In Search of the Good Person, Well Spoken

 
He Gassed His Own People
(And Other Forms of Proof)

Stephen C. Pelletiere, writing in yesterday’s New York Times (yes, you must register) writes that the familiar and emotive charge that Saddam Hussein "gassed his own people" may be complicated by the actual facts of the case.

Pelletiere, who was a CIA senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, and a professor at the Army War College from 1988 to 2000, claims that the Kurdish people killed by gas at Halabja were not targeted by Saddam but were caught in a crossfire between the Iraqi and Iranian sides, and that it was likely the Iranian cyanide gas that killed them. (He also suggests that the struggle for Iraq is not about oil but about water, specifically the Iraqi river system of the Tigris, the Euphrates, and the Greater Zab and Lesser Zab. The Tigris and the Euphrates, Pelletiere writes, could someday the source of a "Peace Pipeline" that could eventually bring water to Israel. No blood for water?)

While the information on how the Kurdish villagers died is likely little consolation to their families, it does have implications for the U.S. rationale for war.

From the beginning, George Bush’s appeals for war have fallen heavily on the side of pathos rather than logos, have relied more on emotion than on logical and factual evidence.

The State of the Union address was the most recent example. We got horrific stories of torture and rape, but little in the way of verifiable proof. We were asked to imagine doomsday scenarios such as hijackers with chemical and nuclear weapons, but were given scant evidence that such people had gotten these weapons, or were getting these weapons, or, most relevant, were getting these weapons from Iraq. From a rhetorical perspective, the president’s argument depended not on objective proof but on scaring the shit out of people.

The other constant in Bush’s rhetoric of invasion has been the absolute evil of Saddam Hussein. (Let me say, as virtually everyone else has said when commenting on these questions, I too think Saddam is a monstrosity, and I would like to see him gone. The question is how best to do this). In making his case, Bush has frequently invoked the "evil" of Saddam and has repeatedly spoken of Saddam "gassing of his own people." The latter charge is meant to bring all fair-minded people to the conclusion that anyone who would perpetrate so grotesque an act deserves whatever he’s got coming to him, including a shower of cruise missiles. "Gassing his own people" has become for Bush what Richard Weaver called an Ultimate Term, or a kind of absolute that trumps all further discussion and argument. He "gassed his own people!" What else do you need to know? Let’s get the bastard!

Well, I guess we need to know if the bastard did, in fact, gas his own people. If he did, then we need to weigh that along with the other arguments for or against invading Iraq. And if he didn’t, then we also need to weigh that among the available evidence.

What we don’t need, however, is the president of the United States repeating a charge that may not, in fact, be true. So is it true? Did Saddam Hussein gas his own people? Stephen C. Pelletiere says no. I have no idea. But I sure would like more discussion of this.

posted at 9:49 AM

 
If You Want a Blue Streak. . .

Of good writing and thoughtful commentary, make Blue Streak a daily visit. We like the taste in music, videos, and books. Heck, we like it all.

posted at 9:39 AM

 
If You Want the Weekly Lowdown. . .

Go to The Weekly Lowdown. Sharp, funny, and challenging, although we disagree mightily with the favorable reviews of a few wacko right-wing pundits. But, hey, it's supposed to be a big tent, isn't it?

posted at 9:32 AM

 
Some of Us Really Have to Stay On Our Medication

Peggy Noonan, apparently watching the State of the Union while listening to Ride of the Valkyries and knocking back a few quarts of "Point O’Lite":

(Thanks to the inimitable Skimble.)

[...] In the first, domestic part of the [State of the Union] speech he was serious and contained, but in the second part of the speech, on Iraq, there was a shift. His voice seemed lower and there seemed a kind of full head-heart engagement in his grave but optimistic message. For a moment I though[t] of earnest Clark Kent moving, at the moment of maximum danger, to shed his suit, tear open his shirt and reveal the big "S" on his chest.

[...]

I felt at the end of the speech not roused but moved, and it took me a while to figure out why. It was gratitude.

[...]

A steady hand on the helm in high seas, a knowledge of where we must go and why, a resolve to achieve safe harbor. More and more this presidency is feeling like a gift.

*

It’s a gift, all right. Can we return it now?



posted at 10:44 AM

 
Cheering Cheney

I don’t want to be too critical of any outfit that gives Paul Krugman a regular microphone, but could the New York Times please not drool quite so much over the carpets when writing about Dick Cheney? How is it "reporting" when your sources are the usual gallery of toadies and lickspittles—Cheney’s underlings, in other words—who can be reliably counted upon to give breathless accounts of the Great Man’s deep cerebral powers and his awe-inspiring powers of, well, whatever. Who's next to be interviewed? His third grade teacher and date for the high school prom? Grill 'em!

Nonetheless, a few gems creep do through:

The vice president has largely disappeared from public view since his high-profile campaign appearances last fall. But he is hardly invisible to the president, the man Mr. Cheney's aides call his only constituent.

Indeed. The American people, the democracy, the greater good and all that need not apply. Will he someday claim he was just following orders?

On Capitol Hill, Mr. Cheney, a former Wyoming congressman, is the administration's chief schmoozer and enforcer, and often gives counsel on national security. Two months ago, Senators Pat Roberts, Republican of Kansas, and Bill Nelson, Democrat of Florida, sought Mr. Cheney's advice about traveling to Baghdad to meet with Mr. Hussein about the fate of Capt. Michael Scott Speicher, a Navy pilot shot down in the 1991 Persian Gulf war whose remains were never recovered.

"The vice president weighed in and said now was not the time to go," Mr. Roberts said. The senators wrote a letter to Mr. Hussein instead

Nice to know that a Democratic congressional rep raises his hand to get the VP's permission before going to the bathroom in Baghdad. Are you listening, Florida voters?

Friends note that Mr. Cheney, who dislikes the backslapping of the campaign trail, dislikes losing a lot more.

"One of the formative experiences of his life was being chief of staff during the Ford presidency when they lost the White House," said former Representative Vin Weber of Minnesota, now an influential lobbyist, who served with Mr. Cheney in the House. "If you've been through that experience, you don't want to go through it again."

I kind of think it would be good for him, don’t you?

Dick Cheney reminds me of theWizard of Oz, a man hiding himself from the public, pulling levers to retain his own power, and BS-ing anyone who has the temerity to question him—a group that apparently does not include reporters from the New York Times.

For a revealing look at the scam behind the curtain, check out Josh Marshall.

posted at 7:15 AM