There's certainly some evidence to suppose this is true, so this nonsense about "fictitious" pretexts to war is literally ignorant.

Toby,

You seem to be in disagreement with Greyhawk, the person who started this post.

Greyhawk doubts that there were "really people out there who were tricked into supporting the war by the WMD issue."

Of course, Gallup polling reveals otherwise, showing that an increasing number of Americans (50% and counting) believe that "the Bush administration deliberately misled the American public about whether Iraq has weapons of mass destruction of not."

And, apparently Toby, you agree with them, doubting that there would "have been as much support for the war for Iraq if Bush had said it was only for humanitarian or democratizing purposes."

The 2003 Fox News poll I cite above shows as much. Only 14% of Americans believed that "the most important reason [for the war was] to promote democracy and human rights."

Now, I happen to agree with you about Lincoln and his Civil War aims, just as I think you would agree there was little popular support for WWII - no matter how just the cause - in the years preceding the attack on Pearl Harbour.

I doubt that LBJ would have been able to escalate U.S. involvement in Vietnam during an election year, without the fabricated Gulf of Tonkin Incident.

I also doubt that Bush 41's grand UN coalition would have stuck together if he had altered the Persian Gulf War's limited aims to include the removal of Saddam Hussein.

If you want to try to justify a war after the fact, go ahead, I'm all for it. It certainly worked in WWII, a war that began not because of any desire to remove Hitler, but because of treaty obligations with Poland. (Phony War anyone, anyone?)

Perhaps, in the long run, Iraq will turn out great and it will all have been worth it. Perhaps, it already has.

But we're not talking about justifying the war in a historic context here, we're talking about the stated "rationale for the invasion" at the time, the pretext. And the over-riding rationale, the one most frequently stated by the President, in his most heated rhetoric, the one Americans thought most important, was the threat of WMD. I don't see why we have to pretend otherwise.

Yes, of course, there were any number of reasons to go war, some better, some worse. (I don't hear any of you lauding the fact that UN resolutions finally have some teeth. Neither, Toby, did I ever hear Bush say the war was about access to oil.) But Bush focused on and amped-up only one of those reasons, the threat of WMD, perhaps because, as you seem to suggest Toby, he knew it would have the most traction with the public.

And it did. But then the threat proved an illusion and Bush "seized upon" one of the other reasons for the war: the spread of democracy. And support for the war has been slipping ever since.

I'm sorry to have had to take you all on this tour through reality, but I can't stand bullsh*t. Not when newspapers spread it, not when bloggers spread it, and especially not when people who get fat off my tax dollars spread it.

So who is playing the revisionist here? Is the NY Times oversimplifying? Sure. Is their characterization of the issue complete? No.

But, as I've said, to suggest that they are lying, or somehow revising history, is simply sophistry.

"But, as I've said, to suggest that they are lying, or somehow revising history, is simply sophistry."

Here's the Times quote AGAIN:

"The only plausible reason for keeping American troops in Iraq is to protect the democratic transformation that President Bush seized upon as a rationale for the invasion after his claims about weapons of mass destruction turned out to be fictitious."

You can continue to post poll results and drone on about the rationale for one side or another and it won't change the simple fact that the statement in the Times is an out-and-out lie. Bush did not "seize" on the democratization theme afterwards, it was in every prewar speech he gave. The fact that he didn't emphasize it as much as you think he should have doesn't change that fact.

Do you get paid by the word?

I think Tom distilled the essence of your problem well enough, whats4lunch, but let me just add that your argument is typical of the hyperliteral/hyperlegal crap I read all the time among the Left. It's nothing more than a forensics fetish to be "right" in some limited sense (e.g., dredging up poll data) when you cannot be fully right in the only sense that matters.

For instance: Great Britain and France went to war against Germany because of treaty obligations with Poland? In what meaningful sense is that true? Not only is that an ahistorical reading of the cause of the Second World War, it's an amoral one, as well. Are we to believe that Churchill had never bothered to notice the rearmament of Germany and Hitler's aggression of before 1939? Gibberish.

Or look at American history: the Compromise of 1820, nullification, the annexation of Texas, the Compromise of 1850, Bloody Kansas, etc. What was at the root of all those controversies? Slavery and its destruction of the white working class. Did Lincoln need to say that the Civil War would have to be fought for abolition? No. It was understood to be the moral underpinning of the preservation of the Union. By a lot of people and for a very long time before the carnage began.

And now with Bush the Younger, it is irrelevant, frankly, whether what he has cited as the causes of the War for Iraq are getting the kind of attention from Big Media and the rabid anti-Bush/anti-war Left that would qualify them for your recollection.

I, for one, have no problem with the idea that this war has been for the sake of securing our access to oil. That's because I know it is also being fought for many other equally important reasons. I have no respect for those who drive cars and benefit from the prosperity of a society that depends on the consumption of oil who simultaneously piss and moan about the "cynicism" of our efforts in the Middle East. Such people are hypocrites who do not understand that we are in competition with other nations like China for natural resources. If we do not work now to democratize and open up the Muslim Middle East, we will not continue to enjoy the kind of economic success we've always known.

That's one thing our men and women are laying down their lives for. Who would dare question the nobility of that sacrifice, calling it "blood for oil"?

TomB,

Look I'll barely write a word, I'll just quote from RadicallyCentered, one of the links Greyhawk provides above:

"If one reads the 'seize upon' language to mean 'seize upon a justification that was not previously given', then I would agree with Prof. Reynolds that the editorial is in error. I think the best justification for this reading is the use of the article 'a' ('seized upon as a rationale') by the editorial. If this is what the editorial means, then they are either liars or forgetful.

"If on the other hand, one reads the 'seize upon' language to mean 'seize upon a justification that was not previously the primary justification' then I would not contend that the editorial is guilty of historical revisionism. Of course if that is what it meant they should have said 'seized upon as the primary rationale' (or words to that effect) rather than 'seized upon as a rationale.'"

...

"The way the editorial is drafted demonstrates forgetfulness or deceit. I am left to ponder how Prof. Reynolds would react if a media outlet pointed out that the democratization/liberation of Iraqis was not the primary justification given going into the conflict."

...

"Look anyone who says that the liberation/democratization of Iraq was not a reason or one of the primary reasons for the military action is not right. At the same time, anyone who says the liberation/democratization of Iraq was the reason or even the primary reason given to the American people for the military action is not correct either. It may have been (and I suspect it will prove to be) the best reason but without the WMD angle and/or links to Al-qaeda style terrorists the military action would not, initially, have been supported by a majority of the American people."

At the risk of engaging in my own bit of sophistry, however, I would go further than RC by noting that the offending lines do not say democratization was "seized upon as the rationale," (i.e. the only rationale) rather they say democratization was "seized upon as a rationale," (i.e. one of several others). But, clearly, obviously, by logical and political necessity, democratization was seized upon (i.e. made the primary rationale) only after WMD were not found.

Toby,

By "forensics fetish to be 'right'" I take it you would mean my pointing out, for example, that Churchill did not even become Prime Minister of Great Britain until 1940?

I guess facts don't speak for themselves.

Otherwise, I also have no problem with a war for oil. It's the cornerstone of our economy, and wars have certainly been fought for less (why did we have WWI again?) I only wish Bush had, just once, said as much. I mean, we're all grown-ups, we can handle the truth (if that is the truth.)

In the meantime, however, it makes no sense to say the war is justified to fend off growing Chinese hegemony, when it's the Chinese that are floating record-level U.S. debt and, in effect, financing the war.

(Can you say Lend/Lease?)

I would go further than RC by noting that the offending lines do not say democratization was "seized upon as the rationale," (i.e. the only rationale) rather they say democratization was "seized upon as a rationale," (i.e. one of several others).

It all depends upon the meaning of the word "a".

Your verbal gymnastics would make Clinton proud.

But it isn't fooling anyone around here.

Look, I realize there are people out there who have trouble holding more than one concept in their head at once, but I really don't think either the President or the NY Times should cater to them.

whats4lunch:

By "forensics fetish to be 'right'" I take it you would mean my pointing out, for example, that Churchill did not even become Prime Minister of Great Britain until 1940?

An excellent example. Because, again, it doesn't matter whether a President or a Prime Minister personally lays out any specific rationale for a war. The causes of a war are self-evident to all ---and, as a political matter, it doesn't even behoove this President to enumerate them all. If he says it's for oil or to crush the Mohammedan menace or to plant a big ass McDonald's square in the middle of an-Najaf, it wouldn't win him any points for honesty with your crowd. So let others justify the ways of this war to the world. Of course a democratized Muslim society is less likely to resort to terror. Of course we should all want for women of Islam to be free. Of course an engaged Muslim Middle East is easier to control than one that's closed off and tyrannized.

And you need Bush ---a man you suspect and disrespect--- to hold your hand and explain why we go to war? Figure it out for yourself.

TomB,

It is sad that all of this has come down to semantics, but it seems that only getting back to basics will have some effect. (Of course, it was RadicallyCentered that opened the door to semantics and none of you appear to have a problem with him.)

I only meant to show that a closer inspection of objective and empirical facts - through polls, quotes, etc. - would show the NY Times guilty of sloppiness, (RC, to his credit, keeps an open mind to this possibility) but clear it of the charge of revisionism.

But you seem to have no interest in facts and you have not challenged any that I have presented. Instead, you have simply decried my use of them. You have made up your mind and no amount of reality will change it.

I never intended to fool you, you seem quite content to fool yourself. Because to ascribe meaning after a full review of all the facts is to write history (or journalism); to impart meaning regardless of all the facts is myth-making. Both you and Toby would seem to prefer the latter.

Toby, you state that "the causes of a war are self-evident to all." Many people thought the cause of this war was Bush Jr.'s Freudian attempt to show up his father. Others claimed it a matter of ideology, that the Vulcans had wanted it so bad, for so long, it appeared a fait d'accompli.

Are either of these causes self-evident to you? Are either true to you? Or is it just that they weren't really the most important causes and, therefore, didn't particularly need to be emphasized? (And, yes, TomB, many people can believe both of those causes to be true at the same time.)

I doubt we'll ever know all the causes of this war. But we do know the reason most Americans thought most important: and it sure wasn't democratization.

Listen to yourself Toby, you claim that the elected leader of a democracy - of, by, and for the people - doesn't have to, shouldn't in fact, tell the truth to those people. That a democratic leader should thwart or manipulate the will of the people in the name of democracy. Because, if he did tell the truth, the whole and nothing but, people would criticize him for it. I'm sorry, but isn't the freedom to criticize, the entire point of democracy?

And then you drop this dud, "[L]et others justify the ways of this war to the world." Well, isn't that what you criticize the NY Times for doing? Make up your mind man, are you in favor of democracy or not?

I suspect you're not really. I suspect you're just one of those people who benefits from the freedom of a democratic society while simultaneously pissing and moaning about other people exercising their freedoms.

Even as you trumpet democratization you add that "an engaged Muslim Middle East is easier to control than one that's closed off and tyrannized."

So that's what you really want. To control people.

And Freedom Marches On...