So many of our citizens have heard so much about the war in Iraq that they have become even more apathetic than normal. How do you know which side to believe? After all this may be the single most redefined issue ever in the history of American politics. So I am going to explore the continuous redefining of all aspects of this “war on terror”. Today let’s look at the justification for the war.

The justification for the use of force against Iraq has changed so much so over time that even those who support the war aren’t sure which argument to use. In the beginning we were told that Saddam had WMD, that there was credible intelligence he was connected to Al Qaeda, and was an imminent threat to America. These sounded like great reasons to at least address the situation with Saddam but Bush went several steps further and invaded a sovereign nation without UN support.

On December 14, 2003 Saddam was captured and the administration now told us that our liberation of the Iraqi people was complete and weren’t we good democracy spreaders? WTF? But by and large the American public bought into this, after all Saddam was a pretty evil guy. For some that change in rhetoric was a little to hard to swallow and the anti-war movement picked up speed.

Soon it was shown that the original reasons for invasion were, well, lies. The administration then stated that Iraq was a pivotal point for the global war on terror as Islamic terrorists from surrounding nations were gathering there to attack our forces. We had to fight them in Iraq to keep them from following us home. (Apparently the terrorists are really bad with directions.)

It was true that there were some foreign fighters coming to Iraq to attack American soldiers but the overwhelming bulk of the insurgency were pissed off Iraqis who didn’t like an American occupation. When faced with this truth Bush again began touting the Al Qaeda connection in Iraq, a connection that had never been substantiated and remains largely guess work today.

He began talking almost obsessively about a group called “Al Qaeda in Iraq.” Now, in America that sounds like a local Iraqi chapter of the supposed 9/11 masterminds. In truth that is probably not even close to what the group actually is.

The group’s real name is Tanzim Qaidat Al Jihad fi Bilad Al Rafidin: Organization of Qaidat Al Jihad in the Land of Two Rivers. It is important to know that the word “al qaeda” means base so really this is a different group with no proven connections to the other Al Qaeda we hear so much about. They had a horribly long name and shortened it to basically “base of operations in Iraq.”

Not only do they most probably not have any real connection to Al Qaeda, they also account for only 5-10 % of the Sunni insurgency. The rest are again, angry Iraqis who don’t appreciate being occupied by arrogant American infidels. (( About.com: Al Qaeda in Iraq ))

None of these facts kept the Bushies from spouting off about the danger of Al Qaeda taking over Iraq and then forcing America to somehow submit to Islam. (I have never understood this argument but hear it all the time.) But faced with an angry left wing blogosphere, discontented Congresspeople, more people calling for truth in the media, and the nose dive of Bush’s approval ratings it was soon time for another reason to stay in Iraq, Iran.

I noticed that right after a press conference in which Bush cited Iran’s assistance with the insurgency (which coincidentally followed the adoption of the Kyl/Lieberman amendment) our media began reporting as fact Iran’s contributions of weaponry and manpower to the Sunni insurgency.

The truth of the matter is that once again there is no clear cut connection between Iran and the “terrorism” in Iraq. However, since Iran is now designated a state sponsor of terror, it lends new credence to the lie that Iraq is a hot spot for international terrorism.

Scott Ritter, an UN weapons inspector, is very vocal about the lies and deception regarding the case against Iran and you can find excerpts of an article he wrote outlining how Bush is once again using rhetoric and not facts to advance his own agenda here on MyDD.

I’ve laid out how the argument supporting the Iraq war has changed from preventing Saddam from being an imminent threat to America, to liberating the Iraqi people, to fighting foreign terrorists, to fighting Al Qaeda, to fighting Iranian terrorists and how each of these arguments are exaggerations or flat out lies.

This is just one aspect of the constantly changing rhetoric regarding the “war on terror”. Tomorrow we will discuss the many faces of “success” in Iraq. Stay tuned and feel free to comment.

Possibly Related posts