Second, if you would like to withdraw this comment on how the president was "armed with intelligence about Iraq's WMD programs", I won't hold it against you :-) You must have noticed that the stuff he was "armed with" was hot air at best and willful deceit in order to conjure public support for this invasion (i.e. lies) at worst.
Hot air at best?
The President who made that speech was Bill Clinton. December 16, 1998. As U.S. warplanes were dropping bombs on Iraq, at his direction. Maybe he wasn't "armed with intelligence about Iraq's WMD's programs." But if he wasn't, then this statement (in the same speech) seems a bit curious:
The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.
The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.
As do these statements, by others:
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"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."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of illicit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tYrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence
reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has
refused to do"
--Rep.Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 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 .. 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."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
You see, the notion that Bush and his national security team somehow invented the idea that Saddam might possess and use WMD's is, quite simply, nonsense. Over the years, Saddam used horrible weapons on numerous occasions. He invaded countries, caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, and was allowed to remain in power only upon express conditions which he promptly violated. Three different U.S. Presidents authorized the use of, and used, force against him, each citing Saddam's history of behavior and weapons as reasons.
Ousting Saddam in my view is only different than ousting the late 1930's Hitler would have been in the sense that Saddam's reach was perhaps less menacing. But even that, in today's post 9/11 world, is hardly a comfortable conclusion. Projecting power through assistance to terrorists does not require long range missiles tipped with warheads. The intelligence may have overstated Saddam's present capabilities, but history does not overstate his past deeds or his capacity for truly evil behavior. To my mind, the decision whether to invade came down to whether, in light of his past behavior and present aspirations, in light of his noncooperation with the inspection process, in light of conflicting intelligence reports, should he have been left alone or ousted?
The world made a different choice in the 1930's, and the results were hardly a good thing. At first the threat was thought not to be imminent, and then when it became imminent it could not be easily dealt with. The human toll for that decision was horrific. The human toll among those unfortunate enough to be in Saddam's region has also been horrific this past quarter century.
It's easy for us to say, "oh, well, but he can't do anything to us, and whatever he has done over there is not our business." If Illinois had launched wars against Iowa and Indiana resulting in the deaths of several hundred thousand people, using chemical weapons on Keokuk in the process, would we expect or want the rest of the world to care? Would we want somebody, anybody, to come in with force if necessary and oust the Illinois governor? |
