1 Boring Old Man » whatever our reason

about
search

Posted on Monday 25 January 2010

The Invasion of Iraq 2003:

Reading over the British Press’ coverage of their very public Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq War last night, I felt increasingly uncomfortable. What was I feeling? Embarrassment comes closest. They are calling everyone involved to answer all the questions — no secrets, no hiding behind national security, no claims of Executive Privilege. There are no deals being cut about testifying in private, or testifying not under oath. The last Prime Minister, Tony Blair, testifies this coming Friday. The current Prime Minister will testify soon. There are limited seats for spectators at the hearings, but they’ve made room for the relatives of their fallen soldiers. Why aren’t we doing the same thing?

I know it’s easier for them. Their sin was to go along with our government. Obviously, they were skeptical about invading Iraq at first, but came around. Tony Blair went to the Bush Ranch in Texas and he drank the Kool-Aid. They have already established that their Invasion of Iraq was illegal, and that Tony Blair knew at the time that it was illegal. Such a hearing would be harder for us because it was our idea from the start. We weren’t being a good friend to an ally who had sustained a devastating attack. We were using that attack to justify invading another country with the specific goal of unseating the government — regime change. The British are looking into how it all happened. Why aren’t we doing the same thing?

During the Clinton years, we had endless inquiries into Whitewater, some development the Clintons were involved in in Arkansas before he was President. We had endless hearings about Clinton’s sexual life leading to his impeachment. But we’re not looking into the Iraq War. The original 911 Commission’s inquiry was obviously flawed by lack of information. The part that looked into the Administration’s part of things was delayed for years, and never played out on the public stage. The Chilcot Inquiry is thorough and open for all to see. Why aren’t we doing the same thing?

It seems to me that there’s a simple answer to this question. The British have maintained the integrity of government, independent from the political parties. We haven’t. There’s no reason in the world for us to avoid an American Chilcot-esque Inquiry aside from partisan politics. Perhaps Obama is afraid of being seen as partisan, or is afraid of Fox News, or afraid of being bullied by Cheney some more. Maybe the Democrats are afraid of bringing too much scrutiny to their support of the war. Maybe everyone is afraid to admit the truth to the parents of the 4000 soldiers who have lost their lives. Could it be that we believe the Cheney mantra that we can’t show weakness? But for whatever reason we avoid a public accounting of this war.

Gulf of Tonkin 1964:

Long ago and far away, nine months after President Kennedy was assassinated, our Navy was involved in surveillance off the coast of North Viet Nam. On August 2, 1964 our Navy engaged several North Vietnamese patrol boats. Two nights later, on a similar patrol, another engagement was reported. This second engagement was known as the Gulf of Tonkin Incident. It lead to the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, authorizing LBJ to escalate our involvement in Viet Nam. 58,000 Americans ultimately died in the War that followed, a war we lost, a war we should have never fought. The Gulf of Tonkin Incident that justified the Viet Nam war never happened.

In 2005, an internal National Security Agency historical study was declassified; it concluded that USS Maddox had engaged the North Vietnamese on August 2, but that there may not have been any North Vietnamese vessels present during the engagement of August 4. The report stated

[I]t is not simply that there is a different story as to what happened; it is that no attack happened that night. […] In truth, Hanoi’s navy was engaged in nothing that night but the salvage of two of the boats damaged on August 2.

Before his assassination, Kennedy had become disenchanted with the South Vietnamese government and had begun to withdraw our support. Johnson, however, was into the Cold War mentality and was out to stop the spread of Communism. He was looking for a reason to escalate the Viet Nam war and jumped on the Gulf of Tonkin Incident. Did he know it was not true, at least in the way it was portrayed to Congress. Probably. The truth was told quietly some 40 years later – a truth most Americans don’t know to this day. We never had an American Chilcot-esque Inquiry about the Gulf of Tonkin Incident.

So we are going to do it again? Our leaders lied to start the war, and we’re just going to let it pass? Whatever our reason for glossing things over, it’s wrong. It just sets things up for us to do it again…

Ralph Roughton

January 25, 2010 | 3:26 PM

I’m with you in outrage and embarrassment. I am dismayed at the dysfunctionality pof our politically-poisoned governmental systems that hide the truth because it is inconvenient and embarrassing, if not out criminal.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.