It is fascinating how the Bush Administration is incapable of winning an argument these days. In fact, it appears they have given up even trying. Like the waning hours of the Titanic when the crew understood bailing out the water was hopeless, the Bushies have deemed any struggle to state their case is not worth the effort. Take, for instance, the latest report compiled by the Defense Department that used 600,000 documents captured from Saddam after he was deposed. The document suggests there was no link between the Iraqi dictator and Al-Qaeda. But in a recent article written by the right wing apologist, William Kristol, he points out the document does elude to possible connections. Kristol states those inside the administration are mum on the assertion there are no terror links because  the case is “too hard to try to set the record straight. Any reengagement on the case for war is a loser, (the administration) will say.”  Kristol goes on to write, “Furthermore, once the first wave of coverage is bad, you can never catch up: You give the misleading stories more life and your opponents further chances to beat you up in the media.” If you read the government document it highlights how Saddam Hussein (SH) supported terrorist organizations throughout his reign but clearly states and I quote, “

…But the relationships between Iraq and the groups advocating radical pan-Islamic doctrines are much more complex. This study found no “smoking gun” (i.e., direct connection) between Saddam’s Iraq and al Qaeda.”

We know the various nations within the Middle East support terrorist groups but the question is, is it a causus belli (cause for war)? The reality is the Bush Administration doesn’t have the credibility to fight this fight. The political capital that Bush boasted about after being re-elected was a chimera. As a result of Bush’s almost five years of inequities, the nation is left fighting the war’s origins, its progress and its future.

The reason why the war in Iraq is so contentious goes beyond the cost in human life and treasure; it is unpopular because most people know the reason for going to war was built on falsehoods. Those who look even deeper into the war know that Al-Qaeda in Iraq was not really affiliated with the Bin-Laden crowd but instead were mostly comprised of those in Iraq who had the most to lose with the passing of the Ba’athist regime. Those who are currently causing mayhem in Mesopotamia are almost exclusively Iraqis. In a recent article in the Washington Post entitled Iraq’s Jihad Myths, Reuel Marc Gerecht writes:

“But according to the CIA and the U.S. military, we are now seeing at most only dozens of Arab Sunni holy warriors entering the country each month. Even at the height of the insurgency in 2006-07, the figure might have been just a few hundred (and may have been much smaller).”

Now as the war moves into a new stage, a post-surge stage, Americans are confounded by not only the falsehoods that got us involved in the war but also the changing dimensions of what victory and defeat mean. As one Democratic candidate states he will begin withdrawal upon taking office, and the Republican candidate is willing to stay committed for a hundred years, the commanding general in Iraq has recently said the Iraqi government is failing to live up to their part of the bargain due to the divisions that have made the progress so difficult. John McCain seems to win the debate if we talk about the Iraq War in the present and Barack Obama seems to win if we talk about the Iraq War in the past but it is the future in Iraq that is so troublesome as has always been the case there. In each step along the way, that which appears to be the condition in Iraq has rarely been accurate and when something definitive occurs in Iraq it doesn’t stay defined for very long; it changes like the a sandy landscape. The more articles that appear from both the right and the left, the more anyone can be right about Iraq at any given time because the conditions in this war torn region are never fixed. In this way William Kristol can claim there were Al_Qaeda links to SH’s government even though the Defense Department clearly state’s there was no “smoking gun”. This type of thinking got us involved in the war and those on the right obviously still cling to this phantom rationale.