One of the current right wing responses to the whole Wilson/Plame/Miller/Libby fiasco is yet another attempt to downplay the whole WMD thing. First, a straw man is set up–in this case, the notion that the left is claiming that WMD’s were the only reason ever given for the war. Then you prove that this simply isn’t true, by pointing out one of the other excuses which were thrown out willy-nilly in the runup to war.
Well, it’s true (as I acknowledged at the time) that there were plenty of reasons given for the war…and as each one was refuted, the snake oil salesmen pitching this catastrophe would segue neatly into the next.
But the selling point that came up over and over again was the threat of WMDs. That was what gave this enterprise its urgency, made it possible to override critics. Lord, if I had a dime for every email I got in those days that contained some variation on the assertion that we KNOW he has weapons of mass destruction, well, I would have a very large pile of dimes.
And it’s true that nobody knew for sure whether or not there were WMD’s — including yours truly; cartoonists don’t actually have much access to classified data regarding other country’s weaponry — but anyone with at least one foot still planted in reality understood that the people assuring us the threat existed were clearly not to be trusted. That much was obvious from the memos Rumsfeld was writing on the afternoon of September 11, and from the briefest perusal of PNAC’s long-stated goals. And this is just how life works: you look at what people have said in the past, and try to suss out their motives, and judge from there whether or not you believe them when they hold up a vial of talcum powder and tell you that the fate of life on planet Earth is hanging in the balance.
(Digression: I’m really sick of hearing the liberal-hawks-turned-peaceniks claim that they supported the war only because of Colin Powell’s breathtaking performance before the UN, and are shocked and saddened to learn they were lied to. Bullshit. You supported the war because you didn’t have the courage to buck what you perceived as mainstream opinion, didn’t want to align yourselves with all those dirty hippies marching in the streets. As it turns out, of course, the dirty hippies, i.e. citizens from all walks of life, turned out to be a lot more on the mark than you were. Colin Powell made those remarks on February 5, 2003, and if you were out there reluctantly arguing the case for war before that date, as most liberal-hawks-turned-peaceniks were, then shut the fuck up about Colin Powell and admit you were as wrong as it was possible to be. End of digression.)
Anyway, here’s a little refresher course for anyone who feels momentarily swayed by the revisionist argument that WMD’s were barely even mentioned in the runup to war.
We are greatly concerned about any possible linkup between terrorists and regimes that have or seek weapons of mass destruction…In the case of Saddam Hussein, we’ve got a dictator who is clearly pursuing and already possesses some of these weapons.. A regime that hates America and everything we stand for must never be permitted to threaten America with weapons of mass destruction.
Dick Cheney, Vice President
Detroit, Fund-Raiser
6/20/2002
Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.
Dick Cheney, Vice President
Speech to VFW National Convention
8/26/2002
There is already a mountain of evidence that Saddam Hussein is gathering weapons for the purpose of using them. And adding additional information is like adding a foot to Mount Everest.
Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Response to Question From Press
9/6/2002
We don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.
Condoleeza Rice, US National Security Advisor
CNN Late Edition
9/8/2002
Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.
George W. Bush, President
Speech to UN General Assembly
9/12/2002
Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons. We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons — the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have
George W. Bush, President
Radio Address
10/5/2002
After eleven years during which we have tried containment, sanctions, inspections, even selected military action, the end result is that Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more. And he is moving ever closer to developing a nuclear weapon.
George W. Bush, President
Cincinnati, Ohio Speech
10/7/2002
We’ve also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas
George W. Bush, President
Cincinnati, Ohio Speech
10/7/2002
Iraq, despite UN sanctions, maintains an aggressive program to rebuild the infrastructure for its nuclear, chemical, biological, and missile programs. In each instance, Iraq’s procurement agents are actively working to obtain both weapons-specific and dual-use materials and technologies critical to their rebuilding and expansion efforts, using front companies and whatever illicit means are at hand.
John Bolton, Undersecretary of State for Arms Control
Speech to the Hudson Institute
11/1/2002
We estimate that once Iraq acquires fissile material — whether from a foreign source or by securing the materials to build an indigenous fissile material capability — it could fabricate a nuclear weapon within one year. It has rebuilt its civilian chemical infrastructure and renewed production of chemical warfare agents, probably including mustard, sarin, and VX. It actively maintains all key aspects of its offensive BW [biological weapons] program.
John Bolton, Undersecretary of State for Arms Control
Speech to the Hudson Institute
11/1/2002
Iraq could decide on any given day to provide biological or chemical weapons to a terrorist group or to individual terrorists,…The war on terror will not be won until Iraq is completely and verifiably deprived of weapons of mass destruction.
Dick Cheney, Vice President
Denver, Address To Air National Guard
12/1/2002
The president of the United States and the secretary of defense would not assert as plainly and bluntly as they have that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction if it was not true, and if they did not have a solid basis for saying it
Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Response to Question From Press
12/4/2002
We know for a fact that there are weapons there.
Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Press Briefing
1/9/2003
I am absolutely convinced, based on the information that’s been given to me, that the weapon of mass destruction which can kill more people than an atomic bomb — that is, biological weapons — is in the hands of the leadership of Iraq.
Bill Frist, Senate Majority Leader
MSNBC Interview
1/10/2003
What is unique about Iraq compared to, I would argue, any other country in the world, in this juncture, is the exhaustion of diplomacy thus far, and, No. 2, this intersection of weapons of mass destruction.
Bill Frist, Senate Majority Leader
NewsHour Interview
1/22/2003
The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.
George W. Bush, President
State of the Union Address
1/28/2003
We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more.
Colin Powell, Secretary of State
Remarks to UN Security Council
2/5/2003
In Iraq, a dictator is building and hiding weapons that could enable him to dominate the Middle East and intimidate the civilized world — and we will not allow it.
George W. Bush, President
Speech to the American Enterprise Institute
2/26/2003
If Iraq had disarmed itself, gotten rid of its weapons of mass destruction over the past 12 years, or over the last several months since (UN Resolution) 1441 was enacted, we would not be facing the crisis that we now have before us . . . But the suggestion that we are doing this because we want to go to every country in the Middle East and rearrange all of its pieces is not correct.
Colin Powell, Secretary of State
Interview with Radio France International
2/28/2003
Iraq is a grave threat to this nation. It desires to acquire and use weapons of mass terror and is run by a despot with a proven record of willingness to use them. Iraq has had 12 years to comply with UN requirements for disarmament and has failed to do so. The president is right to say it’s time has run out.
Bill Frist, Senate Majority Leader
Senate Speech
3/7/2003
So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad? . . . I think our judgment has to be clearly not.
Colin Powell, Secretary of State
Remarks to UN Security Council
3/7/2003
Getting rid of Saddam Hussein’s regime is our best inoculation. Destroying once and for all his weapons of disease and death is a vaccination for the world.
Bill Frist, Senate Majority Leader
Washington Post op-ed
3/16/2003
Let’s talk about the nuclear proposition for a minute. We know that based on intelligence, that [Saddam] has been very, very good at hiding these kinds of efforts. He’s had years to get good at it and we know he has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.
Dick Cheney, Vice President
Meet The Press
3/16/2003
Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.
George W. Bush, President
Address to the Nation
3/17/2003
The United States . . . is now at war “so we will not ever see” what terrorists could do “if supplied with weapons of mass destruction by Saddam Hussein.”
Bill Frist, Senate Majority Leader
Senate Debate
3/20/200
Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes.
Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Press Briefing
3/21/2003
There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. And . . . as this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them.
General Tommy Franks, Commander in Chief Central Command
Press Conference
3/22/2003
And one more from that 2002 Cincinnati speech, for anyone who claims that there was no sense of urgency, that the buildup to war was leisurely and relaxed and allowed to develop at its own natural pace:
Many Americans have raised legitimate questions: About the nature of the threat. About the urgency of action — and why be concerned now? About the link between Iraq developing weapons of terror, and the wider war on terror.
These are all issues we have discussed broadly and fully within my administration. And tonight, I want to share those discussions with you.
First, some ask why Iraq is different from other countries or regimes that also have terrible weapons. While there are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone — because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place.
Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction are controlled by a murderous tyrant, who has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people. This same tyrant has tried to dominate the Middle East, has invaded and brutally occupied a small neighbor, has struck other nations without warning, and holds an unrelenting hostility towards the United States.
By its past and present actions, by its technological capabilities, by the merciless nature of its regime, Iraq is unique.
Oddly, I don’t find it hard to imagine my offspring reading a story very similar to this one forty years from now…
WASHINGTON, Oct. 28 - The National Security Agency has kept secret since 2001 a finding by an agency historian that during the Tonkin Gulf episode, which helped precipitate the Vietnam War, N.S.A. officers deliberately distorted critical intelligence to cover up their mistakes, two people familiar with the historian’s work say.
The historian’s conclusion is the first serious accusation that communications intercepted by the N.S.A., the secretive eavesdropping and code-breaking agency, were falsified so that they made it look as if North Vietnam had attacked American destroyers on Aug. 4, 1964, two days after a previous clash. President Lyndon B. Johnson cited the supposed attack to persuade Congress to authorize broad military action in Vietnam, but most historians have concluded in recent years that there was no second attack.
Wingnut dreams can come true (or, why the Miers withdrawal was not a victory):
ALITO WOULD OVERTURN ROE V. WADE: In his dissenting opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Alito concurred with the majority in supporting the restrictive abortion-related measures passed by the Pennsylvania legislature in the late 1980’s. Alito went further, however, saying the majority was wrong to strike down a requirement that women notify their spouses before having an abortion. The Supreme Court later rejected Alito’s view, voting to reaffirm Roe v. Wade. [Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 1991]
ALITO WOULD ALLOW RACE-BASED DISCRIMINATION: Alito dissented from a decision in favor of a Marriott Hotel manager who said she had been discriminated against on the basis of race. The majority explained that Alito would have protected racist employers by “immuniz[ing] an employer from the reach of Title VII if the employer’s belief that it had selected the ‘best’ candidate was the result of conscious racial bias.” [Bray v. Marriott Hotels, 1997]
ALITO WOULD ALLOW DISABILITY-BASED DISCRIMINATION: In Nathanson v. Medical College of Pennsylvania, the majority said the standard for proving disability-based discrimination articulated in Alito’s dissent was so restrictive that “few if any…cases would survive summary judgment.” [Nathanson v. Medical College of Pennsylvania, 1991]
ALITO WOULD STRIKE DOWN THE FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT: The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) “guarantees most workers up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to care for a loved one.” The 2003 Supreme Court ruling upholding FMLA [Nevada v. Hibbs, 2003] essentially reversed a 2000 decision by Alito which found that Congress exceeded its power in passing the law. [Chittister v. Department of Community and Economic Development, 2000]
ALITO SUPPORTS UNAUTHORIZED STRIP SEARCHES: In Doe v. Groody, Alito agued that police officers had not violated constitutional rights when they strip searched a mother and her ten-year-old daughter while carrying out a search warrant that authorized only the search of a man and his home. [Doe v. Groody, 2004]
ALITO HOSTILE TOWARD IMMIGRANTS: In two cases involving the deportation of immigrants, the majority twice noted Alito’s disregard of settled law. In Dia v. Ashcroft, the majority opinion states that Alito’s dissent “guts the statutory standard” and “ignores our precedent.” In Ki Se Lee v. Ashcroft, the majority stated Alito’s opinion contradicted “well-recognized rules of statutory construction.” [Dia v. Ashcroft, 2003; Ki Se Lee v. Ashcroft, 2004].
Judging from what I’ve seen and heard so far (and gosh, if Sean Hannity is good for anything, he’s good for letting you know what the current Official Republican Talking Points are), the right wing noise machine is reacting to the Libby indictment by throwing up a fog of obfuscation. I mean, there’s really no way around it–when the chief of staff of a sitting vice president is indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice, that’s a big deal. So what we’re getting, and will get a lot more of, are all the lies and half-truths we’ve already been over a hundred times before, starting with the two-year-old attempts to discredit Joe Wilson himself. (Which is, of course, how we got into this mess to begin with.) Watch for lots of blather about how Wilson had no expertise, why would anyone send him on this mission, everyone knew his wife was in the CIA, she’s in Who’s Who for chrissakes, blah blah blah blah blah. And those of us in the reality-based community will continue to push the stone up the hill, pointing out things that should be self-evident, such as the fact that knowledge of Valerie Plame’s existence did not equal knowledge of her status within the CIA. Etc., etc.
Atrios already linked to this, but it bears emphasizing:
Davis plays the equivalency game: for every Republican sin, he has to offer up a counterweight Democratic one. But Republicans have owned the government for five years now; there is no equivalency. There are no powerhouse Democratic lobbyists under indictment, if only because Tom DeLay has been so successful in purging Democratic lobbyists from K Street. There are no powerful Democratic Congressional leaders under indictment, if only because there are no powerful Democratic Congressional leaders. Democrats didn’t out a covert CIA agent; Democrats didn’t drag the nation into an illegal war based on bogus intelligence (although more than a few are complicit in the effort); Democrats didn’t institutionalize torture or strip US citizens of basic constitutional protections.
There is a national security issue here. Republicans are demonstrably more corrupt than Democrats. Hell, this isn’t even the only occasion on which the administration have blown the cover of a secret intelligence asset from purely political motives: in August of last year, the administration infuriated British and Pakistani intelligence services by leaking the name of a highly placed al Qaeda informant in order to justify an increase in the terror alert level, and in the process ruining counterterrorism operations in Britain and Pakistan.
For going on 40 years now, Democrats have gotten their asses kicked when it comes to hardball politics. Lanny Davis and Libby/Rove are emblematic of why. If Davis wants to wish a pox on both parties’ houses, he should probably wait until Democrats get a house.
The right’s embrace in the Miers nomination of tactics previously exclusive to the left - exaggeration, invective, anonymous sources, an unbroken stream of new charges, television advertisements paid for by secret sources - will make it immeasurably harder to denounce and deflect such assaults when the Democrats make them the next time around.
Tactics “exclusive to the left”? This actually goes beyond the Eternal Question (”stupid or lying”?). This is more in the realm of, “Does this man live on the same planet we do?”
Considering that Libby consistently told the same false story to the grand jury and the FBI, I can’t help but think that he’s been set up to be the Administration’s sacrificial lamb. After all, according to the indictment “Official A”, Judy Miller, “the Under Secretary of State”, the “White House Press Secretary”, and “the Assistant to the Vice President for Public Affairs” all knew that Libby’s story about learning of Plame’s status from Tim Russert was without merit. Why would Libby be reckless enough to make his claims when any one of these people would have been able to discredit him? It defies logic to assume that Libby spoke to the FBI or the grand jury without discussing what he would say with his sources and/or fellow leakers. That being the case, did White House officials reassure Libby that they’d buttress his story only to later turn against him? If that turns out to be true, I’d expect Libby’s plea agreements to be…interesting, to say the least. There’s a damn good reason Fitzgerald says he’s “not quite done”. If Libby feels burned by the Administration, I think we can expect more fireworks.
Bush Gives Christ SCOTUS Nod Monday, November 21, 2005
WASHINGTON (AP) - Reeling from the rebuke he received over the nomination of Harriet Miers, George Bush nominated former carpenter Jesus Harold Christ today to the nation’s highest court. “I’ve been saying for years now that he’s my favorite philosopher,” the President remarked, “so I think the American people will be proud when they get to know J.C.’s judicial philosophicalness.”
Bush called on the Senate to “review every aspect of Jesus’ qualifications fairly and with haste. It’s important that we get an up-down vote on this nomination by the end of the year”.
Holy Nomination Deemed Controversial Wednesday, November 23, 2005
WASHINGTON (NYT) - Despite being the figurehead of one of the world’s largest religions, the nomination of Jesus Christ to replace Sandra Day O’Connor on the Supreme Court is getting a mixed reaction on the Hill from Democrats — and Republicans.
“Who is this guy?”, universally-beloved maverick John McCain asked reporters. “I find it hard to believe that this guy has gone thirty-three years without ever taking a stand on Roe v. Wade.”
In an off-the record interview with the Times, Senator Chuck Schumer added “He seems like a nice guy, but I’ll need to see what comes out during the conformation process before making any decisions”.
Conservatives Revolt Over Jesus Tuesday, December 6, 2005
WASHINGTON (UPI) - In a strong blow to President Bush, conservative activists have rallied against the nomination of Jesus Christ to the Supreme Court.
“We were promised a strict constructionist,” television panhandler Pat Robertson told reporters. “We don’t know anything about his views on gay marriage, stem cells, or any other important issues. God-fearing Christians like me who gave this President the White House deserve to know where this nominee stands.”
The Christ nomination is seen as the latest rebuke for a President who, in recent weeks, has seen a stock market crash, the execution of top aides for treason, and the flooding of New Orleans by Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Gamma.
Bush Seeks Support Over Court Pick Monday, December 12, 2005
CRAWFORD (Reuters) - Interrupting his nine-week holiday break, the President sought to ease conservative concerns over his increasingly controversial pick for the Supreme Court.
“I know his heart,” Bush reassured his supporters,” and he knows mine. After all, he lives in it.”
Speaking Sunday on Meet The Press, Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter remained skeptical. “I haven’t seen anything to convince me that Jesus will faithfully interpret the constitution. Raising the dead and turning water into wine may be neat party tricks, but the American people deserve more.”
Documents Reveal Softer Side of Nominee Friday, December 16, 2005
WASHINGTON (AP) - In a development that Senate Judiciary staffers described as “troubling”, the White House today released a pile of documents in an attempt to bolster its nomination of Jesus Christ to the nation’s top court.
“The meek shall inherit the Earth? Turn the other cheek? I don’t think we can afford a Supreme Court justice who’s weak on terror,” a top Republican official said.
Though short on judicial experience, the documents reveal a nominee with a long career dedicated to helping the poor, comforting the afflicted, and spreading the word of god.
“He might as well have nominated Robin Hood,” joked one GOP leader. “Christ’s dedication to redistributing wealth puts him far outside the mainstream. He’s an extremist in the Souter/Kennedy mold.”
Group Runs Ad Urging Jesus Filibuster Monday, December 19, 2005
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Putting the nomination of Jesus in further danger, the conservative group Christians Against Christ began airing ads today urging Senate Republicans to filibuster the upcoming Supreme Court confirmation hearings.
Transcript of C.A.C. ad, “Who is this Jesus?”
ANNOUNCER : Liberal Democrats in the Senate agree on the nomination of Jesus Christ.
[begin video]
SEN. SCHUMER : He seems like a nice guy -
[end video}
ANNOUNCER : What do they know that we don’t? We can’t have another liberal activist on the Supreme Court. Call your Senator today and tell them to filibuster Jesus. America deserves better.
Bush Remains Confident On Nominee Friday, December 23, 2005
WASHINGTON (AP) - Speaking via teleconference at a birthday party for his embattled Supreme Court pick, the President reiterated his support for Jesus Christ. “Jesus has a great heart,” Bush said. ” and I know that he’ll be the same person in twenty years that he is today.”
Seeking to quell criticism over leaked memos that reveal opposition to the death penalty, Administration officials publicly rallied behind Christ, but questions remain about whether or not Christ will be able to make it out of the Senate Judiciary committee.
“People are worried around here,” a White House aide told reporters. “Let’s pretend that we decided to change our minds about this Jesus nomination…not that we are, ummm…do you have any ideas??”
Decrying Pharisees, Christ Withdraws Nomination Monday, December 26, 2005
WASHINGTON (AP) - In a letter to the President today, Supreme Court nominee Jesus H. Christ withdrew his nomination. Though it had become increasingly clear that Jesus lacked the votes in the Senate needed to be confirmed, Bush had as recently as this weekend reaffirmed his support for Christ.
Speaking out against the hypocrisy of his critics, Jesus wrote to the President “Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?”
Pressed for a comment at his Crawford ranch, the President asked “Jesus who?”
