For what seems like forever, we've been hearing about one administration insider after another speaking out to say that the war on Iraq was based upon flimsy evidence. At the time the war was sold to the public, the reason the decision-makers presented to the public was weapons of mass destruction. As Paul Wolfowitz
stated in 2003, "we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason." Later, the reasoning was expanded--or the additional reasons were slowly revealed, as if to make us think they'd been there the whole time--to include, as President Bush stated earlier this year, his
administration's belief "in a freedom agenda for the Middle East."
A list of the President's deceptive statements about WMD, after the flip.
In 2003, John Dean--he of the Watergate scandal--compiled a
list of the President's statements about WMD:
Bush's statements, in chronological order, were:
"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons." - United Nations address, September 12, 2002
"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons." - Radio address, October 5, 2002
"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have." - Radio address, October 5, 2002
"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons." - Cincinnati, Ohio speech, October 7, 2002
"We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas." - Cincinnati, Ohio speech, October 7, 2002
"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States." - Cincinnati, Ohio speech, October 7, 2002
"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" -- his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons." - Cincinnati, Ohio speech, October 7, 2002
"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent." - State of the Union Address, January 28, 2003
"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." - Address to the nation, March 17, 2003
If the war was based upon a desire to spread freedom in the Middle East, perhaps because of a belief that a democratic Middle East would harbor fewer terrorists, the American public wasn't made aware of it. The administration was so intent on proving its claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction that President
Bush prematurely announced "We have found the weapons of mass destruction" when trailers, known by U.S. intelligence officials to be benign, were found.
Countless officials have
spoken out to say that the administration ignored evidence that did not fit its predetermined policy goals.
- The policy's roots may have been within the Project for the New American Century, a group from which a number of Bush administration officials were chosen and which advocated removal of Saddam Hussein to President Clinton in 1998.
- Donald Rumsfeld instructed his aides to create plans to attack Iraq on 9/11/01, after learning of an intercepted Al Qaeda call and being made aware that three hijackers were suspected Al Qaeda operatives:
"With the intelligence all pointing toward bin Laden, Rumsfeld ordered the military to begin working on strike plans. And at 2:40 p.m., the notes quote Rumsfeld as saying he wanted "best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H." - meaning Saddam Hussein - "at same time. Not only UBL" - the initials used to identify Osama bin Laden.
"Go massive," the notes quote him as saying. "Sweep it all up. Things related and not."
- By late 2003, Rumsfeld was suggesting something quite different from the ominous statements George Bush made in 2002 and earlier in 2003: "The United States went to war in Iraq not because of new intelligence about banned weapons but because Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's previously known programs were viewed differently after the September 11 attacks, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld told senators yesterday."
26-year veteran Tyler Drumheller
spoke out on 60 Minutes over the weekend:
Drumheller was the CIA's top man in Europe, the head of covert operations there, until he retired a year ago. He says he saw firsthand how the White House promoted intelligence it liked and ignored intelligence it didn't:
"The idea of going after Iraq was U.S. policy. It was going to happen one way or the other," says Drumheller.
Given the statements of officials with this much background and connection to the proceedings, would it not be in our best interest as a country to know categorically whether or not the administration was truthful, and whether or not any laws were actually broken?
Two states are sponsoring resolutions in their own legislatures which would force the issue in the House; unfortunately, this is premature. In a thoughtful and cogent
article in Vanity Fair, Watergate journalist Carl Bernstein explains that
The truth is we have no trustworthy official record of what has occurred in almost any aspect of this administration, how decisions were reached, and even what the actual policies promulgated and approved by the president are. Nor will we, until the subpoena powers of the Congress are used (as in Watergate) to find out the facts--not just about the war in Iraq, almost every aspect of it, beginning with the road to war, but other essential elements of Bush's presidency, particularly the routine disregard for truthfulness in the dissemination of information to the American people and Congress.
Bernstein's call for Senate hearings on President Bush is based upon the idea that the sheer number of allegations and bits of evidence that have been revealed is ample reason to demand a thorough investigation. Investigations that have occurred thus far have been limited--for example, the 9/11 Commission was unable to investigate the
cancelled FBI investigations into Al Qaeda before 9/11, and Congress was prevented from investigating the Cheney
energy task force. Because of the lack of transparency, and the growing number of questions about what this administration is really doing and saying, Bernstein argues it's high time for an unrestricted investigation so we can finally know the truth.
This kind of investigation is the centrist choice, between ignoring overwhelming cause for alarm and pushing for impeachment without enough evidence. How many leakers (whistle-blowers) have to speak out before the American public will contact their representatives to demand it?
From
Blog and Tan