- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
The president is indeed delusional. He said many times, in many different fora, that getting rid of Saddam was the right thing to do even without the WMD, and he never regretted do so (until now, anyway, when his legacy is catching up with him).
As important, several years ago Foreign Policy journal researched the public statements made by senior administration officials and its senatorial supporters (ie, McCain, Lieberman, etc) during the spring, summer, and early fall of 2002. This study found that these people had given 21(!!!!) separate justifications for going to war, many of which had nothing to do with terrorism or WMD. For example, spreading democracy, enduing the rule of a despot, stabilizing the region, and protecting Israel were among them. Which reasons were given depended on the audience to which they were given. But then and later, Bush and his people frequently said that the absence of WMD didn't matter, that getting rid of Saddam was worth the war.
Only several days before the 2004 election two more justifications arose. Bush said (in Statesboro, Ga) that keeping Iraqi oil from terrorists validated the war. And Dick Cheney said that simply showing the terrorists after 9/11 that the US could strike back was important for our national credibility.
Only three times since 2002 has the Iraq war met with the approval of over 50% of the population, and approval for the war never rose above 60%. If a democracy is going to prosecute a war of choice, then public should be much higher than 40-50% (or even 70%) and the reasons for going to war should be few (ie, two, possibly three), clear to all, and consistent over time. This was never the case with the war in Iraq.
