Former chief U.S. weapons inspector David Kay has convincingly made the case that pre-war intelligence on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was highly faulty. The Bush administration relied upon and accepted the validity of intelligence reports that posited Iraqi possession of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons materials. These reports have not been borne out by the evidence, as most libertarians expected might very well be the case. No weapons materials of the type alleged to exist have been found, nor is there any evidence that such materials were moved or destroyed prior to the US invasion.
The Bush administration played a dangerous gambit in emphasizing the rationale of stopping a dictator who possessed dangerous weapons or their precursors. The Bush administration lost this gambit. That is the way of dangerous gambits. Now the Bush administration must go.
The coalition governments involved in the invasion of Iraq offered many rationales for the invasion. Bush could have chosen to simply stick with those that would not very possibly be refuted once the war was over: for example, Bush might have claimed that Iraq had to be attacked because Iraq posed a future nuclear threat that was particularly pernicious because of the strong possibility of future co-operation between the Iraqis and Muslim terrorists planning to attack the West. Bush did say something like this, but it was never the emphasis. The emphasis was alleged weapons of mass destruction. these were not found, the central rationale offered for fighting a war that has cost countless lives, and billions of dollars, is shown to be almost totally without grounds.
If this is not reason to kick a politician out of office, what is? Maybe failing in this way, and also tacking on absurd plans for Mars missions, removing the United States' southern border, and generally spending Americans' money as if there is no tomorrow?
The current excuse being offered: the Commander in Chief is not to blame, it was the fault of his underlings. The President, poor innocent that he is, was led astray by intelligence personnel, themselves probably due to be claimed free of wrongdoing because of "the system"; or (inevitably) because of some misdeed that is decried as ultimately the fault of that philanderer, Bill Clinton.
I am sure Bill Clinton is to blame. But we can't do much to him at this point; more importantly, he is not alone in his guilt, nor even principally to blame. Because whatever Clinton's degree of guilt, the present Commander and Chief of the Armed Forces, who had much opportunity to develop a proper level of distrust for intelligence reports after the failures that led up to 9-11, and whom we have no reason to believe left the central intelligence decisions concerning Iraq to individuals he did not appoint – this man, George Bush, he is to blame. And greatly so.
To argue otherwise is to invent a vast new victimology that betokens the death of the concept of responsibility in America. "The President didn't mean to invade Iraq, his intelligent agents made him do it, please don't blame that wonderful Christian man who, after all, reads the Bible a good deal and has a very multicultural view of the future of this country! Presidents are hardly responsible for their decisions when they haven't personally appointed every single intelligence agent involved!" I suppose, why not. We have tried destroying the concept of responsibility relative to every poor or weak person in the world; we might as well now reverse things, starting at the top of the heap, and show that the rich and powerful are equally without blame.
February 2, 2004
