Bush's Backpedaling
Published: Feb 20 2004
 |
New York-based Russ Baker is an award-winning
journalist who covers politics and
media. |
First, there were "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq,
then there weren't. First, we were going to go it alone without UN
help, now we aren't. First, the United States opposed real elections
in Iraq, now it doesn't. First, Saddam was a "grave and growing
danger," then the war was really about "regime change."
Here's the latest from the Bush administration's Department of
Corrections: Iraqi security forces, which we were assured were
well-equipped to take over local security, suddenly aren't. After
last Saturday's bloody raid in Fallujah, in which 23 Iraqi policemen
were killed and many dangerous prisoners released, American
officials now admit there's no way locals will be ready to take over
by July 1—even as U.S. forces pull back, leaving Iraqi forces to go
out on increasingly hazardous patrols.
The Bush administration, faced with a stinker of an economic
situation, plans to run for re-election on a national
defense-foreign policy plank. But how's it going to do that? Can
anyone seriously trust any significant claim from this gang that
definitely can't shoot straight—then insists that the goal was
always to hit the wall not the target? With the administration now
disowning claims about imminent threats, weapons of mass destruction
and connections with Al Qaeda, it is reduced to pathetically
claiming to have always supported regime change and
democracy-building abroad—although Bush ran in 2000 largely on a
plank opposed to such activism. In any case, the emperor's newest
clothes prove transparent when contrasted with an October 2002
assertion by Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice, as reported in The
Washington Times, "that America would accept the continuation of
Saddam Hussein's regime if Iraq disarms." Since we now know that
Iraq, under pressure from UN inspectors, had already disarmed, which
part of the Powell-Rice statement makes any sense at all?
What about Dick Cheney's pre-war assertion that Iraq's oil (along
with its other resources) "belongs to the Iraqi people, needs to be
put to use by the Iraqi people for the Iraqi people and that will be
one of our major objectives"? By all accounts, much of that resource
base is being used to rebuild an infrastructure devastated by war
and years of sanctions—although rebuilding involves paying typically
excessive amounts to American contractors like Cheney's former (and
future?) employer, Halliburton. Oh, and with six out of 10 Iraqis
unemployed, the clean-up job is largely being handled by importing
cheap migrant workers from Asia.
In December, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz declared
that bids on 26 prime contracts were open only to countries that
supported hostilities. This made explicit earlier administration
threats to punish countries that opposed the war. But, on Feb. 11,
the United States, desperately needing other countries to come in
and take over the post-war bloodbath as U.S. troop casualties
mounted and the U.S. presidential election loomed prominently, did
an about-face. Now, all countries could bid on six billion dollars
of Iraq contracts. "It's not necessarily a change in policy because
this is how we normally do contracting," [a Pentagon] official said,
in the Orwellian newspeak typical of this administration. "So there
is no shift in policy here."
Meanwhile, over in Afghanistan, Bush's mouthpieces are now
talking of delaying planned June elections because of instability in
parts of the country.
What was once touted with the tired metaphor of a "road map" for
Afghanistan now looks more like a guide to finding landmines by
driving over them. In 2002, while trying to build support for the
impending invasion of Iraq, the White House made certain claims
about the just-concluded war against the Taliban and Al Qaeda: "The
United States is committed to building a lasting partnership with
Afghanistan. We will help the new Afghan government provide the
security that is the foundation of peace." In fact, U.S. troops have
been ferried out of that mess as quickly as possible, largely
leaving hapless locals and foreign internationals to dodge bullets
and bombs in a landscape torn by the same ethnic hatreds and warlord
rivalries that predated the Taliban's rise. More than 400 of these
international and local peacekeepers have died in the past
half-year, while the main targets of the war, Osama bin Laden and
Mullah Mohammed Omar, remain free—and Omar's Taliban is regaining
strength steadily.
With so many things going so badly in both Iraq and Afghanistan,
the administration has decided that Rummy's outfit is better at
destroying than stabilizing, and taken the unusual step of turning
over management of the security situation to the National Security
Council, which is generally an advisory and coordination body.
Anybody really believe that the likes of National Security Adviser
Condoleeza Rice, who had trouble recalling basic information about
the region when she assumed her post, is up to such an enormously
complex challenge?
And of course, there's that popularity that never quite seems to
emerge. Remember when Rumsfeld promised that our troops would be met
with adulation? "There is no question but that they would be
welcomed. Go back to Afghanistan—the people were in the streets
playing music, cheering, flying kites and doing all the things that
the Taliban and the Al Qaeda would not let them do." That was on
Feb. 20,2003, in an interview with PBS's Jim Lehrer. (Thanks to the
media watchdog group FAIR for excavating that one) Yet on Sept. 25,
2003, when quizzed by a reporter about these statements, Rumsfeld
responded with a total disclaimer: "Never said that.... Never did.
You may remember it well, but you're thinking of somebody else. You
can't find anywhere me saying anything like [that].... I never said
anything like that because I never knew what would happen and I knew
I didn't know."
So there it is folks, the Bush Campaign 2004 slogan: "You Can't
Blame Us When Things Go Wrong Because, No Matter What We Said, We
Knew We Didn't Know What We Were Doing." Sort of has a nice ring of
self-assurance to it.
|