Sponsors

Republicans Say, "Blame the Arabs" Email Print

The extreme right-wing, desperate to rehabilitate the image of its miserable failure of a president and repair the damage done to his popularity by his unpopular war on Iraq, has concocted a story with which to absolve him.

The latest bit of right-wing nuttery wending its way through the blogosphere is that Bush is not actually responsible for the illegal invasion of Iraq; it is the Arab League, which nixed an eleventh-hour deal that would have allowed Saddam Hussein to voluntarily enter exile, that is to blame. Ed Morrisey, of the Far Right "Captain's Quarters," cites a story from the Rupert Murdoch-owned, Australia-based "News.com" and then offers this bit of fluff:

Does the Arab League bear ultimate responsibility for the war, and did the US almost finesse Saddam out of Baghdad? We may never know for sure, but if this report is accurate, it would show that the Bush administration was willing to accept a solution short of war that removed Saddam and his sons from Iraq.

In other words: Despite the Republican Party's ongoing (and occasionally accusatory) lamentation that Americans don't take responsibility for their actions (choosing to "play the victim" instead), poor George did nothing wrong and is simply a victim of circumstance. We should pity the man for having been painted into a corner by the Arab League, which was eager to push the United States into a war.

If you believe that, I've got some ocean-front property in Arizona that you can have for a song, and a bridge in Brooklyn I'm willing to part with at a fire sale price.

In order to buy such nonsense, you have to completely disregard the Downing Street Memos, which detail efforts by the White House and the British government to goad Iraq into a war by launching a series of air strikes against the country that violated international law (see "The War Before The War," "British bombing raids were illegal, says Foreign Office," and "General admits to secret air war" ). The Downing Street documents have yet to be disavowed by either the U.S. or U.K. government.

One government does not attempt to incite another government to attack it without being fully committed to fielding troops to a war; it simply doesn't wash that Bush would bomb the tar out of Iraq for ten months and expect Hussein to step down without a fight.

And it was important that Bush be able to declare war, instead of continuing his covert air strikes -- raids that the so-called liberal media chose to overlook and failed to report every day for ten months -- until Hussein cried "Uncle!"

A full-blown war waged by America served the interests of neocons far more than the possibility of Hussein accepting exile. The invasion of Iraq, planned days after the 2000 inauguration (according to former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill) allowed the White House and Congressional Republicans to engage in one of their favorite practices: Inflating the deficit, then using the red ink to justify cuts in domestic spending for the poor and middle class.

Further, after causing economic havoc, the Oval Office was able to let slip the dogs of corporate welfare, funneling billions in the form of no-bid, Iraq-related rebuilding contracts to companies owned by major GOP campaign contributors. Those contributors then "recycled" some of that money back into the GOP's coffers, a unique form of money laundering that puts Tom DeLay's machinations to shame.

Trying to blame the Arab League simply doesn't wash; Bush had little to lose but everything to gain from a war. Of course, trivial things like facts and logic have never carried much weight when right-wingers are manufacturing conspiracies.


KEYWORDS: , ,

Sign up for a Complimentary Member Account... Join the community! It's fast. And it'll allow you to take advantage of all this site's great features!

< WSJ: We Like The Grape-Flavored Kool-Aid | Get lost in the Vortex, Welcome to Cortex >
 Display:
Tongue in cheek, and everybody knew it.  They must be scraping the bottom of the barrel for excuses.

Politics is too important to be left to politicians.

by Shockwave on 10/31/2005 11:03:45 AM EST

...it would have been the Neo Imperialists' worst nightmare. But they knew all along that he wouldn't, so they weren't worried when they made their little "offer" to the Arab League.

by Meteor Blades on 10/31/2005 02:04:48 PM EST

ran this story a couple days ago on its Arabic language newscast, and it has been in some of the  English-language newspapers here in the Gulf as well, so the News.com story should not be dismissed out of hand.

After reading the story yesterday, I asked an Egyptian colleague about it, and he said there had long been rumors to that effect, though no one could cite a definite source.  While discussing the reasons why Arab league heads of state would have refused to support the idea of exile for Saddam, he said he thought they were out for revenge against him. Everybody was terrified of the guy, after all.    Maybe it's true, maybe it isn't, but it's certainly more than a little plausible.

Does anyone ever get the government they deserve?

by GulfExpat on 10/31/2005 02:38:44 PM EST

 Display: