A Casus Belli Revisited
Over at The National Review, eminent historian and guy-who-is-always wrong-about-everything Victor Davis Hanson is still trying to justify our invasion of Iraq by pointing to the supposed links between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. Referring to testimony by George Tenet in 2003, he writes:
Second, and more importantly, while Zarqawi was clearly in Iraq prior to our invasion, he was operating in the Northern Kurdish regions well-outside of Saddam's sphere of influence. Indeed, the Senate Intelligence Committee Report concluded that "Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi."
Finally, as NBC reported all the way back in early 2004, the U.S. had numerous opportunities to take out Zarqawi prior to our invasion of Iraq but deliberately chose not to do so because it was thought that his presence in Iraq was useful in making the public case for invasion.
So to claim that this casus belli has somehow survived the test of time is ridiculous. It didn't even make sense at the time. Saddam Hussein was in no way associated with Zarqawi. They were enemies. And it looks increasingly like Osama bin Laden and Zarqawi had a similarly antagonistic relationship. At any rate, you don't invade a country to take out a guy who you can easily take out through other means.
Hanson knows all this, of course, but he continues to recycle these tired, discredited lies. It's pathetic.
Both the description of Zarqawi as a threat with al Qaeda links and enjoying sanctuary in Iraq without being under the control of Saddam Hussein seems born out by his later deadly career and blustering letters to al Qaeda heads. So why the contrition now on that casus belli? Al Qaeda was responsible for killing 3,000 Americans; one of its worst terrorists was freely enjoying sanctuary in Iraq; what has changed about that fact?Let's count the ways in which this is wrong. First, while there's no question that Zarqawi was a terrorist even before our invasion of Iraq, it is not at all clear that he was a card-carrying al Qaeda member or that he shared bin Laden's agenda. It appears that he refused many requests by bin Laden to swear allegiance to his movement, and was primarily concerned with overthrowing the Jordanian monarchy.
Second, and more importantly, while Zarqawi was clearly in Iraq prior to our invasion, he was operating in the Northern Kurdish regions well-outside of Saddam's sphere of influence. Indeed, the Senate Intelligence Committee Report concluded that "Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi."
Finally, as NBC reported all the way back in early 2004, the U.S. had numerous opportunities to take out Zarqawi prior to our invasion of Iraq but deliberately chose not to do so because it was thought that his presence in Iraq was useful in making the public case for invasion.
So to claim that this casus belli has somehow survived the test of time is ridiculous. It didn't even make sense at the time. Saddam Hussein was in no way associated with Zarqawi. They were enemies. And it looks increasingly like Osama bin Laden and Zarqawi had a similarly antagonistic relationship. At any rate, you don't invade a country to take out a guy who you can easily take out through other means.
Hanson knows all this, of course, but he continues to recycle these tired, discredited lies. It's pathetic.
6 Comments:
"Victor Davis Hanson is still trying to justify our invasion of Iraq by pointing to the supposed links between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein."
Again, this is another historican who is still dragging the al Qaeda/Hussein connection. There were no WMD in Iraq. And there was no connection of Saddam and Iraq according to Richard Clarke. Again, this is simply propaganda to continue this soap opera of the al Queda/Hussein connection. It was all about the oil and profits for the Bush Administration. That historian should be checking Dick Cheney's portfolio of profits that he has made in money and shares with Halliburton and KBR since the invasions in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Really - A.L., this is getting tiring - lying liars lie. Is this really new.
Yes, pointing out the lies has served a useful purpose, but those that read blogs like this (an not just troll) already know who the lying liars are.
The MSM lies, it is the foundation that this criminal administration was built on.
SP Biloxi is right - someone should be "checking Dick Cheney's portfolio of profits that he has made in money and shares with Halliburton and KBR since the invasions in Iraq and Afghanistan."
We know that the lying liars aren't going to do it. And for some reason, even self-proclaimed "liberal" bloggers won't talk about those issues either.
Almost every blog entry here, lately, seems to draw an anonymous comment to "follow the money." Let's think about that a moment.
With the full power of the Federal government it may be possible to locate where a person has stashed their ill-gotten gains -- but even that is no sure thing, as generations of mobsters, corporate execs, and corrupt politicians have demonstrated.
Without the power of the federal government it is virtually impossible. If you doubt this, just see if you can figure out all the holdings of your closest relatives. Unless you ask them directly -- and they tell you -- you aren't going to get very far.
People with a lot of money didn't get that way by being careless about money. And I'm absolutely certain that Cheney has complied with the letter of every law governing office-holders.
Suppose, in the face of these facts, you decide you are going to pursue such an effort. Don't forget that you have to investigate payments to children, relatives, perhaps close friends (not that Cheney has a lot of those, apparently.) Also, don't forget to follow payments to foundations which employ any of those people.
For hints on how this operates, take a look at how Congress has operated for the last 20 years or so. A case in point is the recent story about how about 120K of funds were disbursed to the same company that bribed Cunningham to the tune of about 120K.
How do you follow this money and prove that these payments were connected? In this age of electronic transfers and with modern accounting methods, you really can't.
Look, we know that Cheney is capable of profound dishonesty. We know that Cunningham was bribed, because he admitted it, and yet, even with all this, can a convincing case be made connecting these payements?
Good luck uncovering it. I rate your chances as slim to none. I doubt, if Cheney wanted to uncover all your finances, that he could, even with the power of the vice president's office.
So spare us, please, the exhortations to "follow the money".
Of course, if you wish to pursue this yourself, you have my full support -- as long as you comply fully with all the appropriate laws and regulations and comport yourself ethically.
Charles, you miss the point entirely - the money trail will only lead to "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" in some cases.
As in any crime - it would is possible to create alibis and cover your tracks to make conviction of criminal acts difficult.
BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE CANNOT HAVE AN INTELLEGENT DIALOG ABOUT WHO IS ACTUALLY CREATING THE LIES AND PROPAGANDA THAT PUNDITS AND THE MSM "CATAPULT!"
The larger point is that many of the self-proclaimed liberal blogs have beaten this dead horse to death - WE KNOW THE LYING LIARS IN THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA LIE!
Now lets talk about the folks behind the neocon agenda and the power-structure that enables the "mighty wurlitzer" to function in the first place.
That used to be the very essense of "liberal" politics - it is a shame that a one-proud heritage has been watered down to fairly meaningless ramblings about the latest lies from the lying liars - as if that is somehow "newsworthy" or going to change anything....
There's one other aspect to Zarqawi's presence in N. Iraq's Kurdish area prior to the invasion that never seems to get mentioned. He was safely ensconced in the terrorist camp in that area that was under the protection of the Northern no-fly zone. He basically had US air cover to protect him from Saddam. It made it that much more difficult for Saddam to get him and, conversely, would have made it that much easier for us to get him, had Bush been serious about stopping terror.
Anon Lib, I read this same account at the Corner and had the exact same thought. Either he's not very bright or he assumes the Corner's audience is not too bright.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home