This article in the NYTimes is a must read. While it is apparent that the journalists writing the article are probably not big fans of the Bush administration, their thorough work presents us with an important question. Were the policy makers in the Bush Administration (notably Powell, Rice, and Cheney) negligent in mishandling intelligence about Iraq’s nuclear program? In answering that question we need to first answer several other questions.
First, to what extent is it okay for someone to continue on a course of action that they have their heart set on, when they find out their decision to act is based on information that is not credible. For instance, I really want to go to Greyfriar’s Coffee because I think that there is a girl there that I really want to “hang-out” with. The person that originally gave me the tip about the girl’s whereabouts comes to me later, after I have told my friends why I’m planning a trip to Greyfriars, and says that they’re not so sure that the girl is actually there. Now here comes the tricky part, I actually like Greyfriars Mocha Frozen Yogurt, but I’m a little ashamed to admit it. I still really want to go to Greyfriars even though there isn’t good reason to think that the girl is there because I want that Yogurt! Am I acting genuinely when I continue to tell people that I’m going to Greyfriars to scope this chick?
Second, is it likely that the Bush administration had multiple policy motives for going into Iraq beyond the pretexts of nuclear and terrorist threats? The following statement from Vice President Cheney is very important. It was delivered on the 26th of August to a meeting of the Veterans of Foreign Wars,
"We now know Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons," he declared, words that quickly made headlines worldwide. "Many of us are convinced that Saddam will acquire nuclear weapons fairly soon. Just how soon, we cannot really gauge. Intelligence is an uncertain business, even in the best of circumstances."
"Armed with an arsenal of these weapons of terror, and seated atop 10 percent of the world's oil reserves, Saddam Hussein could then be expected to seek domination of the entire Middle East, take control of a great portion of the world's energy supplies, directly threaten America's friends throughout the region, and subject the United States or any other nation to nuclear blackmail."
This quote from Cheney is highly instructive. What we see here is a different kind of fear of nuclear power. Repeatedly the Bush Administration used language to justify pre-emptive war with language like, “This time the smoking gun could be a mushroom cloud.” The fear expressed in this statement is fear of nuclear terrorism. The fear described in Cheney’s statement is not fear of nuclear terrorism. This is not the fear of Saddam Hussein nuclear terrorist. It’s the fear of Saddam Hussein resurgent regional power. Power, that would be anchored in the possession of nuclear weapons, weapons that could then be used to bully the west both through regional politics and the economics of oil production.
In this scenario is it still possible that even without nuclear capability it still could be a good idea to oust Saddam, to help ensure once and for all that US allies maintained their dominance in the region, and to help control the flow of oil to the west? It still would. Now the question is this. Given their apparent foreknowledge that all their previously cited evidence of terrorist connections between Iraq and Islamists and intent to pursue a nuclear program was extremely controversial at best, how confident can we be that the Administration was in fact acting in good faith. In my mind the answer to this question has to determine your vote in the coming election.
If you think that the administration was genuine with the American public in the way that they sold the war, that they wanted war for the reasons that they were selling over and over again, then at worst the Bush Administration made an honest mistake, and one could still think them worthy of your vote provided you think they’re competent. However, if you think the evidence in the Times article indicates that Bush Administration used the justification of nuclear threats and terrorist connections as a pretext for other reasons. Reasons that they didn’t think they could sell the American people on, then I would say that you have to vote for against Bush in this election for the following.
If I think that the Bush administration was not acting genuinely because of public information that I have read, Bush then knows that I know. So, to still vote for the Bush Administration would be to tacitly approve of his behavior. A vote for Bush would then become a vote for blatant dishonesty, almost akin to voting for a Tammany candidate.
I’m not completely decided about this thing. I’m hoping that more information will come to light before I have to make a decision. However, I am sure that my highest responsibility here is to hold the Bush Administration accountable more than the Kerry/Edwards campaign. Even if Kerry has flip-flopped a lot over the past 2 years, he’s not already in office as our president. If Kerry were to be elected we will have a chance for a referendum on his behavior in 4 years, the referendum on the Bush Administration is right now.