Opinion: Five years of not-so-straight talk
This article was originally on a blog post platform and may be missing photos, graphics or links. See About archive blog posts.
It’s not just the fifth anniversary of the start of the Iraq war. It’s also the fifth anniversary of misleading or plain wrong statements about it and the war on terror. Here’s a few.
‘This long-term struggle [against terror] became urgent on the morning of September 11th, 2001. That day we saw clearly that dangers can gather far from our own shores and find us right there at home.... Understanding all the dangers of this new era, we have no intention of abandoning our friends, or allowing this country of 170,000 square miles to become a staging area for further attacks against Americans.’
--Vice President Dick Cheney
(Making the 9/11 connection is a more delicate dance than it was five years ago, but Cheney keeps finding ways to make the leap.)
‘I must say, I’m a little envious. If I were slightly younger and not employed here, I think it would be a fantastic experience to be on the front lines of helping this young democracy succeed. It must be exciting for you...in some ways romantic, in some ways, you know, confronting danger. You’re really making history, and thanks.’
--President George Bush
(Warfare as romantic? No one’s bought this line in five years, or for that matter, five decades.)
‘Well, it’s common knowledge and has been reported in the media that Al Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran. That’s well known. And it’s unfortunate.’
--John McCain
(Iran certainly trains extremists and ships ‘em to Iraq, but they’re not affiliated with Al Qaeda.)
‘The surge is working. And as a return on our success in Iraq, we’ve begun bringing some of our troops home. The surge has done more than turn the situation in Iraq around -- it has opened the door to a major strategic victory in the broader war on terror.’
--George Bush
(Salon does it better than I could.)
For a few bloviator blasts from the past, see Christopher Cerf and Victor S. Navasky’s Op-Ed.
And of course, not everyone was off....
The Times editorial board wrote on March 14, 2003:
In a post-9/11 world, the president argues, things are different. The nation must protect itself. Yes. So the question becomes, would an invasion of Iraq make the United States and the world safer? If the world community unites to do it, yes. But a U.S.-led invasion, without sanction from the United Nations, would make this nation and the world at large more dangerous.... The Bush administration’s months of attempts to justify quick military action against Iraq have been confusing and unfocused. It kept giving different reasons for invasion.... The administration tried mightily, and failed, to show a connection between Hussein and the 9/11 perpetrators, Al Qaeda. Had there been real evidence that Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks, Americans would have lined up in support of retaliation.... Throughout the Middle East, a postwar occupation of Iraq would become part of the myth of an American empire come to wreak havoc on the Muslims. This refueled resentment would not make the world safer. It would not make the streets at home safer. The cost of war would be high, perhaps hundreds of billions of dollars. Add on costs to occupy Iraq while rebuilding it and the price tag would be higher still. Without U.N. support, these tremendous expenses would be borne largely by American taxpayers.