Studies in Stupidity

Articles

Michael John McCrae

Studies in Stupidity
Jan 12, 2004

Ah. The front-page news: “Study says war was not justified” just begs refutation. Let us ignore the fact that everyone else, it seems, insists on calling the “battle” of Iraq, in the “War” against terror, the “War in or of Iraq”. Let us also ignore the fact that every article that says the “War in or of Iraq” was not justified, begins with the same lie; that the reason for the “War in or of Iraq” was because Iraq posed an “immediate threat” to the United States because President Bush said so.

Let us ask a question. Why does the “Carnegie Endowment for International Peace” have to be described as “a non-partisan research institution”? Let us ask why it only faults the Bush administration for acting on bad intelligence and not the prior administration for the same “systematic misrepresentations” of Iraq’s WMD capabilities? We know why Clinton would lie. He always lied. He still lies. President Bush acted on intelligence and 17 previously ignored United Nations unresolved resolutions, many of those enacted during the Clinton’s 8 years of do-nothing-and-maybe-it-will-go-away foreign policy posture. Non-partisan my fandango!

Having just entered the election year, the anti-Bush folks are going to pull out all the stops. There will be studies left and studies right showing how Republicans are starving babies and old people and keeping kids who can’t pass achievement tests from graduation. Every bad piece of news possible will be first looked at as: “What did the President know, and why did he not do something about this before it happened?” (i.e. Mad Cow, blackout, earthquake in Iran, me stubbing my toe, etc.)

How do I know? The article about this “study” calls it “the first [key: First], comprehensive [key: Comprehensive] review of everything [key: Everything] we knew or thought [key: Thought] we knew about Iraq and its [WMD’s]. In other words there will be a “second” unto the “umpteenth” review until the current administration rolls over in abject frustration in trying to explain itself through the media hype. Look at the following quote from Joseph Cirincione, author of the study.

“What has become clear from the study is that this war wasn’t necessary. We were accomplishing what the President had hoped to accomplish during the war. We had shut down these [WMD] programs” These statements speak miles of stupidity.

This “study” is quoted in the article: There “was no convincing evidence of [Iraq’s nuclear program] reconstitution”. I would ask just whose level of conviction needed to be satisfied here? The “study” is cited as saying: UN inspectors discovered as early as 1991 that Iraqi nerve agents had lost “most of their lethality”. I would ask, does that mean that “some” lethality did still linger in Iraq? Then the “study” is quoted: “The real threat [from Iraq] lay in what could be achieved in the future rather than in what had been produced in the past or existed in the present.” Then I would ask, isn’t that what the doctrine of “pre-emption” is all about? Stopping threats BEFORE they become smoking canons? But no, the report “recommends that the administration drop the doctrine of “unilateral” [there’s that lie again] pre-emptive war from its national security strategy unless there’s a clear threat from a rogue nation.”

These Carnegie dudes are real gems. Here’s another group of “peace” people who have no clue. Iraq perhaps was not an “immediate” threat to America (and nobody ever said that anyway) although it is disputed in recently revealed memos discussing the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Yet Iraq under Hussein has always been an immediate threat to Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Syria, Israel, the Kurds and the Shihites of Iraq proper, and the 400,000 used-to-be-living-but-now-being-dug-out-of-mass-grave people. “Study says War was not Justified” Such idiocy is laughable.

I read somewhere the other day (sorry, don’t quite remember where) that we are currently fighting two and a half wars. (Iraq, War on Terror, Afghanistan) Who are these idiots that have lost the ability to make distinctions? This is all “one” war. “One” war is fought with “many” battles. War is a long affair. War does not conclude until the enemy of either side is totally slapped down in ignominious defeat. Carnegie would have that be the United States.

No way. We’re going to keep our pre-emptive options open and I hope Syria, Iran and Korea can see what Libya has seen. If you are against America you are apparently for terrorism and therefore an enemy to be dealt with. Non-partisan! Indeed!

------------

About the Author: Independent, Conservative, Christian. Married 29 years with 5 children raised and one grandson being raised. 30 year Army Veteran and published poet with www.poetry.com since Y2K. Email Michael John McCrae: michael.mccrae@us.army.mil

Comment on this column in the forum.

Tell a friend about this site!

------------