Pat Buchanan On Iraq

Pat Buchanan was on Inus ( on MSNBC) this morning, and he spoke about how he and other conservative media members believe the war came about. I might disagree with minor points, but this is a version of events I could get behind, in terms of agreeing that it could very well have been what happened. I will try and be as faithfull as possible when recounting his words. I will include my own brief comments in italics.

This is how it happened, according to Buchanan;


1) He says that people who say that Bush himself was planning on going to war in Iraq before 9-11, and named Gore as an example, are wrong. ( Inus interjected that Gore should be in jail.)

Not sure, but it's possible. Problem being that this argument paits Bush as the idiot/puppet/oportunist that many have claimed.

2) He says that following 9-11, Bush did the right thing in going after Al Queda in Afghanistan.

Pretty much agreed.

3) After Afghanistan, Bush and his people were left with a great deal of political currency, and many felt that Bush Sr. had made the mistake of ending his war before his election, and didn't want to make the same mistake. At this point Bush began asking his people what to do next.

Can see this being true.

4) There were a great many people within the administration ( Buchanan named Perle, Wolfowitz, Cheney and several others) who everyone acknowledges were, in fact, pushing for an invasion of Iraq long before 9-11, and at this point Bush listened to their direction, parly as he was persuaded, partly for want of alternatives. These people had long envisioned putting US forces in between Iran and Syria, and to begin with getting Saddam out of power, and longer terms getting the current powers in Syria, Iran and other ME nations out and in their stead putting in US interests.

Am unsure how uninvolved Bush was in this part. Not saying I know he was, just seems like a lot of people he enpowered had a similar agenda for him not to have been at least sympathetic.

5) Buchanan then says that the administration began to prepare for the war, and the initial reaction from the American people was negative, as " Americans don't like to go to war unless they are threatened." As such, they eventually decided that WMDs would be the best sell. The patritiotism means agreement angle was also stressed.

This seems bang on. Amazes me that some people still deny this.

6) They began casting about for intel to support this argument, were unhappy with what the CIA was bringing them, and created their own intel department to find the 'reasons for the war that had already been decided.'

This is certain. That a hard line conservative/Republican commentator can acknowledge this makes it even more ridiculous that some Bush supporters still cling to denial on this issue.

7) The bulk of the information this department came up with originated with former Iraqis who were only to happy to tell the WH whatever they wnated to hear if it meant being part of the power structure of a new Iraq. ( He named Saddam's former weapons expert whose name escapes me who told them that Iraq had all kinds of weapns, hidden in schools, hospitals, etc. which PB sais were all bold faced lies.)


We knew this all along. SOme just didn't want to look at it. Acting like this is new information is, IMO, less than sincere. Sources with clear conflicts of interest being taken over legit intel sources which countered the administrations argument clearly shows the Mens Rea.


8) When normal intel sources confilcted with less credible but more supportive information, the administration when with the latter stright down the line. The intent was not to find the truth, but to persuade the public and other nations to support the predetermined war.

Above.

9) Buchanan says that in his opinion, Bush passes the lie detector test on whether he believed what he was being told, that he was persuaded that there were WMDs.

Again, you're left with the choice of idiot or liar or both. And even if you think he beleived what his guys were telling him, it still shows that he was party to the effort to mislead on what we KNEW to sell the war, and he is also responsible, in the end, for appointing these people and for backing their plan. They couldn't do this without him.

10) At this point, Buchanan says that the administrations arguments have all proven wrong, and that this will really hurt them. He says that there is little doubt, even in informed conservative circles, that there was pre-determination and manipulation involved in the argument for invasion of Iraq, and that 'it's silly to still try and deny this.'

I have been continuall amazed at the ability of Bush supporters to deny or ignore reality, so am unsure how much effect this will have on people whose minds were made up long before any facts contradicted them. Agree it's silly, but that's par for the course on this issue. Fully expect people to ask for the NIE report as if it were unheard of, etc.

11) In response to Imus's question, he agreed that the American people would probably be willing to overlook this rather than admit error if things were going well in Iraq. If we had been welcomed with open arms as Cheney had said we would, if Democracy had caught like a brush fire in the Middle East like Wolfowitz predicted, if the administration had had a better post war plan, than these people would have looked like prophets, and many Americans would overlook how they had gotten results. As is, he says, they are in deep trouble, and very vulnerable come next election.

Totally agree that many would overlook this is they could, rather than admit that A) America was wrong, everyone else was right when we told them we were better, knew more, and would do the right thing, or B) that a Republican really screwed up. Agree that, as we saw in Nam, the moral wrongs of a war don't begin to concern most until we appear to be losing. Am unsure about how much effect this will have, in the end.



I think that the fact that even hard line Republican/conservative commentators are admitting at least this much, and are even acknowledging that denaial of this much is silly speaks volumes about the objectivity/realism of those who continue to deny, or as I call them, the Ostrich Brigade. I agree that this has been a very volative argument, with a lot of emotion, and having gotten so hot and hard on this, it would be difficult to admit error, especially when you add the whole US vs. the world/political partisanship angles, that makes it much worse.

But, speaking as a human being, admitting you were wrong is much more worthy of respect than dissapearing from the argument or continuing to deny admitted facts. From the point of view of honor and courage, it's even more credible than having been right all along. I am hoping that the war/Bush supporters in here whom I respect can do at least as much rethinking as Pat freaking Buchanan.

 

Your response to this is to concentrate on a typo. Ok then.

 

Great to hear, MM. I agree that the confusion of jingoistic lock step and being a good Christian has been troubling, as has the fact that it's been effective.

The joke is cool.

But I respect the fact thay ou, who were among the more hard-line war supporters in here early on ( I only remember this when I peruse old threads) can admit this. Seriously, it's a source of hope. This entire experience, even more the refusal of many to admit fact if it means admitting error has really, really made me cynical about our future. Thanks, and good luck.

 

It was a typo, but even if it wasn't, the fact that that is the source of your focus sort of proves my point. I have a lot of common typos, such as 'donlt' instead of don't, etc. I am a terrible typist, which I have admitted.

Will you, then, admit error on Iraq?

 

A) Used to have them and still had them are two different things.

B) If you are using logic and the UN treaty as an argument, then you must concede:

The same treaty which detailed the conditions which you say Saddam did not meet also clearly stated that the UNSC was the determining body on what constituted a breach, the severity of the breach, and the response to the breach. We signed the same treaty. To break the terms of a treaty one way is no more logically supportable than another. To say that the law must be upheld unless we disagree with it, in which case it can be put aside it illogical. Many criminals feel that their actions are justifiable. Vigilante killings are still murder. There is a reason; logic. As such, your *logical* argument holds no water.

C) And you are missing the point. Buchanan wasn't addressing whether this war was justified or not, neither was this thread. Bith were addressing whether we were lied to, whether it was predetermined, and how this happened. The facts are out there. Repeating that you agree with yourself in principle isn't going to change those facts.

 

No. It was only about 10-15 minutes. But I never even took notes in undergrad lectures. Different people remember in different ways.

 

Interesting. I am much less optimistic. For one thing, I believe that, contrary to the lip service paid for so long to the moral errors involved in the war in Vietnam, the two key points about that war are:

1) That we didn't become disenchanted for maoral reasons, but because we were losing.

2) That, and this was incredibly evident just prior to and during this war, the lesson most Americans have taken from Vietnam is not that we should carefully examine our administrations arguments for waging war, and be sure it is necessary, but is in fact that we lost because we didn't support it, we don't want to lose again, so support it no matter what.

 

His theory is a way of exaplining the facts. I do not say you must support his contruction, but to deny the facts upon which it is founded is to play ostrich, IMO.

IF this is the way it came down, who do you hold responsible?

 

T_J:


A) He did, we saud we didn't believe him because it didn;t mesh with our intel. Oops.

B) Er...sorry to side stp your bandbox, but we signed a treaty. Just like Saddam. Either the treaty matters..as you originally claimed...or it doesn't. Can't have it both ways and be logical.