Once Again, Bush Lies to the Nation
Speaking on Iraq:
Sixty years ago this Friday, General Douglas MacArthur accepted the Japanese surrender aboard the USS Missouri in Tokyo Bay. With Japan’s surrender, the last of our enemies in World War II was defeated, and a World War that began for America in the Pacific came to an end in the Pacific. As we mark this anniversary, we are again a nation at war. Once again, war came to our shores with a surprise attack that killed thousands in cold blood. Once again, we face determined enemies who follow a ruthless ideology that despises everything America stands for. Once again, America and our allies are waging a global campaign with forces deployed on virtually every continent. And once again, we will not rest until victory is America’s and our freedom is secure. [Transcript]
And once again, Bush equates 9/11 with Iraq, as if the two were in some way connected. Pearl Harbor led to the American occupation of Japan, and Bush is implying that this is parallel to the idea that 9/11 led to the American occupation of Iraq. A complete and utter lie. Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. Iraq was not involved in 9/11, and though two years ago Bush admitted there was no connection (“No, we’ve had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th”), the endless hints, innuendo and outright accusations coming from the administration have made most Americans believe there was a connection, to the point where 70% of the American public believed it at one time.
Bush tries to continue the lie by insinuating that while Hussein was not involved directly in 9/11, he had al Qaeda ties. In the same breath in which he admitted Hussein was not involved in 9/11, he also said:
And al-Zarqawi, an al-Qaida operative, was in Baghdad. He’s the guy that ordered the killing of a U.S. diplomat. … There’s no question that Saddam Hussein had al-Qaida ties.
However, the CIA disagreed, saying that there was no evidence to support or deny the claim–in other words, Bush was making up the whole thing out of desire, political expediency, and whole cloth. A CIA official was quoted as saying that “there is no clear cut evidence that Saddam Hussein even knew Zarqawi was in Baghdad.” Like the first assertion the administration made about Atta meeting with Iraqi intelligence in Prague, the al-Zarqawi claim is just as bogus, trying to claim that Hussein was in bed with bin Laden when in truth the two despised each other and had no working ties. So then the claim goes to Abu Nidal, a terrorist who went to Iraq. There’s the tie, said Bush & Co. Except Abu Nidal was killed by Saddam Hussein, unless you accept the idea that he committed suicide for no good reason, and by shooting himself several times.
But Bush will not give up on a lie that has served him so well to this point. He is now refreshing the mendacity by making it analogous to Japan after WWII, saying that there were problems there as well:
President Roosevelt, and later President Truman, wisely resolved that we would not make that mistake in our treatment of a defeated Japan. They understood that the sacrifices of allied forces would mean nothing unless we used our victory to help the Japanese people transform their nation from tyranny to freedom. There were many doubters.American and Japanese experts claimed that the Japanese weren’t ready for democracy.
In a letter to a friend back home, one of our soldiers on the ground offered a different view. Sergeant Richard Leonard’s brother had been killed in fighting the Japanese, but after being stationed in Japan and meeting Japanese people, he found he could not hate them. He wrote, “Sure, we’ve got to occupy their country and watch them. But at the same time, we’ve got to help them and do everything possible to reconstruct them as a peace-loving nation.”
Except, of course, that the two nations in post-war venues were completely different in nature.
- The Japanese were one people, homogenous; Iraq is made up of three very different groups prone to disagreement;
- The Japanese were fiercely loyal to the Emperor, who told them to surrender and cooperate; nothing even similar exists in Iraq;
- There was little or no insurgency in Japan, unlike Iraq;
- In Japan, the people accepted American rule, resigned themselves to it; Iraq is not quite the same;
- In Japan, we more or less forced a constitution on the Japanese, writing in for them and then sitting on them for seven years before ending the occupation;
- In Japan, the obedience and the general makeup of the Japanese people made them far different than the Iraqis today in terms of accepting an occupation;
- Japan was not seen by its own people as oppressive, and had for more than 80 years experienced a parliamentary system, a constitutional monarchy, not a succession of thuggish dictators;
- In Japan, there was absolutely no parallel to the situation of America in the Middle East today in religious, historical, economic or political terms;
- In Japan, we gave massive financial aid, opened up use of patents, and in 1950 used Japan as a staging area for the Korean War, infusing huge amounts of capital into the country, leading to the “economic miracle” which made Japanese more content with the position they had taken on; there is little expectation the Iraqis will so profit even if another war does break out;
- In Japan, the U.S. took on a huge chunk of the country’s defense, allowing the country to focus on financial rebuilding; there is no evidence that anything similar will happen in Iraq–in fact, the current stated goal is for the opposite to happen.
- In Iraq, “our enemies” have not been defeated; the enemies that attacked on 9/11 are still on the loose, in large part because Bush took an unnecessary detour in Iraq. In contrast, in post-WWII Japan, the enemies who had attacked us were defeated, and were not fighting back.
I’m sure others like Tim could add a few dozen more points. In general, the idea that Iraq is even remotely similar to Japan after WWII is mind-bogglingly wrong. There simply is no parallel beyond the downright simplistic rendering that we conquered both nations and then tried to set up a Democracy. Any and all parallels end there, and a flood of differences and polar opposites begin.
Iraq is not Japan. Not even close. This is just more posturing, more knowingly false analogies. More lies to the American people.
I think President Bush is an idiot.
“…Bush equates 9/11 with Iraq, as if the two were in some way connected. Pearl Harbor led to the American occupation of Japan, and Bush is implying that this is parallel to the idea that 9/11 led to the American occupation of Iraq. A complete and utter lie. Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. Iraq was not involved in 9/11,…”
Germany didn’t bomb Pearl Harbor (unless you believe John Blutarsky of Delta House), yet we concentrated our main effort toward defeating Germany before Japan. Were we wrong for doing this? I think not…it was a strategic decision. Attacking Iraq was a strategic move, not a tactical one. It positions us to strike at other areas in the region based on what our intel says. You may also notice that, with troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, a primary terrorist-sponsoring state, Iran, is easily within reach of our forces.
Could we have attacked other countries (which I think we should’ve)…yes but we didn’t. We’ve had years of intel (from numerous countries) pointing to Iraq and their ties with terrorists (the 9/11 Report mentions several Al-Qaeda-Iraq contacts during the 90s, though not much apparently came of these meetings), building WMDs/ long-range missiles, violating UN/ US sanctions imposed after the first Gulf War, attacking US interests overseas. If you recall, we almost went to war with Iraq twice in the 90s…once around 94/95, and again in 98/99. Hussein’s brother-in-law defected in 1995 (smuggled out through Jordan onto waiting US Navy ships in the Gulf of Aqaba) and gave us intel that caused us to believe Saddam was still working on WMDs. The brother-in-law returned to Iraq and was killed, of course. The UN inspection teams were constantly struggling with Iraq to inspect sites of concern, and were finally kicked out of the country. After 9/11, and given all the trouble we’d experienced with Saddam prior to 9/11 as well as the intelligence that the President had access to about Iraq, Al Qaeda, etc, etc…, it’s not surprising that we would go after Iraq.
Have we found WMDs in Iraq? Not that I’m aware of, though I’m told equipment has been found in various areas of the country that indicate such projects were in progress. Does all of this, including Mr Bush’s speech, constitute a lie? Hardly. We attacked based on the intelligence avaiable at the time….and as you probably know, intelligence is almost always vague. As for the “parallel” of occupying Iraq and occupying Japan, I know of none other than we are occupying forces there. It is obvious that the two wars are different on many levels, but what is the same about our current war and WW 2 is that, in both, we were attacked, a strong response is necessary, and we will win. Due to the nature of the enemy and the current world situation, our prosecution of the war is quite different from what many may have expected. But to say that the President is lying based on what little you and I know is presumptuous, to say the least. His speech was designed to send a positive, motivating message….that’s what leaders are suppose to do.
Germany didn’t bomb Pearl Harbor (unless you believe John Blutarsky of Delta House), yet we concentrated our main effort toward defeating Germany before Japan. Were we wrong for doing this?You’re wrong for equating that. You’re going from Pearl Harbor to attacking Germany as if it is equal to going from 9/11 to attacking Iraq. Japan and Germany were allies; you go to war against one, you automatically go to war against both, not to mention Italy. Al Qaeda attacked us, not Iraq. They were not allied. As I pointed out in the post, there was no connection between them; even what Bush cited as connections were tenuous at best, and turned out to be false, as most suggested at the time. So to use the analogy is completely bereft of reason. It’s not a “strategic move,” it was an attempt to use one terrorist group’s attack to justify an invasion of an unrelated country.
You may also notice that, with troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, a primary terrorist-sponsoring state, Iran, is easily within reach of our forces.Suggesting Bush invaded Iraq so he could do a pincer move on Iran is… wildly bizarre. Are you suggesting that it is legitimate to invade a country unrelated to an attack upon us because it might set us up in a better position to attack a country that may have been? There are so many things wrong with that suggestion that it’s hard to know where to start. But foremost would be that this was never even floated as a reason to invade Iraq, that Iran was already within our reach from Afghanistan, that if Iran were the target why not invade Iran? You’re trying now to transfer the reported terrorist connections in Iran as a justification to making the link between terrorists and Iraq. Not to mention that this would be a wasteful strategy, seeing as how Iraq has so depleted our forces and our will to fight foreign wars that we probably couldn’t invade Iran even if we all wanted to. Sorry, you’ve completely left the map on this one. If North Korea attacks us, we do not invade China to get at them. That would be the worst possible strategic move anyone ever made. Ever. Note carefully that I trying really hard not to use certain words here.
Could we have attacked other countries (which I think we should’ve)…yes but we didn’t.If the point was attacking terrorism, there is a long list of other countries which would have been more justifiably attacked than Iraq. One of them would be Saudi Arabia, where bin Laden and most of the 9/11 hijackers came from, and which still supports radicalists which fund the terrorist movement.
We’ve had years of intel (from numerous countries) pointing to Iraq and their ties with terrorists (the 9/11 Report mentions several Al-Qaeda-Iraq contacts during the 90s, though not much apparently came of these meetings), …In other words, you’re saying there was contact but no alliance or real cooperation; do we invade countries simply because they met with but then did not do anything with terrorists? And that’s accepting your “intel” claim at face value, which I do not. Provide specifics with links to evidence, thanks.
…building WMDs/ long-range missiles, …Here we go again, with the bogus WMD/missile claim. Despite the fact that many believed he had some WMDs, no one believed it was enough of a threat to invade, except Bush & Co. Not to mention, that has no connection to terrorism. To claim that as a Pearl-Harbor connection would be like saying that we should have invaded Spain after Pearl Harbor because the Spanish had tanks. Hell, the Spanish actually had more connections with the Japanese via the Nazis than Hussein ever had with terrorists.
…violating UN/ US sanctions imposed after the first Gulf War,…Israel violated as many if not more U.N. sanctions as Iraq did. Should we have invaded them?
… attacking US interests overseas.Really? What would those be?
If you recall, we almost went to war with Iraq twice in the 90s…Not really. Provide evidence of this, please. The events you described were not ones that “almost started wars.”
In short, what your points here amount to is an inflated laundry list of half-assed, trumped-up Bush administration contentions about what a baddie Hussein was–but not a single one stands as legitimate justification for attacking Iraq as a result of 9/11, even without hindsight, which is what Bush should have had at his disposal when making the Japan-Iraq analogy.
Have we found WMDs in Iraq? Not that I’m aware of, though I’m told equipment has been found in various areas of the country that indicate such projects were in progress.Really? Who told you this? Provide a link, please. Otherwise it’s just hearsay, there being no real evidence. A boatload of “I heard that”s is not equal to one tiny shred of actual evidence; there have been so many false claims of having found something that probably half the country believes WMD were actually found.
Does all of this, including Mr Bush’s speech, constitute a lie?Yes, if we only accept actual evidence. I note how you not-so-subtly made the shift from terrorism to WMD, as if that somehow fills the gap between 9/11 and Iraq. WMD is not terrorism. My initial point still stands: claiming a Pearl-Harbor-to-Japanese-occupation analogy for 9/11-to-Iraq requires that Iraq was involved with al Qaeda, or any terrorist activity. There is at present and there never was any intel that could have been called reliable at any time that supports this contention.
Bush is yet again pushing the 9/11-Iraq, Hussein/al Qaeda connection despite there never having been a connection. He’s using 9/11 to justify the invasion of Iraq.
Those are lies. Active lies. Knowing lies. Obvious lies. You have to work real hard to believe they’re not lies–as you have plainly demonstrated here. But it all falls apart in the end because the justification is weaker than wet tissue paper.
“Germany didn’t bomb Pearl Harbor (unless you believe John Blutarsky of Delta House), yet we concentrated our main effort toward defeating Germany before Japan. Were we wrong for doing this?”
Germany didn’t bomb Pearl Harbor, no. But Germany officially declared war on the United States. Iraq didn’t. Big difference.
Good point–I’d forgotten about the German declaration of war. But then, that’s part of the whole alliance thing.
“…Germany officially declared war on the United States. Iraq didn’t. Big difference….”
We were still technically in a state of war with Iraq as result of the Gulf War 1 cease-fire.
“If you recall, we almost went to war with Iraq twice in the 90s…
Not really. Provide evidence of this, please. The events you described were not ones that “almost started wars.”
Look up Operation Vigilant Warrior, which took place between Oct-Dec 1994, in response to Iraqi force build-up in southern Iraq. Also look up Operation Desert Fox (which my wife participated in ), which took place in Dec 1998 in response to Hussein violating UN Security Council resolutions and hampering the efforts of the UN (UNSCOM) inspectors. Yes…we almost went to war. One does not receive hazard-fire/ imminent-danger pay for a training exercise.
“…though I’m told equipment has been found in various areas of the country that indicate such projects were in progress.
Really? Who told you this? Provide a link, please.”
I apologize that I cannot provide a link….but you can gain access to some of the information I’ve read/ seen/ been briefed on by doing what I did… join the Army and get the info first-hand. Is it super-secret stuff? No. I suspect a little digging in Global Security.org may provide some of the info I refer to. I’ve also been lucky enough to hear directly from folks who’ve been in-theater in the initial assault (Operation Iraqi Freedom I) and more recently, OIF III. But you would probably consider such first-hand accounts as hearsay.