November 28, 2009
Ritter Sports the Truth

As usual, Scott Ritter tells the straight truth, and as usual, it ain’t pretty.

In short, Saddam had been found guilty of possessing WMD, and his sentence had been passed down by Washington and London void of any hard evidence that such weapons, or even related programmes, even existed. The sentence meted out — regime termination — mandated such a massive deployment of troops and material that all but the wilfully blind or intentionally ignorant had to know by the early autumn of 2002 that war with Iraq was inevitable. One simply does not initiate the movement of hundreds of thousands of troops, thousands of armoured vehicles and aircraft, and dozens of ships on a whim or to reinforce an idle threat.

President George Bush was able to disguise his blatant militarism behind the false sincerity of his ally Blair and his own secretary of state, Colin Powell. The president’s task was made far easier given the role of useful idiot played by much of the mainstream media in the US and Britain, where reporters and editors alike dutifully repeated both the hyped-up charges levied against Iraq and the false pretensions that a diplomatic solution was being sought.

The tragic final act of the farce directed by Bush and Blair was the theatre of war justification known as UN weapons inspections. Having played the WMD card so forcefully in an effort to justify war with Iraq, the US (and by extension, Britain) were compelled once again to revisit the issue of disarmament. But the reality was that disarming Iraq was the furthest thing from the mind of either Bush or Blair. The decision to use military force to overthrow Saddam was made by these two leaders independent of any proof that Iraq was in possession of weapons of mass destruction. Having found Iraq guilty, the last thing those who were positioning themselves for war wanted was to re-engage a process that not only had failed to uncover any evidence Iraq’s retention of WMD in the past, but was actually positioned to produce fact-based evidence that would either contradict or significantly weaken the case for war already endorsed by Bush and Blair.

So, does this mean that Bush and Blair and their associates are war criminals like McNamara?

Having played the WMD card so forcefully in an effort to justify war with Iraq, the US (and by extension, Britain) were compelled once again to revisit the issue of disarmament. But the reality was that disarming Iraq was the furthest thing from the mind of either Bush or Blair. The decision to use military force to overthrow Saddam was made by these two leaders independent of any proof that Iraq was in possession of weapons of mass destruction. Having found Iraq guilty, the last thing those who were positioning themselves for war wanted was to re-engage a process that not only had failed to uncover any evidence Iraq’s retention of WMD in the past, but was actually positioned to produce fact-based evidence that would either contradict or significantly weaken the case for war already endorsed by Bush and Blair.

In other words, yes.

For the first time in history, the entire world contemporaneously saw the blatant hypocrisy of war. The best PR money could buy was unable to convince the global audience that even a shred of legitimacy existed in the imperial invasion of Iraq. Only the most fearful Americans even bought it, though as usual that’s more than a majority. Plus of course Israel, to give credit where it’s due.

Historically, it seems to me, legitimacy is the single most important attribute of a government. Lacking that, it falls, just as a President whose motorcade lacks normal military escorts is prey to the most extreme elements of society. When legitimacy falters, public confidance in society stumbles with it, and the polls seem to indicate such movement now. Obama entered office with the promise to change things, and surprise, compromising has failed to make a difference once again.

The Obama administration is of course not losing legitimacy to the extent of falling to a 1963-style coup; realistically, fight is not what you expect from Obama. But the Democrats have shown no reason why they should be given control of Congress again in 2010.

Webding3.jpg

Posted by Chuck Dupree at November 28, 2009 10:13 PM
Email this entry to:


Your email address:


Message (optional):


Comments

Beyond the question of war crimes, I maintain that launching the Iraq "War" gave substantial aid and comfort to al Qaeda. Surely, such a thing merits a charge of treason.

Posted by: Roddy McCorley on November 29, 2009 12:57 PM

The war I could understand. We've done that before and we know what war is about in industrialized countries. Making torture national policy, now that is something that I can never grasp the reason for.

Posted by: Buck on November 29, 2009 6:10 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?