Rumsfeld's blatant lies, Bush endorsed by terrorists
For months leading up to the invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration kept telling the public that Saddam needed to be ousted because he posed an _immediate_ or _imminent_ threat to the safety of the rest of the world because he possessed weapons of mass destruction. It has now become clear to the world that Iraq did not in fact possess WMDs (although a frighteningly large percentage of US citizens believe that we found them). The Bush administration has been trying to put spin on this, trying to cover it up, and have even gone so far as to try to recant some of their words.
Donald Rumsfeld got caught in his own lies the other day on video.
From the beginning, the Bush administration's stance on the "war on terrorism" (how the fuck do you fight a war against an idea?) has been questionable. I have long wondered whose idea it is to try to eliminate terrorism by military force. Militant terrorist groups like al-Qaeda and Ansar al-Islam aren't defined groups that can be extinguished by force. Their long-term goals are often not concrete, definable milestones like border issues or lifting of trade sanctions (although their short-term goals may be). Instead, they are fighting a war of ideas - disgust at western capitalism, liberal freedoms, equality between genders, or other ideas that we take for granted.
Cheney, in a speech given the other day, outlined what he believes is the strategy to use in the "war on terror." Here's a salient excerpt:
bq. Against this kind of determined, organized, ruthless enemy, America requires a new strategy--not merely to prosecute a series of crimes, but to fight and win a global campaign against the terror network. Our strategy has several key elements. We have strengthened our defenses here at home, organizing the government to protect the homeland. But a good defense is not enough. The terrorist enemy holds no territory, defends no population, is unconstrained by rules of warfare, and respects no law of morality. Such an enemy cannot be deterred, contained, appeased or negotiated with. It can only be destroyed--and that, ladies and gentlemen, is the business at hand.
We have seen already in Iraq that force hasn't solved anything. Sure, we deposed a ruthless, sadistic, and tyrannical man from power, and I'm sure that that has been a great blow in favor of human rights around the world. However, the effect on terrorism is questionable. The number of casualties certainly hasn't changed. Instead, we've now polarized the Islamic world even more, and anecdotally, recruiting for militant terrorist groups has increased.
It follows logically that if militant Islamic terrorism is a war of ideas, that that is where the war needs to be won. We should be educating Muslims, building schools and hospitals, and in general trying to convince them that the western style of life is better. It appears to have worked in at least a couple of cases. Even the terrorists recognize that this would be the correct method of fighting them:
bq. In comments addressed to Bush, the group said:
bq. "Kerry will kill our nation while it sleeps because he and the Democrats have the cunning to embellish blasphemy and present it to the Arab and Muslim nation as civilization."
bq. "Because of this we desire you (Bush) to be elected."
As a bonus, they've gone and endorsed Bush, so don't let the terrorists win! Vote for a Democrat in November!
Don't worry, i'm sure some "weapons" will be "found" in the next 7.5 months.