Bush's War (10/12/2004)

President Bush, running for re-election, says he is best qualified to be commander-in-chief. But his record clearly says otherwise.

Bush chose to go to war in Iraq, using flimsy information to claim Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Last month, the New York Times reported that Porter Goss, former Republican congressman and recently confirmed head of the CIA, : 'said some pre-war statements by senior Bush administration officials might well have overstated available intelligence about the threat posed by Iraq" and "he agreed statements by Vice President Dick Cheney and Condoleezza Rice that linked Iraq to the September 11 attacks, to Al Qaeda, and to an active nuclear weapons program appeared to have gone beyond what was spelled out in intelligence reports at the time." Despite the fact that no-fly zones and United Nations inspections were containing Saddam Hussein, Bush rushed into war even though our military lacked body protection, armored vehicles and the number of troops needed.

When no weapons of mass destruction were found, Bush began to spin various justifications for the war. Saddam, Bush said, was a terrible dictator (true, but the world has many terrible dictators; are we going to invade all of their countries or only those that have oil?); the Iraqis, he said, wanted to be liberated (so why are they are killing our soldiers and calling us occupiers); he said we must establish democracy in the middle east (despite his pledge in 2000 to not be a nation builder). In fact, Devon Largio, a recent University of Illinois graduate, documented in her thesis that Bush has offered 23 different rationales for going to war in Iraq. Flip-flopping seems too mild a term to describe his excuses.

The war is going very badly. The National Intelligence Estimate, prepared for Bush in July but just recently revealed by the New York Times, outlines three possibilities for Iraq-with the worst case being a civil war and the best being an Iraq with tenuous political, economic and security stability. Two months before the war began, that same intelligence unit warned Bush about the costly consequences of an American-led invasion, predicting increased support for political Islam and an Iraqi society deeply divided and in violent internal conflict. Serious doubts are now emerging in Bush's own party. Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, said "No, I don't think we're winning; we're in deep trouble in Iraq." Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana, in discussing how poorly the appropriation for Iraqi reconstruction had been spent, said, "Well, this is the incompetence in the administration." Senator John McCain has said that American troops will have to be in Iraq at least another five years and has criticized the administration's lethal planning failures. (Remember Bush's response to the insurgency was "bring 'em on.)

Over 1000 Americans have been killed, over 9000 seriously wounded; over 12000 Iraqis have been killed; the financial cost is rising as hatred toward America grows and terrorism rages. Columnist Bob Herbert sums it up: "No one is sure who or where the enemy is, or even what the U.S. mission is. And it is in that horrendous, senseless environment that American troops are getting shot to death or blown up or horribly maimed every single day."Additional troops are needed; but 38 percent of the former solders being reactivated for duty in Iraq or elsewhere have not reported on time, prompting the military to threaten punishment for desertion. Many congress people expect that a draft will be instituted after the November election.

Bellicose Bush has shown catastrophic judgment in analyzing pre-war intelligence, rushing into war without adequate preparation, ignoring Iraqi political and cultural environments, and, worse, glossing over the terrible toll on our brave troops. While Bush supporters may chant "don't change horses in midstream," we should realize this horse is lame and we had better change horses or drown.

- Judith Kohler

Commentaries Home