When this war began, or in the march leading up to it, the case for war was completely predicated on securing Saddam's WMDs. Everything else was just icing on the cake. This little gem, from the 2003 State of the
"Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. "
Now, depending where you lie on the political spectrum, this statement was either deceitful BS, or a well-intentioned if irresponsible overstatement. But regardless, the statement is indefensible. Report after report has shown no solid Al-Qaeda connection (just some vague and weak circumstantial evidence at best), and certainly no WMDs. The terrible dictator? Well, we’re all glad he's gone. But let’s be honest here, that was never the point of this war. In fact, our track record in
So they shifted gears. This became about spreading democracy and freedom, and liberation, a humanitarian campaign with greater ramifications for the entire
"We also hear doubts that democracy is a realistic goal for the greater
Well, that got kind of tough to back up too. Humanitarian conditions? The civilian casualties (obfuscating and micro-analyzing of the Lancet report aside) are astronomical, and the infrastructure is in complete shambles. In the Sunni triangle, things are hardly secure or safe. Democracy? Maybe. The government is just now cutting deals to include Sunni's in the government after their election boycott. We all know it won't happen any time soon, but hey, I've got hope for the future at least. What about the global war on terrorism? Reports that said the number of terrorist incidents around the world decreased turned out to be completely wrong. The insurgency is more violent than ever and more US (and Coalition) troops are dying than during the pre-Mission Accomplished era. So what became the new talking point?
We're fighting the terrorists over there so we don’t have to fight them over here.
(This comes paraphrased I guess, out of the June 28th
Maybe I'm making an obvious point here, but
"The war on terror goes on.... Their resolve is as strong as my resolve. And that is we will not yield to these people, will not yield to the terrorists."
The media can be blamed to some extent, but I'm really leery of any of this liberal/conservative bias stuff, frankly, I think its bullshit in most cases.
ReplyDeleteBeing in the White House means guaranteed news coverage - you have the podium for primetime when you're ready to make your case. Its the ethic of our media and our nation to assume that the White House is telling us the truth, until proven otherwise. Its understandable - would we rather have a culture doubting the people we elect? We'd like to be able to trust our leaders. The problem is, not all of them deserve out trust, and our burden of proof for losing trust in the President is absurdly high.
Beyond that, the media is really far more concerned with profit than anything else. So, the media follows the public rather than lead (which is good since it keeps them from misleading us with their own agenda, but its bad because they can mislead us with the prevailing agenda). And so until the media is convinced outright refutation of the president won't be controversial, they won't take a strong and coherent stand.