Perhaps you'll hear the argument that Iraq's WMD were a threat to this country, but once you mention that Iraq had no WMD, then the argument becomes Saddam Hussein's dictatorial regime and "gassing his own people." Fine, you might say: the United States should engage in humanitarian foreign policies and we should intervene in Darfur, Niger, Zimbabwe and dozens of other countries, but supporters of the war in Iraq don't really believe that, so then the argument will become Saddam's violation of United Nation Security Council Resolutions. Why should US servicemen fight and die to uphold the sanctity of a UNSC resolution, you may ask? Well, then the response might be something about 9/11 and fighting terrorism. And round and round it goes.
The point is that supporters of the war never stick to an argument and defend it. Before you engage the debate, they've shifted the cause of the war to something else. So they must win arguments by avoiding arguments. If you pay close attention, this is the tactic of people like David Limbaugh, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and of course George Bush.
However, I find it instructive to go back before the war in Iraq was underway to see what the supporters of the war said back then and see if it's similar to what they're saying now. Often, you'll notice that arguments change as circumstances change. This phenomenon is what I refer to as "Bush Cultism," the belief that Bush's partisan interests determine what is right and wrong, true and false, good and evil, patriotic and unpatriotic.
David Limbaugh has been an implacable defender of Bush's war in Iraq since the idea was first floated, so it's instructive to re-visit what he thought the original cause for war was and compare it to what he's saying now.
The first column I could find by Mr. David Limbaugh discussing Iraq was on August 3, 2002. The title of his column was "Invading Iraq is in our national interests." Let's look at a few quotes to see why he feels the United States must invade Iraq.
"With all due respect to the Iraqi people and with genuine concern for their interests, let's not fool ourselves. Our decision to invade Iraq will not and should not be driven primarily by their interests."
"When it comes to foreign policy, no nation -- including one as powerful as the United States -- can afford to interfere in the internal affairs of another nation every time it disapproves of the way it treats its citizens."
"We are justified in preemptively striking Iraq because Saddam is developing weapons of mass destruction and would use them against our allies and us."
"And we cannot be deterred from an invasion because it might produce 'chaos.'"
Mr Limbaugh's case isn't vague or ambiguous, but strikingly clear: Iraq is developing WMD so that it can provide these weapons to terrorists to attack the United States. He makes it patently obvious that this war isn't about bringing democracy to the people of Iraq, nation building, or trying to prop up a new government. Importantly, there is no suggestion that Iraq is the "central front in the War on Terror," and that we should keep troops in Iraq until we save it from the "chaos" that will inevitably ensue after Saddam's regime is overthrown.
This last point about the "chaos" that will erupt after we depose of Saddam's regime is particularly illuminating. It shows that Mr Limbaugh was fully aware that our invasion of Iraq could kick off an ethnic and religious firestorm and make it impossible for our troops to lay down any law and order. However, Mr Limbaugh was very clear: the ensuing "chaos" is not our concern, only the elimination of Iraq's WMD and the Hussein regime are the justifications for the war. But now it's all been re-packaged. The sectarian violence between the Sunnis and Shiites, and even the tribal rivalry among the Shiites is now presented as a continuation of the "War on Terror." In other words, we wreck Iraq; Iraq explodes into social disarray, and Mr Limbaugh simply sells this violence and "chaos" as part of the War on Terror.
After 9/11 no one thought that winning the war required making the Shiites and Sunnis like each other. No one thought that we had to capture Muktada al-Sadr or increase security in Baghdad and the al-Anbar province. These all became concerns after we invaded Iraq and proceeded to wreck the country. None of these objectives are in any way related to fighting terrorism or increasing American security.
Mr Limbaugh supports the war in Iraq. Bush wrecks Iraq. And then Mr Limbaugh now calls the "wreck" part of the War on Terror. What a scam.
Of course much has changed in the last few years, but Mr Limbaugh's fanatical devotion to George Bush hasn't even hit a bump.
Later, we'll look at Thomas Sowell, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and hopefully others. Such mendacity shouldn't be allowed.
No comments:
Post a Comment