BCT Editorial – 3/18/09

This page was last updated on March 18, 2009.

The dark side; Editorial; Beaver County Times; March 18, 2009.

The editorial subtitle is “Cheney interview shows how his world view distorted U.S. policy.”

Keep in mind we have a newspaper that wants to be taken seriously yet entitles the editorial on the idea Mr. Cheney = Darth Vader. How sad, yet predictable.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Americans had better hope that former Vice President Dick Cheney doesn’t write the history for the Bush years. He can’t differentiate between fact and fantasy.”

[RWC] Those who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw rocks.

“In an interview on CCN [sic] Sunday, Cheney said there ‘is no prospect’ that Iraq will return to producing weapons of mass destruction or supporting terrorists.”

[RWC] I assume the editorial meant CNN, not “CCN.” For reference, here is a link to the interview transcript. When the editorial uses quote snippets of Mr. Cheney, I suggest you refer to the transcript for the full quote and context.

“Sure, Saddam Hussein at one time had weapons of mass destruction, but not when the United States invaded Iraq in March 2003. Given the constraints he was under, there was little likelihood that Saddam would resume making them, let alone being an imminent threat to use them.”

[RWC] Not long before the war the inspectors found prohibited weapons in the form of hidden missiles whose range violated various U.N. resolutions. Further, Hans Blix reported Iraq’s WMD reports were fraudulent and incomplete. There is no way anyone could credibly claim there were no WMD when the UN acknowledged the Iraqi reports were fraudulent and incomplete and Iraq’s inspection cooperation was long on process but short on substance. To this date, there remains a discrepancy between the WMD that was inventoried after the Gulf War in 1991 and the WMD confirmed destroyed. In March 2003, the UN reported 10,000 liters of Iraqi anthrax were unaccounted for. Given Saddam Hussein’s record, would it have been prudent to believe WMD inventory discrepancies were simply accounting errors?

“The supporting-terrorist charge is even less credible. Saddam did not support Islamist terrorists. If anything, they were a threat to his dictatorship. The Bush administration tried to trump up some connections, but they were extremely tenuous, and that’s being generous.”

[RWC] “Saddam did not support Islamist terrorists?” For those whose memory is failing and/or whose information filter is getting in the way, let’s recap Iraq’s history regarding terrorism.

· Saddam Hussein paid $25,000 rewards to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.

· Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was in Iraq before the 2003 invasion. Because of wounds, he hid there after he fled Afghanistan in 2002. As a reminder, Zarqawi was the leader of al-Qaida in Iraq until we killed him during June 2006.

· The convicted chief conspirator of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, Ramzi Yousef, reached the United States with an Iraqi passport. Yousef was also the mastermind behind the failed 1994 Bojinka Plot intended to blow up multiple planes over the Pacific Ocean en route to the U.S.

· The bomb maker for the 1993 WTC bombing – Abdul Rahman Yasin (an American citizen) – ended up in Iraq after the bombing.

· The mastermind of the 1985 Achille Lauro hijacking, during which the terrorists killed a wheelchair-bound American (Leon Klinghoffer), lived in Baghdad since 1994 and was captured there in April 2003 by U.S. Special Forces.

· During the 2003 Iraq invasion, our troops found at least two terrorist training camps, including one with an airplane fuselage to practice hijackings.

“Likewise Cheney’s statement that the United States has ‘succeeded in creating in the heart of the Middle East a democratically governed Iraq,’ which is what the Bush administration set out to do.

“He’s dreaming.

“The surge succeeded as a tactic. It stabilized Iraq. Whether it is successful as strategy — creating a democratic Iraq — remains to be seen.”

[RWC] You should recall the Times opposed the surge and claimed it would not work. You can find links to those editorials in my critique of “Troop support.” Therefore, the Times has a vested interest in downplaying the surge’s success. Indeed, when early reports indicated the surge was working, the Times accused Gen. Petraeus of “playing a numbers game” and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker of “spin[ning] the military surge.” This editorial’s grudging admission “The surge succeeded as a tactic” I believe is a first for the Times. While President Bush was still in office, the Times refused to give the surge strategy credit for the drastic improvements we’ve seen in Iraq. You’ll recall the Times gave credit for progress in Iraq to the “Sunni awakening,” Iran, and Muqtada al-Sadr, not our troops.

“Iraq is still light years from becoming a democracy, if it ever does. If Iraq were so stable, the United States wouldn’t be keeping 35,000 to 50,000 troops there through 2011 — and don’t be surprised if American forces don’t stay beyond that date.”

[RWC] “Iraq is still light years from becoming a democracy?” Iraq has been running free elections for a few years and is governed by elected representatives. What is the Times definition of democracy?

As a reminder, we still have about 170,000 troops on active duty in Europe, Japan, and South Korea. When will these countries become stable enough for us to remove our troops?

“Cheney also said the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq had led to the defeat of al-Qaida in Iraq, ignoring the reality that al-Qaida in Iraq did not exist until the United States ousted Saddam.”

[RWC] “Al-Qaida in Iraq did not exist until the United States ousted Saddam?” Even if we ignore all the evidence to the contrary, does the Times expect us to believe al-Qaida was in every country in the world – including the U.S. – except Iraq?

“Not content with deceiving the American people, Cheney tried his hand at terrifying them. He said decisions the Obama administration have made ‘in fact, raise the risk to the American people of another attack.’”

[RWC] Let’s go to the transcript for the full comment and context.

CNN’s John King: “I’d like to just simply ask you, yes or no, by taking those steps, do you believe the president of the United States has made Americans less safe?

“CHENEY: I do. I think those programs were absolutely essential to the success we enjoyed of being able to collect the intelligence that let us defeat all further attempts to launch attacks against the United States since 9/11. I think that's a great success story. It was done legally. It was done in accordance with our constitutional practices and principles.

“President Obama campaigned against it all across the country. And now he is making some choices that, in my mind, will, in fact, raise the risk to the American people of another attack.”

“In fact, a terrorist attack can happen at any time and at any place, no matter who is in the White House and what policies they enact.

“If nothing else, the interview showed how Cheney’s world view got the United States into the mess in Iraq. If he does write a memoir, it should be filed under ‘fiction.’”

[RWC] If anyone should know about fiction, it’s the editorial author.