Bush Explains Why Pearl Harbor Was Justified

"I view this report as a warning signal that they had the program, they halted the program. The reason why it's a warning signal is they could restart it."

-- George W. Bush

This is George Bush talking about Iran's non-existent nuclear weapons program. He explains that a National Intelligence Estimate that says they have no program is a warning that they might have one. Obviously this has to win some sort of award for circular reasoning (come on, how ridiculous is it that he says the fact they don't have one proves they might have one later), but there is one other problem.

Couldn't this apply to almost any country in the world? Is President Bush really claiming the fact that someone could start a nuclear weapon program at any time is justification for threatening them, including keeping military attacks against that country on the table?

Couldn't the Philippines start a nuclear weapons program at any time? How about Canada? How about the dangerous folks in Botswana?

How could the fact that someone has ended their nuclear weapons program years ago be justification for attacking them because they might restart it? Can Bush really believe the things that he says?

And if he does believe this absurdity, then wasn't Japan justified in attacking us in Pearl Harbor?

They heard that we had a nuclear weapons program - and we did. And that we might be able to start it any time - which was relatively true. And that if we had nuclear weapons, we might use them against Japan one day - which obviously proved to be true. So, they launched a pre-emptive strike against the United States because we had a nuclear weapons program they feared we might use against them at a later time.

Under the Bush doctrine, isn't Pearl Harbor the perfect case for using a pre-emptive first strike? Japan was rightfully concerned about our weapons program and they rightfully struck us first.

Of course, the only problem with that theory is that there is an excellent chance we would have never used those nuclear weapons against Japan if they hadn't attacked us first. Gee, I wonder if this could be a decent argument against pre-emptive strikes.

Isn't it absurdly ironic that the country that suffered one of the most infamous pre-emptive strikes in history and called it "a day that will live in infamy" is now arguing for pre-emptive strikes across the world?

It's amazing to me that the so-called Bush doctrine has been considered a legitimate theory on foreign policy for this long. It is a doctrine for aggressive, first strike wars. According to Nuremberg, it is the highest war crime (they called it "the supreme international crime"). And one we specifically suffered in World War II. How has it been taken seriously for this long? It is an abomination posing as legitimate foreign policy.

Watch The Young Turks Here

For the record, our listener, Lexpix from Australia, was the first to suggest the Pearl Harbor analogy to me. So if there is any credit for this analogy, it should go to him first. If there is any discredit for it, it should go to me for publishing it.

Follow Cenk Uygur on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TheYoungTurks

Comments

[Annoula]

Kucinich is right! Impeaching AFTER an attack is TOO LATE! Pre-emptive IMPEACHMENT NOW!

[JoeKoz451]

They heard that we had a nuclear weapons program - and we did. And that we might be able to start it any time - which was relatively true. And that if we had nuclear weapons, we might use them against Japan one day - which obviously proved to be true. So, they launched a pre-emptive strike against the United States because we had a nuclear weapons program they feared we might use against them at a later time.

I now have a much clearer understanding of the Japanese warrior code of "Bush"-ido.

[sugarmoes]

but you forgot bush's ace in the hole (to him at least) argument... "i know you are but what am i????"

i.e. it's ok for him but not for others.

[loslobo]

For someone who doesn't beleive in the New Pearl Harbor (by Dr. David Ray Griffin), I wish someone as articulate as yourself would realize it all makes perfect perverted sense.

Impeachment should be the starting point for these traitors, they deserve the gallows.

[Janco54]

I have discovered, over the last seven years, that sitting down and attempting to unravel the "logic" that GWB uses will simply drive a sane person crazy.
Bless you for doing it for me Cenk. I'd no doubt be in a padded room were it not for bloggers like you.

[outnow]

The United States placed sanctions on Japan. We embargoed their oil and scrap iron. The Japanese had a Samurai class that became international traders and new military class. They were called the Bushito class - no joke.

These men could not go around using karate on people so they built up a huge navy and war machine to become a colonial-imperial power, using the former Dutch Indies as a gas station.

The embargo created a resource war. Japan struck us at Pearl Harbor for the same reason that Bush hit Iraq and tried to topple Hugo Chavez - it's all about the oil. If you don't understand that fact, you don't understand geopolitics and reality is beyond your grasp.

Recall that Japan was "opened" by Commodore Perry in 1848. Remember Gun Boat Diplomacy? This is what we mean by spreading democracy.

Once a warrior class is developed in society, as we have the Pentagon, these guys need wars like a beast needs red meat. That's what happened in Japan. That's what happened to the U.S. after WW II. The MIC is the permanent legacy of that conflict. Both Roosevelt and Eisenhower knew this. They tried to tell us but being strong on communism and terrorism and the other "isms" keeps the fear buying weapons and making Generals.

[avergejoe]

So if a country pre-emptively attacked a country that used anticipatory self-defense, who would win?

[fourex]

Bush could explain Hitler's attack on Poland under the same preemptive war philosophy. However, the International community considers these acts, wars of aggression, and criminal acts. Kofi Annan using that standard called the Bush attack on Iraq a criminal event.

[Steven G. Brant - Huffpost Blogger]

Let's not forget the other direction Bush's reasoning should take us: Every American who has ever committed a crime should be locked up again. After all, they *could* commit a crime again in the future.

That's our "law and order" President speaking. And let's not forget all the private prisons Haliburton was reported as building in 2006...

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/47/17936

[sarge]

I'm also having trouble with the "carrot & stick" argument that Bush made. Where's the Carrot? If we are going to sanction the shit out of them and threaten attacks whether or not they are actively pursuing a bomb, why in the world wouldn't they "restart"? Isn't it obvious Bush is sorely disappointed they scrapped it, and would be thrilled if they "restarted" so he could have his excuse?

[eddiegeorge]

Lexpix was spot on, but you can take the analogy to it's logical conclusion -

That Shrub is Counsel for the Defense at Nuremberg.

But Shrub's "logic" is not ahistorical. Team B used a similar argument - because the CIA could not identify a particular Russian weapon, that meant that Russia had a super-duper secret weapon so we should be doubly suspicious of them. Stalin institutionalized the KGB to believe that lack of evidence the West wanted to attack the USSR proved the KGB agents weren't doing their job.

The precautionary principle (not having conclusive proof of X is not a reason to do nothing) is not unjustifiably applied in a lot of cases. But the use of the precautionary principle, the 1% docrine in Cheney lingo, as a casus belli is abhorrent and of course criminal.

[Doofus]

As GWB, the Little Boy Who Cried Wolf, forgot
to explain to the exultant townspeople,
U-235, which is 'bomb-grade' uranium,
has a half life of 700 million years,
so once you've made some, it just
doesn't go away at all,
til you use it.

[zjr909]

If your argument is taken to the broader general public, rest assured it will fall on deaf ears. Pearl Harbor is what "the other" did to us; Iran would be what we did to "the other." See what a difference taking two little words out of the subjective case and putting them in the objective case makes? Or are you just a little too sane to see that?

[bigfated]

Bush is absolutely right. The Iranians COULD restart their program. If that is true....maybe we could restart Chimpy McFlightsuit's BRAIN. Assuming he has one.

[bigfated]

What on earth is wrong with the Democrats---(as well as those few Republicans in Congress with some sign of brains)---that this murderous thug and his partner with blood-soaked hands --(Cheney)--are still running---­(Ruining)-­-our country. If ever there was a case for IMPEACHMENT....this is it. Bill Clinton's sexual misdeeds resulted in ZERO deaths....and this moron---Bush---has been responsible for untold thousands of deaths....all because his rich friends want to be richer. We should impeach them....soak them in crude oil for a year or so...then send them of to prison where WAR CRIMINALS belong.