BY DAN
KENNEDY
Serving the reality-based community since 2002.
Notes and observations on
the press, politics, culture, technology, and more. To sign up for
e-mail delivery, click
here. To send
an e-mail to Dan Kennedy, click
here.
For bio, published work, and links to other blogs, visit
www.dankennedy.net.
Thursday, November 06, 2003
"At least they could have talked
to them." As Bob Somerby might say, I have no idea how
serious Iraq's last-minute attempt to avoid war really was. Nor do I
have any idea how US officials were supposed to differentiate this
one from the dozens of other back-channel communications they claim
they were receiving.
But the account
of this approach, by James Risen in today's New York Times, is
depressing nevertheless. Because the one thing we do know is
that Saddam's go-betweens were telling the truth when they claimed
Iraq no longer had weapons of mass destruction.
Read these two paragraphs and weep.
Hassan al-Obeidi was a top Iraqi intelligence official, and Imad Hage
was a Lebanese-American businessman who met with him, and who tried
to persuade the Americans to take the initiative
seriously.
Mr. Obeidi told Mr. Hage
that Iraq would make deals to avoid war, including helping in the
Mideast peace process. "He said, if this is about oil, we will
talk about U.S. oil concessions," Mr. Hage recalled. "If it is
about the peace process, then we can talk. If this is about
weapons of mass destruction, let the Americans send over their
people. There are no weapons of mass destruction."
Mr. Obeidi said the "Americans
could send 2,000 F.B.I. agents to look wherever they wanted," Mr.
Hage recalled.
But no. All of this had to be
ignored, because the White House had already decided that the
invasion would take place.
Not to denigrate what has been
accomplished. Though Saddam's WMD capability -- pumped up by
Bush-administration lies -- has been disproven, can we all agree that
we've learned the savagery of Saddam's government was even worse than
we knew?
Still, we're in a mess, and we
don't know how to get out of it. As if to emphasize the poignancy of
the lost opportunity Risen describes, three more pieces in today's
Times report that 43,000 reserves and National Guard troops
are to be called
up; that a soldier has been
accused of cowardice
-- not good if true, but you can't help but feel sympathetic for the
guy; and on GIs wounded
in last weekend's helicopter attack.
War is horrible even when
necessary. It is an unspeakable crime when it can be
avoided.
Cash and carry. Howard Dean
is probably doing what's necessary if he walks away from the broken
public-financing system. If he doesn't, and if he then wins the
nomination, he's going to get creamed by George W. Bush.
That's why even pro-reform groups
such as Common Cause appear ready to give Dean a pass, as Dan Balz
and Thomas Edsall report
in today's Washington Post.
Still, this is treacherous
territory for Dean. How do you make the case that you're a different
kind of Democrat, and then turn around and raise money like Bill
Clinton? (Clinton, who did abide by public financing, raised
zillions in soft money through a loophole that was closed by
McCain-Feingold.)
An editorial
in today's Albany Times-Union is indicative of what Dean can
look forward to:
Going for broke also would
further expose one of Mr. Dean's glaring weaknesses. It would be
perhaps his most serious contradiction of a prior position yet.
For Mr. Dean, the self-proclaimed advocate of campaign finance
reform, running for president as a big money candidate would
amount to hypocrisy.
For Democrats, the most appealing
aspect of Dean's candidacy is that he appears to be willing to do
whatever it takes to win. But he can't afford to look like a
hypocrite.
New in this week's
Phoenix. Meet Dr.
Bill Siroty: physician,
Dean supporter, and New Hampshire indispensable media
activist.
posted at 10:28 AM |
|
link
MEDIA LOG ARCHIVES
Dan Kennedy is senior writer and media critic for the Boston Phoenix.
