You are herecontent / Bad Empire Planning Worse Than Lying Us into War?? He Fooled Whom???

Bad Empire Planning Worse Than Lying Us into War?? He Fooled Whom???


How Cheney Fooled Himself
By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Tuesday, June 21, 2005; Page A21

President Bush planted the seeds of the destruction of his Iraq policy before the war started. Salvaging the venture will require an unprecedented degree of candor and realism from a White House that was never willing to admit -- even to itself -- how large an undertaking it was asking the American people to buy into.

The notion that the president led the country into war through indirection or dishonesty is not the most damaging criticism of the administration. The worst possibility is that the president and his advisers believed their own propaganda. They did not prepare the American people for an arduous struggle because they honestly didn't expect one.

How else to explain the fact that the president and his lieutenants consistently played down the costs of the endeavor, the number of troops required, the difficulties of overcoming tensions among the Sunnis, the Shiites and the Kurds? Were they lying? The more logical explanation is that they didn't know what they were talking about.

Because the White House failed to prepare Americans for what was to come, the administration now faces a backlash. Over the weekend Bush said that the terrorists in Iraq were seeking to "weaken our nation's resolve." But the rising impatience about which Bush complains is a direct result of the administration's blithe dismissal of those who warned just how tough the going could get.

The assertion of the "Downing Street Memo" that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" of invasion has understandably become a rallying point for the war's opponents. But in some ways more devastating are other recently disclosed documents in which British officials warned that "there was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action." The British worried at the time that "U.S. military plans are virtually silent" on the fact that "a postwar occupation of Iraq could lead to a protracted and costly nation-building exercise."

The most damaging document supporting this claim is not secret, and remains one of the most important artifacts of the prewar debate. It is the transcript of "Meet the Press" from March 16, 2003, in which Vice President Cheney gave voice to the administration's optimistic assumptions that have now been laid low by reality.

Host Tim Russert asked whether "we would have to have several hundred thousand troops there" in Iraq "for several years in order to maintain stability." Cheney replied: "I disagree." He wouldn't say how many troops were needed, but he added that "to suggest that we need several hundred thousand troops there after military operations cease, after the conflict ends, I don't think is accurate. I think that's an overstatement."

Russert asked: "If your analysis is not correct, and we're not treated as liberators but as conquerors, and the Iraqis begin to resist, particularly in Baghdad, do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly, and bloody battle with significant American casualties?"

Cheney would have none of it. "Well, I don't think it's likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators. I've talked with a lot of Iraqis in the last several months myself, had them to the White House. . . . The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but what they want [is to] get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that."

Russert: "And you are convinced the Kurds, the Sunnis, the Shiites will come together in a democracy?"

Cheney: "They have so far." And the vice president concluded: "I think the prospects of being able to achieve this kind of success, if you will, from a political standpoint, are probably better than they would be for virtually any other country and under similar circumstances in that part of the world."

Was Cheney disguising the war's costs for political purposes? It's more likely that he believed every word he said. That suggests that the administration was not misleading the American people nearly so much as it was misleading itself.

Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska says in the current issue of U.S. News & World Report that "the White House is completely disconnected from reality" and that "it's like they're just making it up as they go along." Unfortunately, the evidence of the past suggests that Hagel's acerbic formulation may be exactly right. Those who still see the invasion of Iraq as a noble mission don't need to protect the policy from the war's critics. They need to rescue it from its architects.

postchat@aol.com

Tags

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

The Vice President of the United States declared that the prisoners
held at Guantanamo Bay are in fact "Prisoners Of War." These are his
own words as broadcast to the world LIVE via CNN on Larry King Live.

This presents a MASSIVE PROBLEM for this Administration.
This means they are in fact guilty of WAR CRIMES.

They have been hiding behind the excuse that these "detainees"
(who have been effectively kidnapped and held against their will
without legal representation) are not entitled to the protections
provided prisoners of war by the Geneva Conventions. This distinction
is made SPECIFICALLY so that methods of interrogation may be utilized
which the Geneva Conventions clearly define as TORTURE.
That's the reason for the legal distinction that the Administration
itself has made - so that torture could be utilized to extract information.
2 + 2 = uh...4.

The Administration's justification for this distinction had been
that these are not true "Prisoners Of War." Cheney's own words
just contradicted this. The Bush Administration had previously
declared that this is not a conventional war, and that there is no
"enemy state" that we are fighting, and further, that the "War On Terror"
is potentially a war without end, as there is no representative of the
other side with which to sign a peace treaty or an end to hostilities.

As such, the following words by the Vice President clearly state
that the prisoners being held at Guantanamo may actually be held
there, as "Prisoners Of War" - FOREVER - a direct violation of the
Geneva Conventions - which of course DO apply to this and every war.

Can you say "War Criminal," Dick?

http://hereswhatsleft.typepad.com/home/2005/05/vice_president_.html

KING: They specifically said, though, it was Guantanamo.
They compared it to a gulag.

D. CHENEY: Not true. Guantanamo's been operated, I think, in a
very sane and sound fashion by the U.S. military. Remember who's
down there. These are people that were picked up off the battlefield
in Afghanistan and other places in the global war on terror. These are
individuals who have been actively involved as the enemy, if you will,
trying to kill Americans. That we need to have a place where we can
keep them. In a sense, when you're at war, you keep prisoners of war
until the war is over with.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Support WarIsACrime



Donate.








Tweet your Congress critters here.


Advertise on this site!




Facebook      Twitter





Our Store:





















The log-in box below is only for bloggers. Nobody else will be able to log in because we have not figured out how to stop voluminous spam ruining the site. If you would like us to have the resources to figure that out please donate. If you would like to receive occasional emails please sign up. If you would like to be a blogger here please send your resume.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.