McCain Adviser Dismisses Evidence Of Bush’s Iraq Dishonesty As ‘Conspiracy Theories’
McCain Adviser Dismisses Evidence Of Bush’s Iraq Dishonesty As ‘Conspiracy Theories’
Robert Kagan, a leading member of John McCain’s war cabinet, recently gave an interview to Der Spiegel in which he was asked about the Bush administration’s decision to invade Iraq:
SPIEGEL: Isn’t it true that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld took advantage of the outrage over the 9/11 terrorist attacks to strike Iraq? Is it even possible anymore to deny that the war was based on manipulation, exaggeration and flat-out lies?
Kagan: That’s absurd.
SPIEGEL: It’s a commonly held view…
Kagan: The Bush administration’s intelligence on Iraq was the same as the Clinton administration’s, the German government’s and the French government’s before the war. We now know that Saddam wanted the world to believe he had weapons of mass destruction — and the world did. [...]
In retrospect, we have to admit that Washington could have waited a while longer. That’s a different question. But I think it’s about time we moved beyond this silly conversation and these absurd conspiracy theories.
This is ridiculous. It is now simply no longer a matter of serious dispute that the Bush administration manipulated, exaggerated and lied about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s regime in order to build public support for an invasion. It’s fine to argue that the Bush administration’s intelligence on Iraq was the same as the Clinton administration’s, the German government’s and the French government’s, but the much more relevant point is that the Clinton administration, the German government and the French government didn’t spin that intelligence into a justification to attempt to reorder the Middle East.
As the decision to invade Iraq will continue to produce numerous unintended consequences that future American leaders will have to face, the manner in which that decision was taken and sold to the American people will continue to be relevant. We can “move beyond this silly conversation” when people like Robert Kagan cease pretending that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Feith, et al were arguing in good faith about the need to invade Iraq, and stop dismissing the overwhelming evidence of their dishonesty as “conspiracy theories.”
3 Responses to “McCain Adviser Dismisses Evidence Of Bush’s Iraq Dishonesty As ‘Conspiracy Theories’”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Wonk RoomContact Us
Donate
The problem with the assertion that the Bush administration had the same information as previous administrations is that in the year leading up to the Iraq war the intensity of investigations by the United Nations increased significantly. In particular, Hans Blix secured the Hussein administrations cooperation in a much more complete investigation of potential WMD sites that had ever been conducted previously. When other nations saw the results of the United Nation’s investigations they changed their opinion. This is a large factor in why France and other nations did not endorse the Iraq war.
October 28th, 2008 at 1:47 pmHow about investigating 911 already. Too many unanswered questions.
The 911 Comission was not tasked to find out who did 911, they presumed 19 arabs with boxcutters defeated the FBI, CIA, NSA, US Air Force and the state and local police departments.
911=Inside job
October 28th, 2008 at 3:44 pmAnthrax Attacks=Inside job
Robert Kagan wants to “move beyond this silly conversation” about the decision to go to war, but it’s a supremely important conversation that asks, “What was the true reason we went to war?” Not only does the answer expose the veracity (or lack thereof) in Bush’s public arguments, but it’s essential to know that real reason in order to gauge the “success” or “failure” (”victory” or “defeat,” if you will) of the enterprise.
Did Bush, as Kagan implies, really believe the hype about WMD? Did he think Hussein was stupid enough to turn such weapons over to an Islamist terror group that might turn around and use it in Iraq? Did Bush want to rescue his father’s tarnished legacy over an unfinished war or avenge Hussein’s call for Daddy Bush’s assassination? Was control of oil the subtext for the war? Was he pursuing the Wolfowitz thesis of trying to establish a model democracy in the Middle East? That is, to empower the Arab man in the street by showing him “a better way” than terrorism?
I’ve always believed it was the “model democracy” argument and that the Bush administration never had that much faith in the WMD story. He’d have never gotten his war if he had told the American people he wanted to invade Iraq and start a “laboratory for democracy and peace.” Propagandizing the WMD and conflating Iraq with 9/11 was more effective with the public.
October 28th, 2008 at 11:14 pm