Friday, November 11, 2005
So why did congress approve war powers for Iraq?
I have told many people that I knew in October of 2002 that there were no WMDs in Iraq. The inevitable question is then raised "So why did congress approve war powers for Iraq?"
The answer is actually rather simple.
As I wrote back in September in the article "Concerning Politians", something that everyone should remember about politicians is that they only hear what their aides tell them.
Here is a link to what I knew in October 2002: Just Think - News Archive October 2002
After perusing that it is quite obvious that the CIA did not agree with the White House, so... So why did congress approve war powers for Iraq?
Well, for several reasons.
First, that was not front page stuff, so unless you had a lot of time to read then you wouldn't ever see it (I had a lot of time to read at that time, I wish I did now).
Second, that is not what they were given from the CIA, this is: http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm
Third, the environment of the time was one of "if you aren't for invasion of Iraq then you support terrorism" (it still is with some people) so politicians were scared of being labeled "anti-american" or "pro-terrorism".
Unfortunately the report that they were given by the CIA was cooked up by four Rumsfeld appointees as evidenced by this article.
So, congress trusted the general atmosphere of the country, the statements of the White House, and the false report that they were given (I call it false because it did not contain dissenting opinion at all) more than they trusted the few middle-of-the-paper articles that their aides were actually able to bring to their attention. There were many of these articles, but I know that the aides are busy too and didn't have nearly as much time as I did to locate them all and put all the pieces together.
In short, congress was misled.
The answer is actually rather simple.
As I wrote back in September in the article "Concerning Politians", something that everyone should remember about politicians is that they only hear what their aides tell them.
Here is a link to what I knew in October 2002: Just Think - News Archive October 2002
After perusing that it is quite obvious that the CIA did not agree with the White House, so... So why did congress approve war powers for Iraq?
Well, for several reasons.
First, that was not front page stuff, so unless you had a lot of time to read then you wouldn't ever see it (I had a lot of time to read at that time, I wish I did now).
Second, that is not what they were given from the CIA, this is: http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm
Third, the environment of the time was one of "if you aren't for invasion of Iraq then you support terrorism" (it still is with some people) so politicians were scared of being labeled "anti-american" or "pro-terrorism".
Unfortunately the report that they were given by the CIA was cooked up by four Rumsfeld appointees as evidenced by this article.
So, congress trusted the general atmosphere of the country, the statements of the White House, and the false report that they were given (I call it false because it did not contain dissenting opinion at all) more than they trusted the few middle-of-the-paper articles that their aides were actually able to bring to their attention. There were many of these articles, but I know that the aides are busy too and didn't have nearly as much time as I did to locate them all and put all the pieces together.
In short, congress was misled.
