DID BUSH LIE ABOUT WMD IN IRAQ
DID BUSH LIE ABOUT WMD IN IRAQ? NO!
by
Ken Eliasberg
A popular and oft-repeated rant by the radical, anti-american far left crowd is that Bush lied about Iraq being in possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). I’m sure you’ve all heard the now familiar bromide—Bush Lied, Men Died. Actually, in a different, saner era, a statement like this would be viewed as treasonous, having far exceeded the bounds of legitimate dissent (not to mention the realm of honesty). I’ll deal with the dying part in an ensuing column; for present purposes I shall confine myself to the part about Bush’s alleged dishonesty with regard to the presence of WMD in Iraq.
What do we know beyond any possibility of doubt about Saddam Hussein and WMD? We know three(3) indisputable things which, in and of themselves, should put the matter to rest—he had them in the past, he used them in the past, and he sought to acquire even more potent forms (i.e. nuclear) WMD in the past. That might just be a good beginning (normally, in a saner, less hostile and partisan climate, this would be more than a good beginning; it would be a pretty good ending). And forgive me if I appear to be questioning the patriotism of many of Bush’s critics (I realize that the left-wing loonies have tried to paint this characterization as both unjust and politically incorrect), but we are at war, and to describe our commander-in-chief in this manner at such a time is seditious (unless, of course, you can prove it, and I intend to make it abundantly clear to even the most diehard and obtuse critic that this assertion is a patent and dishonorable falsehood).
At the outset we should make it clear that WMD played a fundamental role in the cessation of hostilities in the Gulf War. That is, a conditon of accepting Iraq’s surrender, thereby terminating the war, was that Iraq give up any and all WMD. In addition, that Iraq terminate any plans to develop or acquire WMD in the future. If these terms were not met, then the war was not over and U.S. forces and their allies would be free to take whatever action would be appropriate to force this result on Iraq. To make certain that these conditions were met, the U.N. forces were authorized to install a monitoring operation that would engage in the necessary inspection and reporting activities.
So let’s pick up the action from that point—we know that Iraq did not comply with these conditions. How do we know that? By virtue of 17 U.N. resolutions over a 12-year period that dealt with Iraq’s failure to comply with the WMD terms of its surrender, as well as a host of other statements and events.
1. U.N. Resolutions.- These 17 resolutions had nothing to do with anything other than WMD noncompliance. Now one might wonder why should it take 17 resolutions and a dozen years to secure compliance. One might also wonder about either the U.N.’s obvious impotence or corruption (as we shall see in an ensuing discussion) in failing to impress its will on Iraq. That is, either (1) the U.N. did not mean business when it demanded Iraq’s compliance, or (2) it lacked either or both the will and/or resources to assure such compliance. These matters we can leave for future consideration. For present purposes, suffice it to say that these resolutions establish at least one thing beyond a shadow of a doubt. What might that be? That someone beside George Bush—namely the United Nations—was under the impression that Saddam Hussein had WMD!!! Were they lying on each of these 17 occasions? If so, why isn’t someone calling them a liar and not leaving George Bush to take the heat all by himself??
2. Conclusion of Virtually Every Government and Every Government Intelligence Agency.- You will not find any first-world government or any intelligence agency of these governments that believed otherwise. If you do even the most superficial research, you will find that the entire civilized world was of the view that Saddam was in possession of WMD and, as a consequence, flouting the terms of Iraq’s surrender and the ensuing U.N. resolutions with respect to WMD (which, in hindsight, were little more than exercises in futility). Indeed, the U.N. resolutions were no more than the reflection of the thinking of the U.N.’s constituent bodies, i.e., every civilized country in the world. Were these governments and their respective intelligence agencies lying as well? If they were, then stop picking on poor George Bush; spread the blame around a little. If they were not, then just shut up!
3. Opinion of the U.S..: The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998.- During this period, not only did the U.N. and various of its constituent bodies, hold to this view “to wit, Iraq was in possession of WMD—but, more to the point, the United States held that view throughout the period leading up to the election of George Bush. How do we know? Simple, in 1998 the U.S. Congress passed the Iraq Liberation Act, which, almost in its entirety, was devoted to the subject of Iraq’s threat to the world because of its WMD pursuits. This Act, which became law in October of 1998, was enacted in response to Iraq’s conduct in August of 1998, whereby Iraq “ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM, and subsequently threatened to end long-term monitoring activities by the International Atomic Energy Agency and UNSCOM.” It is relevant—indeed, compellingly significant—to note that Section 3 of that Act, entitled “SENSE OF THE CONGRES REGARDING
UNITED STATES POLICY TOWARD IRAQ” provides in pertinent part as follows: “ It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime” (Isn’t that what George Bush is doing as we speak?).
4. Statements of EVERY Prominent Democrat Re Iraq and WMD.-
Virtually every single Democrat in Congress—at least those having any degree of prominence—averred that Saddam (and thus Iraq) was in possession of WMD. Let me treat you to a few choice morsels on the subject. I find the following statement by Bill Clinton to the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon Staff on February 17, 1998 particularly telling:
“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is
clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program. We want to seriously reduce his capacity to threaten his neighbors.
* * * * *
Let me be clear: A military operation cannot destroy all weapons of mass destruction capacity. But it can and will leave him significantly worse off than he is now in terms of the ability to threaten the world with these weapons or to attack his neighbors.”
The beauty of this statement is that it reveals that Bill Clinton not only felt that Saddam had WMD, but that a military operation—i.e., use of force—was being considered as a possible means of diminishing Saddam’s WMD threat.
Now I can furnish statements by Gore, Kerry, Daschle, and a host of other prominent Democrats to the same effect. That is, Iraq was in possession of WMD. Are they all lying.? Of course not! Then why should we take seriously these outrageous, unfounded, and, in my opinion, seditious accusations by left-wing America-haters.? By the way, for those who would like further edification on WMD statements by leading Democrats, let me refer you to a several other helpful sources. The first is an excellent article in the December, 2005 issue of Commentary magazine (an excellent magazine, by the way) by Norman Podhoretz entitled “Who Is Lying About Iraq?” : a column by Robert Kagan in the October 25, 2005 edition of the Washington Post; and 2 helpful websites. http://www.theconversationcafé.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-3134.htmland and http://www.righwingnews.com/quotes/demsonwmds.php. The point here is that almost every prominent Democrat was of the opinion that Iraq was in possession of WMD. How then can any left-winger in good conscience (this may be an oxymoron, i.e. it is unclear that these left-wingers have a conscience) argue that George Bush lied? Were all of these other individuals and organizations lying as well? More on WMD next week.