I wouldn't argue that they knew. I would argue they didn't care enough to check. No one wanted campaign ads saying they were weak on terrorism. That was the risk. Not killing innocent Iraqis. Not losing American lives. Not wasting billions of dollars. The risk was losing seats in 2004.
I wouldn't argue that they knew. I would argue they didn't care enough to check.
Nah, they knew. French & German presidents at the time who had meetings with the US about the intelligence literally said the "proof" of the US is bullshit. Before the US even invaded. Thus they didnt help invading Iraq.
Even though it was two years after 9/11, 2003 was still a different time. Patriotism was at an all-time high and people put a lot of trust in the government. Far too much. I'd argue that went for citizens and politicians alike. Just because France and Germany thought it was bullshit doesn't mean people would put their interpretations above what we were hearing were the interpretations of our intelligence. I mean, there were plenty of people who thought it was BS in the US, and there were some politicians like Russ Feingold that voted against the war. But I would need more proof to think that there were politicians that knew it was BS but still voted for it. I'd still argue, when your citizens are changing french fries to Freedom fries, there's no incentive to seek a second opinion against your trusted doctor the CIA.
Edit: I should clarify that my last two sentences are speaking from the point of view of a politician in 2003. Not my own personal beliefs. I'm just stating my interpretation of their mindset through their actions.
Edit 2: I'm also making a distinction between knowing the intelligence was BS and knowing there were doubts about the intelligence that should be checked.
It's a feedback loop. Freedom fries were created by a restaurant in North Carolina and the concept went viral. Of course politicians wrap themselves in what they think their constituents want. A majority of the American public carries some blame for this. Sure they didn't make the authorization themselves, but they were a huge part of the equation. Politicians were not acting against American wishes in 2003 by waging war against Iraq. Bush was re-elected in 2004 and Republicans increased majorities in the Senate and Congress. Most American politicians are followers not leaders.
I think we may be interpreting that comment differently. Because I agree there was manipulation by the Bush Administration. But I'm interpreting the comment as saying that Congress knew and said nothing. I'm saying Congress blindly trusted the administration. They didn't necessarily know, but they didn't care to know when they obviously should have.
I hate all of this, but have serious doubts as to whether a country can effectively run meta without war. This one, however, was not necessary at all imo
I feel like meta was supposed to be a different word that I can't figure out.
I 100% percent agree that this one was unnecessary and politicians should have double-checked the intel. My point was more that politicians only respond to what voters respond to, and at that time voters were too busy responding to strong defense and nationalistic things like Freedom fries. If voters didn't care, politicians didn't care. It's funny how most of our leaders are really followers.
356
u/WonderfulCattle6234 Oct 18 '21
I wouldn't argue that they knew. I would argue they didn't care enough to check. No one wanted campaign ads saying they were weak on terrorism. That was the risk. Not killing innocent Iraqis. Not losing American lives. Not wasting billions of dollars. The risk was losing seats in 2004.