Despite Bush's heavy emphasis on WMD, Goldberg "baffle[d]" that WMD in Iraq "became the only argument"
SUMMARY: Los Angeles Times columnist Jonah Goldberg professed to be "baffle[d]" that "the only argument" that opponents of the Iraq war claim that President Bush made in justifying the March 2003 invasion of Iraq is that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and planned to use them against the United States. In fact, it was Bush himself who stressed in the weeks leading up to the invasion that disarming and removing Saddam were necessary because of the threat that he would use WMD against the United States.
Los Angeles Times columnist and National Review Online editor-at-large Jonah Goldberg, in his March 23 Times column, professed to be "baffle[d]" that "the only argument" that opponents of the Iraq war claim that President Bush made in justifying the March 2003 invasion of Iraq is that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and planned to use them against the United States. According to Goldberg, finding WMD was "never the sole reason to invade Iraq" and "[t]he fact that Hussein turned out to be bluffing about WMD isn't a mark against Bush's decision." In fact, it was Bush himself who stressed in the weeks leading up to the invasion that disarming and removing Saddam were necessary because of the threat that he would use WMD against the United States.
The heavy emphasis the Bush administration placed on disarming Saddam was most apparent in the months leading up to the invasion. In his January 28, 2003, State of the Union address, Bush famously declared: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" -- the now-infamous "16 words," which Goldberg, in his Times column, wrongly attributed to Bush's 2002 address. Bush made this comment in the context of a lengthy explanation of Saddam's purported weapons capabilities:
BUSH: To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction. ... He pursued chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, even while inspectors were in his country. Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these weapons. ... [T]he United Nations Security Council gave Saddam Hussein his final chance to disarm. ... The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses to kill several million people. ... The United Nations concluded that 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. ... Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard, and VX nerve agent. ... U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. ... From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors.
In that one speech alone, Bush used the word "weapon" 17 times in reference to Saddam. He used the word "disarm" nine times -- twice in this sentence: "But let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him."
On February 5, 2003, then-Secretary of State Colin Powell delivered a speech to the United Nations in which he, as Bush put it on February 6, "briefed the United Nations Security Council on Iraq's illegal weapons programs, its attempts to hide those weapons, and its links to terrorist groups." Iraq's supposed "links to terrorist groups" were so dangerous, according to Bush, because "weapons of mass destruction might be passed to terrorists, who would not hesitate to use those weapons." Bush went on to describe "the situation as we find it":
BUSH: Twelve years after Saddam Hussein agreed to disarm, and 90 days after the Security Council passed Resolution 1441 by a unanimous vote, Saddam Hussein was required to make a full declaration of his weapons programs. He has not done so. Saddam Hussein was required to fully cooperate in the disarmament of his regime; he has not done so. Saddam Hussein was given a final chance; he is throwing that chance away.
The dictator of Iraq is making his choice. Now the nations of the Security Council must make their own. On November 8th, by demanding the immediate disarmament of Iraq, the United Nations Security Council spoke with clarity and authority. Now the Security Council will show whether its words have any meaning. Having made its demands, the Security Council must not back down, when those demands are defied and mocked by a dictator.
The United States would welcome and support a new resolution which makes clear that the Security Council stands behind its previous demands. Yet resolutions mean little without resolve. And the United States, along with a growing coalition of nations, is resolved to take whatever action is necessary to defend ourselves and disarm the Iraqi regime.
On March 17, 2003, Bush delivered an ultimatum to Saddam and his sons, demanding that they "leave Iraq within 48 hours" or face military action, and again laid the greatest emphasis on Iraq's purported weapons capabilities:
BUSH: For more than a decade, the United States and other nations have pursued patient and honorable efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime without war. That regime pledged to reveal and destroy all its weapons of mass destruction as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War in 1991.
Since then, the world has engaged in 12 years of diplomacy. We have passed more than a dozen resolutions in the United Nations Security Council. We have sent hundreds of weapons inspectors to oversee the disarmament of Iraq. Our good faith has not been returned.
The Iraqi regime has used diplomacy as a ploy to gain time and advantage. It has uniformly defied Security Council resolutions demanding full disarmament. Over the years, U.N. weapon inspectors have been threatened by Iraqi officials, electronically bugged, and systematically deceived. Peaceful efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime have failed again and again -- because we are not dealing with peaceful men.
Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people.
[...]
The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other.
[...]
In the case of Iraq, the Security Council did act, in the early 1990s. Under Resolutions 678 and 687 -- both still in effect -- the United States and our allies are authorized to use force in ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a question of authority, it is a question of will.
Last September, I went to the U.N. General Assembly and urged the nations of the world to unite and bring an end to this danger. On November 8th, the Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1441, finding Iraq in material breach of its obligations, and vowing serious consequences if Iraq did not fully and immediately disarm.
Today, no nation can possibly claim that Iraq has disarmed. And it will not disarm so long as Saddam Hussein holds power. For the last four-and-a-half months, the United States and our allies have worked within the Security Council to enforce that Council's long-standing demands. Yet, some permanent members of the Security Council have publicly announced they will veto any resolution that compels the disarmament of Iraq. These governments share our assessment of the danger, but not our resolve to meet it. Many nations, however, do have the resolve and fortitude to act against this threat to peace, and a broad coalition is now gathering to enforce the just demands of the world. The United Nations Security Council has not lived up to its responsibilities, so we will rise to ours.
From Goldberg's March 23 LA Times column:
According to the Pentagon's definitive postmortem on the invasion, some of which was leaked to the New York Times, even many Iraqi generals were stunned to discover that Hussein didn't have WMD. Hussein practiced a strategy that one Republican Guard commander called "deterrence by doubt," in which he hoped to bluff the world into believing he had WMD in order to deter Iran and keep his rep as an Arab strongman with serious mojo.
And that's the point Thomas et al don't want to understand. For reasons that still baffle me, the WMD threat -- never the sole reason to invade Iraq -- not only became the only argument, it became a thoroughly legalistic one, as if foreign policy has rules of evidence and procedural due process. After 9/11, that kind of foreign policy by lawyers looked ridiculous, and rightly so.
The fact that Hussein turned out to be bluffing about WMD isn't a mark against Bush's decision. If you're a cop and a man pulls out a gun and points it at you, you're within your rights to shoot him, particularly if the man in question is a known criminal who's shot people before. If it turns out afterward that the gun wasn't loaded, that's not the cop's fault.
{and his ilk} has been lying about and covering up the situation in Iraq for so long he has forgotten the original lie the Bush administration laid out.
Notice the crooked Trick Cheney grin of Jonah "My Momma saved Clinton's Sperm" Goldberg.
Jonah Goldberg has hit on a hopeful strategery for dealing with the "BUSH LIED US INTO WAR" issue.
Simply deny it happened.
WMDs? Why, Bush hardly mentioned them at all. A totally tangential matter, not worthy of notice. It's BAFFLING why anybody would even have THOUGHT that Bush hinged his war plans on Saddam being a "threat" due to his "weapons".
Let's call this the "Obi-Wan Kenobi" approach to clouding the thoughts of the weak-minded. With a wave of the hand and the use of the Force, the victim becomes unable to see the reality in front of their noses.
Obi-Wan says, "We are NOT the ones you seek."
Jonah-Wan says, "Bush hardly mentioned WMDs."
Obi-Wan says, "You are cleared. Move along."
Jonah-Wan says, "Bush is good, and never lies."
The weak-minded slavishly repeats what they are told to think, ignoring all truth and reality.
I don't know if it will work. I'm sure we'll hear from our rightwing friends on this thread. We need to hear from the actual weak-minded to see if Jonah's hocus-pocus will work to defend/exonerate the president.
Tex, you're too funny!!
I'm not baffled why Goldberg takes this tack. Although we all now bear the burden of the debt and global rancor incurred by the invasion and occupation, as well as the challenge of extricating ourselves from Vietnam Part II, folks that voted for Bush bear a special burden. It's not baffling that clever lads like Goldberg would construct clever analogies: it's easier to analogize than apologize. Of course, it's braver and better to apologize.
Goldberg's analogy about the cop could justify a pre-emptive attack on America. America is an inveterate bomber. Consider where we dispatched our bombers after WWII to 2001 (From the Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower, by William Blum):
China 1945-46 Korea and China 1950-53 (Korean War) Guatemala 1954 Indonesia 1958 Cuba 1959-1961 Guatemala 1960 Congo 1964 Peru 1965 Laos 1964-73 Vietnam 1961-73 (Vietnam War) Cambodia 1969-70 Guatemala 1967-69 Grenada 1983 Lebanon 1983, 1984 (both Lebanese and Syrian targets) Libya 1986 El Salvador 1980s Nicaragua 1980s Iran 1987 Panama 1989 Kuwait 1991 (Iraqi Targets) Iraq 1991- Somalia 1993 Bosnia 1994, 1995 (Bosnian Serb Targets) Sudan 1998 Yugoslavia 1999 Afghanistan 1998, 2001-
If only we'd elected Tex instead of that faux Texan.
Hey Holly;
Don't forget the "Battle to Save Face of George H.W. Bush." That would be the invasion, and arrest of his old buddy Manuel Noriega. When Daddy was a CIA director he tried to make himself the big man in the War on Drugs with his prize informant Manny, all the while Manny was playing him the fool. That meant that nearly a decade later he trumped up a case to arrest a sovereign leader, of a sovereign nation and ally by invasion.
"The number of Panamanians killed in the operation was estimated at 200-300 combatants (soldiers and paramilitaries) and some 300 civilians; 23 U.S. soldiers also were killed. Hundreds from both nations were wounded."
That's the numbers they tell us, but if you're ever in Panama City before, and after the invasion, you know that many more of the residents of barrios burned on the southern hills of the city. Innocents, whom didn’t know from The Bush Family's need for saving face.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
That was a brilliant bit about using the force to cloud the minds of the weak. Unfortunately, we already know it is true, in this country, from the last few years concerning all the Iraq lies.
The weak minded swallowed it hook, line and sinker.
Scaring the you know what out of people works on the weak minded.
Who this guy's mother is. He's an unapologetic Republican hack. Republicans in general have very bad memories. I have a friend who drank the koolaid, and he vehemently denies that WMD were emphasized by Bush prior to the invasion. He likes to point out that Bush mentioned liberating the Iraqi people in his State of the Union address that year. Of course, if you look at the speech, it is dominated by the "threat" posed by Saddam and his WMD.
Add to that the fear-mongering by Rice, Cheney, Powell and Rummy, and only a brainwashed fanatic can deny that they based their propaganda campaign on WMD.
I noticed that he's a kid, but I guess I missed the tidbit as to who the kid's mommy is (and I'm not that interested to spend much time trying to find out)...
But a name posted here would be appreciated.
Thanks.
Lucianne Goldberg
"Just remember...
Who this guy's mother is. He's an unapologetic Republican hack. "
I have to laugh every time I think back to the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal and seeing Lucianne (sp?), Jonah's mother, on all the talking head shows. I was just waiting for her to look up in terror as a house from Kansas fell on her from the sky.
I fail to see how the scenario of the criminal pulling a gun on you explains his argument any better. As I remember it, Hussein was cooperating when we invaded Iraq. They were even destroying short range missiles because they could possibly travel farther than the range of the United Nations guidelines for them.
One ridiculous argument that I have also heard used is that they gassed their own people. That was about 15 yeqars before we invaded them so that argument is lame. Also, on the argument of gassing the Kurds, if you believe the columnist Charley Reese, we blamed Iran for that incident at the time.
Wneh Sadaam "gassed his own people," the US was so upset about it that they sent Donald Rumsfeld to Baghdad to sell him more helicopters and gas of the same type he used to "gas his own people." He had bought the original materials from the US, now that he had used them, business dictated that he was out of stock and had to be sold some more.
The main reason Dick Cheney was convinced that Hussein had WMD was because Cheney sold them to him and still held the receipt. The fact that they were destroyed in 1991 made no difference to him.
The GOP has a strangle-hold on rational thought and discourse. If you point out the lies...then you're a whiner and concentrating too much on the past... if you DON'T point out the lies, they continue to perpetuate and expand.
I've come to realize that anyone who allows themselves to be snowed by this administration is just too damned lazy to seek answers or participate in their own (our) future as a nation. But, these folks will continue to rationalize their own disinterest by supporting dastardly deeds -- as long as the end result is 'security'.
This is the figurative 'soma' that Aldous Huxley wrote about in Brave New World... in fact, a better metaphor ,I believe, than Kool-Aid.
[link to www.huxley.net]
Again, we have someone smearing Helen Thomas. Seconldy, I have other problems with his column:
"This might explain why the administration has been so blasé about declassifying about 50,000 boxes of captured Iraqi documents. We don't know what's in many of these boxes. But what has been released so far has been, at minimum, tantalizing, pointing to and illuminating ties between Hussein's regime and al-Qaida as well as other terrorist organizations, including Abu Sayyaf in the Philippines."
"In the 1990s, Hussein tried to kill a former U.S. president and tried to shoot down British and American planes enforcing the "no-fly" zone. The Clinton administration - not the George W. Bush administration - established "regime change" as our policy toward Iraq. In the years that followed, the Iraqi regime openly celebrated the 9/11 attack. And when we tried to get Hussein to come clean about a weapons program that we (and his own generals!) had every reason to believe existed, he played games. After 9/11, calling that bluff wasn't a "choice," it was an obligation. One reason Bush is down in the polls is that he's giving the impression that he's trying to change the subject from "our mistaken invasion" to "building democracy in Iraq." Building democracy in Iraq is vital - and entirely consistent with the highest aspirations of liberal foreign policy. But he would serve himself and the county better if he simply explained that he's been right all along. Swatting Helen Thomas is a start, but it will take a lot more."
To give you a feeling who Goldberg is:
From [link to en.wikipedia.org]
Goldberg is a noted supporter of the War in Iraq and has advocated for American military intervention elsewhere in the world. (He once called for a full-scale US invasion of Africa).
He and his mother were closely involved in the Tripp affair (
"My mother was the one who advised Linda Tripp to record her conversations with Monica Lewinsky and to save the dress. I was privy to some of that stuff, and when the administration set about to destroy Lewinsky, Tripp, and my mom, I defended my mom and by extension Tripp...I have zero desire to have those arguments again. I did my bit in the trenches of Clinton's trousers."
see also: [link to www.rightwingnews.com]
So, Goldberg's been in the TRENCHES of Clinton's trousers? I thought he looked like a battle-hardened vet, the sort of man's man that we would need to invade all of Africa, the sort of soldier never too weary for war.
Remember when soft lads like Goldberg once beat the drums of war? They'd be the first to die, because they lead the lines of troops, circa the 18th century, across the field of glory and gore. Now, those that beat the drums of war do so from behind their mama's skirts.
Does anyone know why Bush included Zimbabwe or Cuba and Belarus for that matter on his peculiar eclectic list of nations that might be targeted during his speech reaffirming the wonders of the neoconservative preemptive war policy? He made this bizarre assertion and the media didn’t follow up with this. I am so curious, why these countries? BTW I had to look up Belarus because I'd never even heard of the country.
Is Goldberg suggesting that the sperm in the dress was his??
I missed this: "After 9/11, that kind of foreign policy by lawyers looked ridiculous, and rightly so."
So, we suffered, therefore we're entitled to do whatever we desire?
Geez, this is the very kind of reasoning that powers terrorism.
For example, consider a seminal terrorist sifting through the rubble of his house for his daughter's hand and applying Goldberg's reasoning: "The United State's bombers dropped a bomb on my home. Therefore, I'm entitled to exact my revenge in whatever way I wish. I can blow up the Brooklyn Bridge in rush hour. I can poison the water supply in L.A. Prudence and reason and international law don't matter. I suffered. I'm due my revenge."
Goldberg thinks like a terrorist, which to be frank, is easy to do. We must manage our righteous rage or be managed by it.
holly / Friday March 24, 2006 10:17:06 AM EST
This is the writer they would prefer these days to the likes of a real intelligence, and foreign affairs expert, formally educated by government, and academia, Robert Scheer. L.A.Times has had an Republican slant for years, just they relished in the liberal tug-n-pull, the ying and yang on thier own editorial page. Now, that Republicans are in power, they seem to have lost thier objectivity.
This guy has so little insight beyond his ideological agenda to perpetuate his miserable column and carrier. The latter is a man whom would not wilt under the heat of Republican screams for his head while he was one of the few holding the WMD argument under the fire before the war.
American Free Press is now an antique from the Clinton years; subvert, perverted, and discarded for a straw man in an expensive suit.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
I'm glad MMFA put a picture of this kid with the item.
As far as trying to retroactively convince the American People today, that it was not the 'WMD threat' as they think, that impelled the invasion of Iraq; that they're remembering it wrong, the American People are, remembering wrong what was the reason the President gave them for his wanting to invade Iraq...
Who is this kid kidding? This sounds like just more of that "perception" crap the VP was slinging on Sunday: "Your impressions of Iraq aren't really what they seem to be... You're laboring under some sort of false "perception"... You neither know nor can even remember your own thoughts... You're getting sleepy... sleeeepy"
Who was the VP kidding with that "perception" crap, as though the American People don't know their own minds with regard to Iraq.
And who is this kid kidding, that the American People can't remember (or are remembering wrong) what it was the President used to sell them a $226 billion dollar (so far) invasion of Iraq: a WMD threat...
...based upon falsified 'pre-war intelligence' provided by the President's own Administration.
Goldberg is not only a child, but a smirking child. A privileged child, a smirking child that's been kept far from war, is a dangerous thing.
My proof?
Bush.
"as if foreign policy has rules of evidence and procedural due process."
YOU'RE GOD D*** RIGHT, GOLDBERG! I expect nothing less when my president decides to bomb the hell out of a country, send our soldiers into harm's way, and commit hundreds of billions of future generations' tax dollars.
Goldberg's Republican friends who got all over Clinton about his decision to get involved in Kosovo and who demanded that very same kind of evidence and due process before that decision was made.
is common among at least some conservatives. I've actually debated people online who said "SOMEBODY has to pay for 9-11; that's why we're in Iraq." In other words, it doesn't matter if we punish the guilty party, as long as we kill some A-rabs.
If it turns out afterward that the gun wasn't loaded, that's not the cop's fault.
However, if the guy has laid down the weapon and another "cop" is frisking the suspect to check for other weapons you then can't shoot the person.
A crock of an analogy and I am sure Goldberg is a crock of a person.
His analogy is nonsense. I've noticed that Conservatives have trouble with analogies. As you've pointed out, a more accurate analogy would be that the suspect says he has no weapon, and you're holding a gun on him while your partner frisks him. Then, you tell your partner to step away so you can shoot the guy, because you suspect he's got a weapon hidden. That's what Bush did. He called off the frisk and shot the suspect.
What do people like Goldberg benefit by defending lies? Is he being paid? Is he guaranteed a life long high-ranking position? What is baffling is why “journalists” would spew propaganda that reaps no personal or social benefits; ---at least not any benefits consistent with their obvious values (money and the repression of sex). How can these journalists reconcile the fact that they are nothing but whores (giving it away free) which is the direct opposite of a prostitute (who makes money)? In Bush’s SOTU speech he never mentions anything about us becoming a great society of thinkers, socially conscious, and generous people, instead he harps on being competitive, able to compete with the world, blah blah blah. All goals that are directly related with making money. Yet the Republican journalists give themselves away to the first dumb pimp with a twisted coat hanger that comes along.
And what is up with Goldberg wanting to spread the word that he was involved in the whole Clinton soiled dress incident? It seems to me that someone with such upstanding moral values would not try to promote their resume by bragging how they were part of a clean up crew at a sex party (where they did not get invited, because they were too much of a nerd).
Clinton was seduced. He was seduced by a thong and the flesh beneath it and that was wrong. Clinton made a vow. He broke it. He swore an oath. He broke it.
But the far more dangerous seduction is that of money and influence: being willing to say anything not to protect one's failings, as Clinton did, but to acquire evermore power, while people die.
Goldberg is seduced. He gets to construct clever, albeit non-analogus analogies, to provoke and smirk and deprive himself of nothing. He doesn't sally forth and soldier. Gawd, if I were God, every man and woman that calls for war would be automatically inducted. How dare cowards put brave soldiers in harms way, a way that they won't go?
Why else would they do it, unless it's just their unbridled contempt for liberalism? I think most of these budding pundits see themselves as the next Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly. These guys have become filthy rich by telling regressive, reactionary, closed-minded troglodytes what they want to hear. There's plenty of money to be made in the right wing propaganda business.
Unfortunately, this tack WILL work. Who does he think he's kidding? He KNOWS that he's kidding a lot of people, who will now seek to make him a FNC senior correspondent, so he can do his "Obi-wan" according to Tex, on middle America. He's kidding a LOT of people. Bill Maher made an interesting point last week and I agree with him, that even with Bush's poll numbers dropping into the mid-30's, why do I get the feeling that if there was an election tomorrow...he'd still win? People buy this crap, wholesale, hook, line, and sinker. Last night Newt was on Hannity and colmes, and when colmes brought up this intelligence blunder, Newt went right to: "So are you saying, Allan, that Iraq was better off with Saddam in power?" Now we're back to the human rights argument as if we ever really cared what happened to Iraqi people. But the deflection worked, and this new little PR spin will work as well. Wait until they use it in the Mid-term elections come November.
That "better off without Saddam" argument may eventually be too obviously false even for these liars. Yeah, Saddam was a bad guy, and he oppressed his people, but the world is full of bad guys and brutal dictators. Is the average Iraqi better off now? If you get killed, does it really matter to you if you were killed by Saddam or insurgents or Americans? You're still dead. If the country erupts into civil war, is the region better off? I know, it sounds all nice and noble to say that Iraq is "free" now, but could the reality be just a little bit uglier and more complex than that? Isn't that just "symbolism over substance" as Rush Limbaugh always used to say when making fun of Bill Clinton's policies?
Besides, I don't buy all this "liberating Iraq" crap. I don't believe for a minute that Bush's primary concern was freedom for Iraq. Helen Thomas asked the right question. Why the hell are we there?
"After all, this is the guy who tried to kill my dad"- George W. Bush 9/26/2002.
We seemed to have had the same idea
People in his government wanted to dispose him from 1998 on (see my earlier post), whereas Bush wanted to atack him because Saddam wanted to kill his father.
I think thats it.
GW said, ""After all, this is the guy who tried to kill my dad"- George W. Bush 9/26/2002."
How many people, Americans and otherwise, can now say the same about GW?
that goldberg is baffled. where was he in all those months leading up to the war.
"...[M]ake no mistake -- as I said earlier -- we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about..." -- Whitehouse Press Secretary, Ari Fleischer -- April 10, 2003
he didn't have a gun. so said the un inspectors.
pussy.