But of COURSE they did. The could choose to support it or not support it. They CHOSE to support it. You attribute this to primarily political considerations. You refuse to accept that Democrats may well have felt Iraq was a threat that needed addressing.
And of course you are also implying that the Democrats in toto are powerless in the face of the might PNAC. Ain't buying that one either.
Yes I do. I think the Democrats picked an avenue that they hoped would end up a "Win Win" with little political risk for the alternatives. You seem to posit that these people had their arms twisted somehow, or were even all that engaged in the process. Most probably had no ****ing idea what to do post 9/11. They are politicians -- look at their backgrounds. They are not statesmen anymore, or deep thinkers or well read by and large or even informed on detailed foreign policy considerations except for some on select committees. For goodness sake, some of MY writings have been cited in Congressional research materials on gasoline prices
Their main skill is in having charisma, drive and looking good on TV. I mean hell, when a guy like Randy Cunningham shakes down lobbyists and that Jackson guy has the $100K of cold cash in the fridge, and you get people voting for the prescription drug plan that is openly considered a cash give away to the drug industry, and the similar highway bill... yeah, where's that ****ing Mr. Smith? I want my Jimmy Stewart! They have good staffs of smart folk, but they have a lot of ground to cover and have a core focus on the political considerations (in Washington and at home) as well.
They looked to the President for guidance. He presented justification, a threat and a plan. He created an atmosphere where dissent was politically risky. They took the path of least resistance and hoped for the best. Happens all the time. Sadly, this wasn't just some mega pork bill.
And PNAC is not a conspiracy. It's not a shadow organization. It doesn't pull any "strings" behind the scenes any more than Robert McNamara "manipulated" his positions secretly on the conduct of the war in Vietnam. PNAC is a think tank group with a well defined foreign policy plan. They were picked by the President to fill VIRTUALLY ALL of his senior foreign policy positions, not just some. Do political advisors have philosophies on policy? Do presidents? Do they base their actions on their beliefs?
As for WMD and the wall of quotes... BTW, I could similarly fill a page with links about Korea or Iran from the same time frame since Iraq was hardly the only potential WMD threat in the world... For all those statements of concern dating back to 1998, no one pushed to invade Iraq. Perhaps they understood, as PNAC itself clearly noted in its materials pre 9/11, that if Saddam had the bomb he wouldn't give it away to some terrorist. He would use it as leverage with his his regional neighbors and the international community. That was the Saddam WMD threat even with actual weapons. I mean, really. You undertake an enormous effort to construct the miracle weapon, and as a Stalinist dictator interested in no ideology beyond personal power -- you give that weapon to people who hate you as much as the infidels. Or, you use it against America somehow and end everything you worked so hard to build in the blink of an eye. Frankly, Pakistan was/is a much greater threat because they already had a number of Islamic bombs, religious power factions sympathetic to Bin Ladin (he may even be in some part of Pakistan today) and not the greatest political stability. One toppled Govt. away from "Here cousin, I have a present for the infidels."
And yet, as soon as Afghanistan calmed down target #1 was Iraq. Actually, people like Richard Clark show that it was target #1 on 9/12, where Wolfie was busting his bellybutton to avoid any suggestion of some al Queda group -- it was Saddam all the way.
And didn't that strike you a bit odd, that rapid shift to Iraq. I mean, an Islamic fundamentalist terrorist kills 3000+ Americans, topples landmark buildings in our financial capital, and yet suddenly Bin Ladin is an afterthought.
I don't know where bin Ladin is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02
"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, responding to a question about bin Ladin's whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)
Wow. Not even a year had passed and the man responsible for the worst attack on American soil in modern history is "unimportant." Yet, Iraq is suddenly very important. Perhaps, because Bush, an apparent fan of neoconservative concepts at some level obviously, decides their master plan will clean up the whole ****ing mess once and for all. Why deal with a pissant like Bin Ladin when you can put all those Middle East *******s in their place and be done with it. Hard to explain such a complex concept to the American people and get their support, but... not hard to put the fear of a mushroom could over NY into their heads. Not hard either for me to see this exact scenario playing out. Not hard for a lot of folk in Washington either. Openly discussed, if not heavily, before, during and after the war. Saw first hand Helen Thomas ask about it and pay the price. Watched Kristol describe the process on PBS with a simle on his face of great satisfaction at the time.
Personally, I as I have stated several times IMO WMD was on a laundry list of reasons why regime change in Iraq would not be such a bad thing. A sound and fully legal justification, and I believe it is still technically legally valid even with no WMD being found. I don't even believe that Bush lied about them being there, but I have no doubt it was more of the excuse than the driver. It just doesn't make all that much sense otherwise compared to the existing, much more direct threats in the region and elsewhere. If anything Saddam served as a brutal, yet effective buffer to these very elements while in power.
Charon
