The Great Bait-and-Switch by Thomas R. Eddlem

[Martin Eden]

<snip>
While the administration definitely exaggerated the progress of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq in their public addresses, the far more important administration scandal is the utterly false allegations of al Qaeda ties. Why? Because most Americans who eventually consented to the war did so because they were spoon-fed the nightmare of Iraqi-armed al Qaeda terrorists detonating nuclear, biological and chemical weapons over American cities.

President Bush summarized the emotional appeal that made the war against Iraq acceptable in that same Oct. 7, 2002 speech: "Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." The fact that his administration faced no clear evidence of peril had no impact on the unsuspecting public, because they had no way of knowing Bush was lying. Though Saddam Hussein’s regime did not possess the capability to deliver WMDs to American targets, al Qaeda proved capable of striking American targets on 9/11.

Opponents of the war have been asking "Where are the WMDs?" for months now, but it isn’t getting them anywhere. And it isn’t going to get them anywhere, because it was not an unreasonable to assume that Iraq held chemical weapons. Hussein’s regime unquestionably possessed them and used them in the past, and American intelligence was sketchy on WMDs. That doesn’t justify the war, but many Americans won’t question the justification of the war simply because of missing WMDs.

Unless the al Qaeda tie is cut. Here the intelligence was clear, and the administration disregarded it entirely. Here the administration manufactured false intelligence, such as a mythical meeting between an Iraqi official and an al Qaeda operative in Prague. Here the administration blamed Hussein for al Qaeda training that took place outside of his political control, as they did in the case of the al Qaeda camp in the Kurdish-controlled area of Iraq (which was being patrolled by U.S. jets!).
<snip>

Read the full article:
http://www.antiwar.com/article.php?articleid=1884

Thomas R. Eddlem is a native of the Boston area of Massachusetts and a graduate of Stonehill College. He is currently the editor for two community newspapers south of Boston, and is a frequent contributor to The New American magazine.

[Fovea]

1. The words 'We cannot wait"

Are the very definition of Imminent Threat.

Even a backwoods county prosecutor could impeach this clown prince.

[Martin Eden]

2. They impeach themselves

They insist they never said the threat was imminent; OK then, if there was no imminent threat, why was it necessary to chase the UN inspectors out of Iraq before they had finished the job, and start a war?

Methinks they feared the UN inspectors would file a report similar to the recent one by David Kay -- that there were no WMD in Iraq.

And if this happened, their coveted "preemptive" war might have lost the necessary domestic support.