The Lies That Never Die

First

Richard Cohen of the Washington Post, a writer I once admired, had this to say in his most recent column, in which he equates Democrats who have finally found their voice on the Iraq debacle with the Repugs who authorized this tragedy (reprinted in today’s Bucks County Courier Times).

“I do not hold the new war critics to a higher standard than those who led us to war or who still think it was a dandy idea. But we will learn nothing from this debacle if the word 'mistake' can be used like a blackboard eraser just to wipe the slate clean. This is no different than what Bush was trying to do: The intelligence was bad, not his wretched judgment.”

Cohen also criticizes others who led us into this mess without a thorough examination of the issues and ramifications followed by an equally thorough discussion and debate. Funny, but I seem to recall a certain columnist for the Washington Post who was a leading cheerleader for this tragic misadventure. He can write all of the apologies and other mea culpas that he wants to, but that will never absolve him of his own complicity.

Also, is Cohen seriously trying to persuade us into thinking that Bush should somehow not be held accountable for “bad judgment” (“fanatical predisposition to attack Iraq against all common sense arguments pleading with him to do otherwise” is more like it). To equate those criticizing the war with Bush partly for this reason is nonsense bordering on obscenity as far as I’m concerned.

Second

In today’s Inquirer, someone called Victor Davis Hanson, who bills himself as “a senior fellow at The Hoover Institution” issued this pronouncement:

Almost every responsible U.S. government body had long warned about Saddam's links to al-Qaeda terrorists. In 1998, for example, when the Clinton Justice Department indicted bin Laden, the writ read: "In addition, al-Qaeda reached an understanding with the Government of Iraq that al-Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al-Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq."

Then in October 2002, George Tenet - the Clinton-appointed CIA director - warned the Senate in similar terms: "We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda going back a decade."

It was almost too easy to find this column to refute this.

At this point, I won’t even bother to seriously try to explain why someone would still say this after nearly 2,100 of our people have been killed in Iraq, as well as thousands of our people injured and thousands more innocent Iraqis killed or wounded.

The Clinton Administration was trying to document, for the record, some level of activity between Hussein and bin Laden. Bushco, for the purposes of attacking a country they had their eye on anyway, made it sound like there was an ironclad, working relationship, when in fact bin Laden considered Hussein to be more of an infidel than Bush. When Condoleezza Rice warned of “a mushroom cloud over New York City” if we don’t invade Iraq, she was working for Bush, not Clinton. The same holds true for Colin Powell when he held up a vial of what was supposed to be the distilled version of the Sarin nerve gas at the U.N. and said that it could take out the entire New York subway system (which he later regretted in a truly feeble display of self aggrandizement).

Mr. (Dr.?) Hanson, why don’t you just go back to your musty texts and continue drafting your history of the Peloponnesian War? Leave any commenting on the present day to people who have a sense of context and an appreciation for the dire straits currently facing this country, OK?

Third

Dr. Earl Tifford, a professor of history at Grove City College and a former professor of military history at the U.S. Air Force Air Command and Staff College, wrote this in a column that appeared today in the Courier Times:

The Vietnam War was a sideshow in a larger struggle between the East and the West. Likewise, Iraq is a theater in a larger global struggle with al Qaeda, Hezbollah, and the nations that support them, primarily Iran and Syria.

While this statement from Tifford is truthful I believe, he is disingenuous not to point out that there was already a Communist presence in Vietnam when we sent our “advisers” there in the late 50s and gradually built up our military presence over time. There was no such presence (at least, not one of significance) of al Qaeda or Hezbollah in Iraq before we attacked that country over two years ago. Say what you want about Saddam Hussein, but he kept everyone in line (through brutal means, I know, but he did what he set out to do).

Tifford also goes on to conjure up images of a long, horrific war between this country and the Muslim crazies, with WMD being used all over the place. He may be right; I don’t know. All I can do (and all any of us can do) is to live our lives as best as we can and truly support our troops by exercising the soundest possible judgment regarding the outcome of this war and their general well being. This can be accomplished through well-reasoned dialogue and analysis, and also by telling the nut jobs on either side of this issue in no uncertain terms exactly what they should do when that needs to be said.

It will be very hard to continue doing this as we seep through propaganda such as that which I have described above. However, that is what we must do.