Lying about Iraq
We expect Michael Moore to lie about Bush, but is prevarication
a virus infecting all Bush's opposition?
by Donald Sensing
http://www.donaldsensing.com/2004/07/lying-about-iraq.htmlI listened on the radio this morning to an interview with Lee
Walloski (I don't guarantee my spelling) a former NSA official
under both Bush the elder and Bill Clinton. He served as director
of transnational threats and now advises John Kerry.
Lee said that America's invasion of Afghanistan was the correct
thing to do. He said that going after al Qaeda was the first priority,
and he complimented President Bush's leadership in that
operation. But, he said, Bush got seriously "off track" when he
sent American forces into Iraq. (He said he supported the Iraq
invasion at first. However, he didn't say, "I supported the invasion
of Iraq before I didn't support it.")
Lee repeated the two falsehoods that Bush's critics seem to think
will magically become true if they just keep chanting them:
1) The only reason the US invaded Iraq was because of its WMD
programs, and
2) Bush emphasized Iraq was an "imminent threat" to American
security.
In fact, Iraq did have active WMD programs, which even the UN's
special commission, UNMOVIC (UN Monitoring, Verification
and Inspection Commission), confirmed this summer.
The United Nations has determined that Saddam Hussein
shipped weapons of mass destruction components as well
as [forbidden] medium-range ballistic missiles before,
during and after the U.S.-led war against Iraq in 2003.
The UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection
Commission briefed the Security Council on new findings
that could help trace the whereabouts of Saddam's missile
and WMD program.
The briefing contained satellite photographs that
demonstrated the speed with which Saddam dismantled
his missile and WMD sites before and during the war.
The Senate Intelligence Committee confirmed this summer as
well that Iraq was seeking to acquire "yellowcake," uranium ore,
from Africa, just as British intelligence had claimed all along, and
President Bush used 16 words to declare in his 2002 State of the
Union speech. Since the end of the invasion, chemical-filled
munitions have been found and one chemical artillery shell was
used as a roadside bomb against American troops.
Iraq, of course, used massive quantities of chemical weapons
against the Kurds in the 1980s, killing thousands. Following
1991's Gulf War, the UNSC resolved - repetitively - that Iraq must
divest itself of existing stockpiles of unconventional weapons
(meaning nuclear, chemical or biological weapons), certain kinds
of long-range attack weapons such as missiles with a range longer
than (from memory:) 100 kilometers, and cease development
programs thereof. Furthermore, the burden of proof for
compliance with these resolutions rested on Saddam's
government. The weapons and weapons programs' materiel had to
be destroyed by the United Nations inspection teams or Iraq had
conclusively to document its own destruction of its WMDs and
WMD programs.
Significant progress was made over the ensuing years, but
increasing and finally total resistance and evasion of the
requirements finally led the UN to withdraw its inspection teams
in late 1998. That December, citing grave danger from Iraqi
WMDs and WMD programs, President Bill Clinton launched
Operation Desert Fox, an intensive bombardment of Iraq that
lasted four days. The UK participated also. Clinton did not seek
authorization from Congress to conduct this brief war; he said that
the 1991 Gulf War resolution was still in effect and inherently
authorized whatever military actions he ordered against Iraq.
Over the next four years every Western intelligence service and
many others (i.e., Russia) and the UN itself concluded that
Saddam had restarted WMD programs and was making significant
progress in several areas. The UNSC passed Resolution 1441 in
December 2002 that gave Saddam an ultimatum: admit the UN
inspection teams for unfettered activity or face "serious
consequences;" the resolution authorized member states to
enforce its terms. All diplomats understood this resolution was
diplo-speak for threat of war.
That Iraq possessed actual nuclear, chemical or biological
weapons by early 2003 was hardly doubted by any Western
nation. Since the invasion the existence of forbidden weapons and
weapons programs has been conclusively proven, although except
for some chemical shells no actual weapons have been found.
However, that Iraq had active WMD programs, forbidden by the
UN, has been decisively proven, as I related above. So I would
like to ask Mr. Walloski and others scoffing at the WMD-related
rationale for the invasion to say whether they think President
Clinton was right or wrong in December 1998:
We began with this basic proposition: Saddam Hussein
must not be allowed to develop nuclear arms, poison gas,
biological weapons, or the means to deliver them. He has
used such weapons before against soldiers and civilians,
including his own people. We have no doubt that if left
unchecked he would do so again.
Saddam must not be prepared to defy the will -- be
permitted -- excuse me -- to defy the will of the
international community. . . . So long as Saddam remains
in power he will remain a threat to his people, his region
and the world. . . .
Why, if this claim was right and just in 1998, was it less so in
2003? Why, if Clinton was right and just to attack Iraq in 1998 -
and not resolve the issue!- was Bush wrong to attack in 2003 and
conclusively resolve the issue?
Now let's turn our attention to the "imminent threat" canard. The
president's opposition, Mr. Walloski being the latest example,
continues to claim that Bush said Iraq posed an "imminent threat"
to the security of the United States.
But Bush said no such thing. I quoted Kerry supporter Andrew
Sullivan last October:
The administration claimed that Saddam had used WMDs
in the past, had hidden materials from the United Nations,
was hiding a continued program for weapons of mass
destruction, and that we should act before the threat was
imminent. The argument was that it was impossible to
restrain Saddam Hussein unless he were removed from
power and disarmed. The war was legally based on the
premise that Saddam had clearly violated U.N. resolutions,
was in open breach of such resolutions and was continuing
to conceal his programs with the intent of restarting them
in earnest once sanctions were lifted. Having read the
report carefully, I'd say that the administration is
vindicated in every single respect of that argument. This
war wasn't just moral; it wasn't just prudent; it was
justified on the very terms the administration laid out.
Here are some pertinent facts laid out by John Hawkins, for which
I am providing the original citations and other commentary. Bush
explicitly addressed the Iraqi threat in his State of the Union
Speech in January 2002:
Some have said we must not act until the threat is
imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants
announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice
before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and
suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all
recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity
and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is
not an option.
There was no claim of an "imminent threat" there, but instead an
explicit continuation of Bill Clinton's existing policy , that the
threat posed by Saddam's weapons programs must not be allowed
to become imminent.
Furthermore, the potential WMD threat was only one point of the
casus belli laid out by Bush before the invasion. On Sept. 12,
2002, President Bush addressed the United Nations General
Assembly. In this speech, Bush concisely explained the case
against Iraq:
If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately and
unconditionally forswear, disclose, and remove or destroy
all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles, and
all related material.
If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end
all support for terrorism and act to suppress it, as all states
are required to do by U.N. Security Council resolutions.
If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution
of its civilian population, including Shi'a, Sunnis, Kurds,
Turkomans, and others, again as required by Security
Council resolutions.
If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will release or account
for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown. It
will return the remains of any who are deceased, return
stolen property, accept liability for losses resulting from
the invasion of Kuwait, and fully cooperate with
international efforts to resolve these issues, as required by
Security Council resolutions.
If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end
all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will
accept U.N. administration of funds from that program, to
ensure that the money is used fairly and promptly for the
benefit of the Iraqi people.
Finally, consider the words of this prominent American political
figure in 2002:
In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence
reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild
his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile
delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also
given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including
Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence
of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11,
2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam
Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage
biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to
develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that
endeavor, he could alter the political and security
landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too
well affects American security.
Who said that? Hillary Clinton, Oct. 10, 2002, who said in the
same speech on the Senate floor that if the UNSC passed a "strong
resolution" requiring Iraq's compliance, then,
I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate
is inherent in the original 1991 UN resolution, as President
[Bill] Clinton recognized when he launched Operation
Desert Fox in 1998.
What this means is that that her position was that no further
Congressional authorization was needed for President Bush to
force Iraq's compliance by military power.
A final point: Mr. Walloski said in the interview that the world is
better of without Saddam in power and that the liberation of Iraq
was a good thing. Yet now he calls the liberation and Saddam's
removal a mistake. I can't explain the cognitive dissonance found
in these kinds of statements, especially when they are coupled
with claims that freeing the Iraqi people was sort of beside the
point of the war (it was either all about Dubya-Emmm-Deees or
the ooooiiiiiiiiiiiilllllll). Somehow, this explicit statement by Bush
to the UN General Assembly on Sept. 12, 2002 has escaped their
attention:
Liberty for the Iraqi people is a great moral cause, and a
great strategic goal. The people of Iraq deserve it; the
security of all nations requires it. Free societies do not
intimidate through cruelty and conquest, and open
societies do not threaten the world with mass murder. The
United States supports political and economic liberty in a
unified Iraq. ...
If we fail to act in the face of danger, the people of Iraq
will continue to live in brutal submission . The regime will
have new power to bully and dominate and conquer its
neighbors, condemning the Middle East to more years of
bloodshed and fear. The regime will remain unstable -- the
region will remain unstable, with little hope of freedom,
and isolated from the progress of our times. With every
step the Iraqi regime takes toward gaining and deploying
the most terrible weapons, our own options to confront
that regime will narrow. And if an emboldened regime
were to supply these weapons to terrorist allies, then the
attacks of September the 11th would be a prelude to far
greater horrors. [italics added]
Twice in as many paragraphs the president emphasized the
liberation of the Iraqi people as both a moral and strategic
imperative of the United States, yet his critics now claim this goal
was retrojected onto the campaign after the occupation seemingly
turned sour and after stockpiles of WMDs were not located.
Yet it is blindingly obvious that as early as this speech's date,
Bush was not claiming at all that Iraq had a storehouse of WMDs;
note well his language: "With every step the Iraqi regime takes
toward gaining and deploying the most terrible weapons... ."
An objective consideration of the facts shows that the
administration never claimed that Iraq posed an imminent threat
because of its WMDS or WMD programs, and that in fact the
president pretty clearly indicated the threat was not imminent. But
he also was clear, as were previously both President and Senator
Clinton, that Saddam WMD programs must not be allowed to
come to fruition.
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <
http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>