The Iraq War generation is dying off. I refer not to rank and file (truth be told, far too many already have perished), but to the old men who planned and executed the greatest foreign policy catastrophe of the 21st century.
After Iraq War booster Dick Cheney breathes his last, will the media continue to sandblast the truth about the selective national security intelligence gathering that justified butchering Iraq? Will journalists again refer to “faulty intelligence” giving the former vice president a pass?
In an alternate universe, Colin Powell would have died a lionized figure. He would have stood tall on the shoulders of moral giants, for having resigned his post as Secretary of State in 2003.
Instead, in real life, he delivered a speech to the United Nations on Feb. 5, 2003, repeating the fabricated framework of national security intelligence publicized by the George W. Bush administration; lies plied to justify the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Repeat a lie often enough, the fascist maxim goes, people will come to believe it.
A recent look through Google’s news search engine for the phrase “faulty intelligence” turns up two pages of Colin Powell headlines. If journalists repeat the lie often enough it endures metamorphosis into euphemism like “faulty intelligence”.
The late statesman came to regret his role in rubber stamping the war on Iraq.
When former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld died earlier this past summer, no cross reference search with “faulty intelligence” produced anywhere near as many headline results.
Of course, Donald Rumsfeld expressed no regret, much less remorse, for his part in opening the gates of international calamity.
In his memoirs, published in 2012, Rumsfeld provides readers his forged receipts — a response to Powell’s publicly stated remorse.
“Powell was not duped or misled by anybody, nor did he lie about Saddam’s suspected WMD stockpiles. The President did not lie. The Vice President did not lie. Tenet did not lie. Rice did not lie. I did not lie. The Congress did not lie. The far less dramatic truth is that we were wrong.”
Just a word of caution: when Rumsfeld says “we were wrong” he’s by no means referring to ethics or moral absolutes. Rumsfeld limits the scope of “wrong” only to the epistemological (misinformed).
I am reminded of a maxim coined by the George Costanza School of Mendacity: “It’s not a lie, if you believe it.”
Rumsfeld imagined that just because the information existed — what knowledge collected by U.S. national security agencies about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction capability — that no such deception occurred. “Cherry picked” became a way critics described how the Bush administration framed its decision to attack Iraq.
Explaining to Richard Clarke, the Bush administration counter-terrorism czar just a day or two after September 11, 2001 why the U.S. had to attack Iraq, Donald Rumsfeld said, “[T]here aren’t any good targets in Afghanistan and there are lots of good targets in Iraq.”
Imagine Secretary Colin Powell offering the United Nations that very same rationale for invading Iraq. The U.N. Security Council needed a face-saving excuse for giving the United States an “Invade & Occupy” pass.
Justifying military action as a live-ammo war games exhibition wouldn’t cut it (who knows, perhaps it would have). Keeping up appearances is a must in the modern age of war waging and -profiteering.
Rumsfeld, Cheney and company knew the truth just after nine eleven. Powell, Clarke and various national security organizations were present to inform them.
As is well known, both Rumsfeld and Cheney had signed on to the mission statement of a war-profiteering “think” tank called Project for a New American Century in 1998. The initiative had already singled out Iraq for invasion and an infrastructural face lift.
Had Rumsfeld and Cheney been tried for war crimes, proving intent would have been so pedestrian, even a first-year law student could have persuaded a panel of trial-hardened jurists.
It’s really not premature to have this conversation. Dick Cheney’s heart is second hand and who knows how much longer it can endure cold, sadistic blood?
It would be of interest, I believe, to the American public to understand why “faulty intelligence” enjoys the consensus of the Fourth Estate. The phrase practically has the endorsement of the Chicago Manuel of Style.
What advantage does it offer journalists or media organizations to patch over a real, ultra consequential history like Iraq War 2.0? Whose interests are they serving by equivocating about the intentions that paved the way to Iraq’s demolition?
—
Previously Published on medium
—
David Drexler on Flickr under CC License
