Inspired, I suspect, by the discussion of this post at Calpundit, IdahoEv reminds liberals leaping on the WMD story to keep their eyes on the prize:
Why not? Because it takes focus away from the real issue. The issue was not whether or not Iraq had them, but that they posed an imminent and drastic threat against the United States. If there were just a few weapons, UN inspections would have been a fine way of whittling away at them. But Bush’s contention was that there were many weapons, an active program, and more importantly that those weapons posed a threat either directly or via connections to terrorist groups.
I think IdahoEv is right. If we allow the issue to become “can we locate any WMDs at all?,” then we create an opening for warmongers to put forward some genuinely pathetic counterarguments – such as Tony Blair’s rejoiner that “We have already found two trailers that both our and the American security services believe were used for the manufacture of chemical and biological weapons.”
(Wow, two whole trailers? Well, then, I guess the entire American Way of Life – heck, the whole Free World – was endangered. Good thing we countered that threat – why, with two trailers, Saddam was only moments away from marching across Europe.)
The issue isn’t if Saddam had WMDs. The issue is if Bush and Blair & co. deliberately misled us about what their intelligence agencies said, pretending to the world that evidence that was at best murky and ambiguous was actually clear and convincing. (Along those lines, by the way, check out this article in today’s Guardian – leaked transcripts show that Jack Straw and Colin Powell had severe doubts about the evidence days before Powell made his “most powerful and authoritative case” to the UN).
But even putting it this way is missing, I think, the most important issue. The real question here is democracy. Did Bush, Blair & company intentionally deceive the legislature and the public about Saddam’s WMDs in order to win legislative votes, and public support, that they could not have won with the truth?
If they did, that’s an assault on democracy. They denied the elected representatives (and some unelected, in Britain’s case) the information they needed to make a decision. In Bush’s case, his lies were a loophole in the Constitution; the Constitution says that the legislature needs to approve of wars, but by lying to Congress Bush in effect dodged that requirement.
As British MP Brian Donohoe said, “The sole reason I backed the government amendment was because we were given very clear indications there were weapons of mass destruction and that these could be used against neighbouring countries. As far as I’m concerned, that was the only legitimate reason for going to war.” There’s every reason to doubt that Bush and Blair could have gotten favorable votes from their legislatures if they had been honest about how little evidence there was that Saddam presented a real threat.
To be meaningful, democracy requires an informed public (and an informed legislature). When Blair and Bush lie about WMDs before essential votes, they are displaying their contempt for democracy itself. A vote won with lies is as illegitmate as a vote won with extortion, or with bribes. That, I think, is the central issue of the missing WMDs.
Ex-Labour minister Tony Benn spoke to the heart of the matter: “I believe the Prime Minister lied to us and lied to us and lied to us. The whole war was built upon falsehood and I think the long-term damage will be to democracy in Britain. If you can’t believe what you are told by ministers, the whole democratic process is put at risk. You can’t be allowed to get away with telling lies for political purposes.”
And there’s a secondary issue – supporting our troops. By sending troops to Iraq, Bush risked their lives. If he risked American soldiers’ lives to counter a threat he had reason to believe had been exaggerated or overstated, that’s morally disgusting. It shows a contempt for soldiers’ lives that no decent person – let alone a US president – should hold.
Unfortunately, neither the US press or the Democrats seem able or willing to put any real pressure on Bush. But at least the fire’s been lit under Blair..
Ahhhhh. Thank you for posting this. You writted something I was just thinking of (and talking about) yesterday. To wit: “If he risked American soldiers’ lives to counter a threat he had reason to believe had been exaggerated or overstated, that’s morally disgusting. It shows a contempt for soldiers’ lives that no decent person – let alone a US president – should hold.”
I was speaking w/ one o’ my far right co-workers. We both agreed on this. Strangely, he also agreed with me about the impropriety & long term detrimental aspects of the pre-emptive war.
I’m glad somebody has the energy and ability to write these things.