|
In the days preceding the congressional “war
vote”, the most overlooked public report from the CIA in history was
released. For the single
day on which the report dominated the headlines, analysts nearly
universally agreed that the report had been withheld until that time at
the urging of President Bush (as had information about North Korea’s
nuclear program), so as not to break the momentum of the resolution
before Congress. The report
stated that 1) Saddam Hussein was deterrable, and would not attack the
US directly or through terrorism as things stood, and 2) that if he were
backed into a corner and faced with the demise of his regime, he would
very likely attack. To my
mind, this report should have halted the war campaign in its tracks.
It clearly confirmed the common sense argument that far from
eliminating any threats, the war was going to take a one-in-a-million
threat and make it a virtual certainty.
But on the cable news channels, the congressional resolution was
all the buzz, and in the popular debate the rabble about “evidence”
continued. I never again saw a single mention of the CIA report in the
media, from the government, or from the anti-war movement until a
piercing article appeared buried in The
Washington Post the day after the war began, entitled “Bush Clings
to Dubious Allegations About Iraq”.
I recall this already lost piece of history as a reminder about
the administration’s ability to control the popular discourse, and a
warning to be more on guard about it now.
For as the “world-wide cacophony” about WMD’s continues to
grow, I am worried that those shouting loudest are in danger of letting
Bush slip though their fingers once again.
For most of us who were indignant at the propaganda campaign
waged by Bush and Co., the recent uproar has been satisfying if only
because it has revealed that democracy is not quite cold and dead yet.
It turns out that the media, the populous, and the Congress
(including some Republicans if you can believe it) actually still care
whether their president is completely devoid of integrity.
Thank God.
My grave concern, however, is that the cacophony is playing into
the administration’s hands as usual.
The reason being that of all of the monstrous questions and
problems that the administration should be forced to answer to, the
absence of chemical and biological weapons is their best bet.
And it is these weapons that most of the dissenting voices have
been focusing on. Once again, all of Bush’s opposition has turned to a
question of very specific “evidence”, and all other questions have
been forgotten.
Don’t get me wrong, if I were offered an even bet whether any
serious stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons will turn up, I
would say no. Not because
they should have combed every inch of “a country the size California,
blah, blah” by now, but because they have captured an enormous segment
of Saddam’s regime, including his top weapons experts.
Each of these captured figures have a choice to make: either they
can tell America where the weapons are, and in return receive $200,000
(according to the Washington Post)
and complete immunity, or they can keep quiet and spend the rest of
their lives in jail. And
yet not a one has chosen the first option, or has even been willing to
confirm that they had a program? Hard
to believe, I must say.
But there is still a chance that these weapons will turn up, and
my concern is that in the current atmosphere, the discovery of one
barrel of chemicals will be enough for Bush to declare himself an honest
man, and for the public to accept it.
All other questions will once again fade away into obscurity.
And while I never believed that the administration intended to
plant weapons, it concerns me that under such enormous pressure such an
easy way out would be at hand. If
they were to do so, things would probably unfold something like this: 1)
They would declare their “find” and much of America would
believe it up front. 2) The UN would state that they would have to
inspect the weapons for themselves. 3) The administration would have to
succumb, and having taken all imaginable precautions to ensure that the
exact type of Anthrax or VX was replicated, would pray that the
fraudulence would not be detected.
4) The UN would state that they could not find any discrepancies,
and although they would be sure to note that the integrity of the
process had been breeched, that would be enough for most Americans.
In either case, whether the find were legitimate or fraudulent,
Bush would be cleared with a clean bill of truth by most Americans in
the current atmosphere. If
this happened it would be another colossal missed opportunity to return
America to a state of true democracy in which politicians are held to
account as servants of the populous.
The way to avoid this scenario is to at least slightly redirect
the public focus. The
primary focus needs to be on the nuclear program and links to Al Qaeda,
which are currently side issues at best.
The position needs to be that we as citizens demand to know about
those two claims, which were absolutely pivotal for selling the public
on this war, and that if beyond that, no chemical or biological weapons
even turn up, then, as Krugman says, that is worse than Watergate.
The current reaction from the media and congress seems to be
“Could it be? Is it possible he really
exaggerated?” Exaggeration
my arse. Cheney said on
national television that “Iraq has reconstituted nuclear weapons”,
Bush said on national television that “Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda
have a close relationship going back nearly a decade”.
These were blatant and complete lies, and we must make that
assertion before the opportunity falls through the cracks of America’s
short attention span.
But the dissenting position must also be buttressed with this:
What if there are weapons? That
would mean that they have either already been given to terrorists, as
the CIA warned, or they are sitting out in the desert waiting for
whomever happens to know where they are to come find them and do as they
please- say Saddam Hussein or his sons for example!
For the administration and all of their cable news regurgitators
who spoke so passionately about the “day darker than any America has
so far imagined” (Ari Fleischer), why can’t you bring yourself to
care now that those weapons are supposedly just floating around up for
grabs?
Finally, it might be worth noting once in a while that Iraq
is not liberated.
In fact, that’s about the most preposterous notion I’ve ever
heard. Iraq will be
liberated when we are gone, when there is a stable state, when we are
not imposing military bases on them, and when we are not exerting
influence over their oil and economy.
And guess what? That
will never happen under this administration. The administration has argued that America, having
fought the war, deserves control, and the UN does not.
But nobody has bothered to as k why in the world we want control; who cares whether we “deserve” it.
We are losing more American lives and feeding into the perception
that we our occupiers every day, and for
what?
…Oil?
The questions of empire cannot be forgotten, and
they will be if all of our eggs are put in the anthrax basket. For once the administration is on the defensive, we may not
have this opportunity again; let us be careful now.
Jesse Lee is a recent graduate of Trinity College
in Hartford with a degree in Political Science and Philosophy. He works
as a paralegal in Washington, D.C. where he was born and raised. He also
volunteers with MoveOn and The Education for Peace in Iraq Center
(EPIC). He encourages your comments at kirkout79@hotmail.com.
This article is copyright by JEsse Lee, but
permission is granted for reprint in print, email, blog, or web media so
long as this credit is attached. |
