Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld appeared on CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday. Rumsfeld covered a fairly wide range of topics, from current levels of spending by the government to President Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize.
The real take-home from Rumsfeld’s appearance on CNN was in what he said about the lead up to the war in Iraq. Rumsfeld said the supposed presence of weapons of mass destruction was the largest issue.
“No question it was the big one,” he said.
No shock there. The justification for the war was and continues to be that U.S. intelligence and the Bush administration believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. It was what the American people were told, what the world was told. It was what the Western media ate up and spit back out on television and computer screens without so much as a second thought.
When asked if he thought the United States would not have invaded Iraq if the administration didn’t believe weapons of mass destruction were present, Rumsfeld replied, “I think that’s probably right.”
I think that’s probably wrong.
The Bush administration never had any hard evidence that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. The intelligence they gathered was almost exclusively from human sources. There was never any concrete proof. One source in particular, known ironically as “Curve Ball,” admitted he lied.
On the program, Rumsfeld had a momentary glimpse of enlightenment. People can lie. In regard to sources, Rumsfeld said, “Some are honest, some are dishonest. Some do it for money, some do it for self-aggrandizement. Some do it, apparently, to lie.”
Yes, people can and do lie. Especially people who have been living under a brutal dictator for years and want nothing more than to see him deposed. Or, for those who have lived in exile and want nothing more than to return home. If only there was some way to get the most powerful nation in the world to perceive a threat so that they would intervene.
I’m aware hindsight is 20/20. I’m aware people make mistakes. But when the people we elect to make decisions go off of information gathered from people whose motives are clearly biased, we have fundamental issues.
“Curve Ball” was an Iraqi defector who later admitted his claims that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction were false. The Bush administration, Rumsfeld included, bought this story hook, line and sinker. They then fed it to the American people as the justification for going to war in the first place. They still are.
The next question is why the Bush administration took these claims so easily. U.N. weapons inspectors in 2003, mere months before the U.S.-led invasion, found no evidence that Iraq had nuclear weapons. Physical evidence was utterly lacking. But a reason for going to war, something to get the American people behind the invasion, was needed. At best, the Bush administration chose to listen to sources who were saying what they wanted to hear without contemplating ulterior motives. At worst, the Bush administration knew these sources were lying and chose to proceed anyway.
There are numerous theories and proposed reasons, outside of WMDs, for why the United States invaded Iraq: To rid the world of a dictator, to spread democracy. This was the stance the White House took when it became evident that the WMDs did not exist. But other rumors began to circulate: oil, finishing the job started a decade earlier, trying to find ties between terrorism and Saddam Hussein.
The truth is always much more convoluted than what we are actually told. What seems clear about the lead up to the war is the Bush administration was searching for a reason to invade Iraq. Immediately following the attacks on Sept. 11, notes taken by a senior policy official quoted Rumsfeld as saying “Need to move swiftly — Near term targets needs — go massive — sweep it all up. Things related and not,” in reference to Saddam Hussein. The reason for this desire is relatively unclear. What is known is that a handful of sources told the Bush administration exactly what they wanted to hear, gave them a justification for invasion, something the American public would buy, and they seized upon that opportunity.
We were misled.
It is this notion, the dissolving of trust between the people and the government, that arouses such anger and bitterness. So when Donald Rumsfeld goes on national television and criticizes the notion that America is viewed more favorably under President Obama, when he says “I think he (Obama) had made a practice of trying to apologize for America,” one has to wonder if it was a necessary step made by President Obama to repair America’s tattered image, not just abroad, but also at home.
One might wonder where Rumsfeld himself falls on his own enlightened views of sources. As a source to the American public, he was dishonest. He’s also the author of a new book, “Known and Unknown.” So, perhaps it is a combination of money and self-aggrandizement.
Or maybe he just lied.
[email protected]
Tellam: Bush administration had zero concrete proof for war with Iraq
Daily Emerald
February 21, 2011
0
More to Discover