In Chapter 4, Ricks recounts Dick Cheney’s stunning lies about what he knew to be true in Iraq.
“Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction…. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us,” Cheney said in a speech to the VFW on August 26, 2002.
At the time, it was a stunning statement; today, we know it was a bold and stunning lie. Cheney said that others had not seen the intelligence he had seen as a reason his conclusions are different from theirs. But no such “different” intelligence existed. And yet, he pushed for war with this lie. As Ricks quotes Cheney in the same speech: “Time is not on our side. The risks of inaction are far greater that the risks of action.”
But there is one question few are willing to ask and no one seems able to answer: Why?
Why was the Vice President lying to get us into a war? Why was he saying there was no doubt Iraq had WMD when he had, in fact, no evidence that there were WMD? Ricks claims that even the President was taken aback by his Vice President’s speech, illustrating that Cheney was the one tipping the politics and driving the nation to war. But why?
There are standard answers: Halliburton stood to gain; Cheney was still on Halliburton’s list of payees and probably owned stock; oil, oil, and oil—the three reasons for everything. These interests certainly align with a possible war, but could they really be the cause of such fervor for war? For invading a country that does not pose an imminent threat—one that was “contained”? For bold-faced lying to the American people to get us into that war? Somehow, these stock answers fail to persuade. I am left groping: Why would he do this?
Call to Liberty is starting an online bookclub. Our current title is Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq by Thomas E. Ricks. My comments will be posted as regular blog articles on which comments are welcome. To initiate your own topics, go to the discussion forum. Always put the word Fiasco in the title of the post to indicate it is about the book. Thanks!
