With the anniversary of the war in Iraq (or, as I like to call it when I’m feeling formal, the Iraq Campaign of the War on Terror), I think it’s long overdue time to actually LOOK at some of the anti-war crowd’s charges and give them the slightest shred of credence, for at least long enough to rip them to pieces.
I don’t recall the original source of the statement “if you repeat a lie often enough, people will eventually believe it,” but it’s a fair observation of human nature. The anti-war crowd has taken that concept and proven it beyond their wildest dreams: they’ve chanted their mantras so often that they’re accepted as gospel by their compatriots (I heard Liane Hansen of NPR repeat the two following as factual on Sunday). But as they say in sports, let’s go to the tape:
1) President Bush claimed that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) prior to the invasion, and that was the primary reason for the attack.
Thanks to the ever-worthy Rob Port (my former colleague here at Wizbang!), we have this excerpt from a New York Times account from February 26, 2003 — almost a full month before the invasion:
President Bush sketched an expansive vision last night of what he expects to accomplish by a war in Iraq. Instead of focusing on eliminating weapons of mass destruction, or reducing the threat of terror to the United States, Mr. Bush talked about establishing a ”free and peaceful Iraq” that would…
Obviously, I don’t feel like forking over $3.95 for the full article. But that was enough to find the actual transcript of Bush’s speech, as delivered to the American Enterprise Institute. The sole mention of the threat Iraq posed is contained in one paragraph:
In Iraq, a dictator is building and hiding weapons that could enable him to dominate the Middle East and intimidate the civilized world — and we will not allow it. This same tyrant has close ties to terrorist organizations, and could supply them with the terrible means to strike this country — and America will not permit it. The danger posed by Saddam Hussein and his weapons cannot be ignored or wished away. The danger must be confronted. We hope that the Iraqi regime will meet the demands of the United Nations and disarm, fully and peacefully. If it does not, we are prepared to disarm Iraq by force. Either way, this danger will be removed.
The rest of the discussion on Iraq was on how the rebuilding of Iraq would take place, and his vision of freedom blooming in the Muslim world. And as far as WMDs being found — at least one artillery shell containing sarin has been used in an IED, as well as one containing mustard gas — the latter being one of over 1,000 mustard gas weapons, totalling over 80 tons of mustard gas — that was never accounted for in 12 years of Saddam’s “compliance.”
And never, NEVER forget that no one was obligated to prove Saddam was out of compliance with the 1991 surrender. Under its terms, the onus was solely on him to prove his compliance, and he deliberately and willfully failed to comply. Like a parolee required to undergo regular drug screening, he was presumed guilty until he proved his innocence — and failure to cooperate nullified his parole.
2) Bush told the American people that Iraq posed an imminent threat to the US.
Once again, let’s go to the tape. More specifically, President Bush’s 2003 State of the Union address, delivered almost three months before the invasion:
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.
And later, he specifically says the threat is NOT imminent:
America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country, and our friends and our allies.
What WAS imminent was the collapse of the sanctions on Iraq, fed by Saddam’s bribery through the Oil For Food program and other means. Our ears were being filled with the tales of the thousands of Iraqi children dying daily because of the sanctions, and the pressure to “ease up” and “allow Iraq to rejoin the community of nations” were growing more and more intense. The threat of Iraq being able to renew its quest for WMDs — which it had possessed and used in the past, both on its own people and its neighbors — was there.
3) Bush lied when he said Iraq possessed WMDs.
First, let’s break out the dictionary on this one. To lie means to knowingly and willingly state a falsehood as truth. There is a mountain of difference between lying and being mistaken. For centuries, folks said the earth was flat. Others said that the sun revolved around the earth. Nobody says they were liars, they were simply speaking what they believed was truth.
Likewise, Saddam DID possess WMDs — so far discovered in far smaller quantities than expected. But the assumption was an eminently fair one, considering several indisputable facts:
- In the 12 years between the first and second wars, Saddam was supposed to account for and destroy all his nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, along with all research and development materials. Literally TONS of contraband was never accounted for properly, with a great deal of it being covered by Saddam’s “we burned it, but we lost the receipt” excuses.
- Saddam was trying to balance two competing interests against each other: convincing most of the world that he indeed had not WMDs, in accordance with the 1991 ceasefire, and convincing some of his neighbors (mainly Iran and Israel) and certain elements of his own people (mainly the Kurds and Shiites) that he did, and was willing and able to use them against those people if necessary. He thought he could count on his bought-and-paid-for allies in Fance, Germany, Russia, Great Britain, and the UN to provide enough cover to block the US from rigorously enforcing the 1991 terms — a miscalculation that proved in the post-9/11 world to be fatal.
- Saddam’s own generals and forces thought they would have access to WMDs for any possible US-led invasion. Captured battle plans referred to using chemical weapons against the invaders, and several key units had protective gear on hand.
Yes, there were flaws in the intelligence before the invasion. But intelligence is not a precise science. Based on the best information available, and the existing legal state (the repeated violations of the 1991 ceasefire, and the Congressional authorization of the use of force), the invasion of Iraq and deposal of Saddam was the least worst of the available options. And those who wish to rewrite history based on their own lies and prejudices need to be confronted and defeated with the most powerful weapon available:
The truth.
Well, Jay T, I don’t think that US citizens having to prove innocence” is a GOOD thing.
No matter how bad you think they are.
And I voted for Bush. Cause he sucks less. And we’re winning the war on terror.
Sorry to burst your bubble.
Enjoy.
The problem is that debating these people is like wrestling with 5 year olds. They have no sense of military history, foreign affairs, or anything beyond their little collection of cliches, tiresome insults, and stamina.
I’d rather stick my hand in a blender or read a book than debate these fools.
I remember why we went to war and I remember the expectations before we went, though some have easily forgotten so I appreciate you refreshing the memory. Further, I want to put something into perspective – our troops are there and fighting to finish a mission. Our senators voted to go to war three years ago based on this inforamtion you posted above, and I’m glad we did. So much progress has been made – don’t believe everything you hear on the news, because good things really are happening there and a civil war is not imminent. In fact, I suggest some of you look to the blogosphere for stories from actual soldiers who are serving – an example is willtoexist.com (see his entry on “all quiet in the heart of baghdad). They shouldnt’ have to ask for our support but they are – we owe it to them to seek the truth and not rely on the mainstream media.
Jay, this was another of your many great summaries of the case for our actions in Iraq, and for conservative thought in general.
I took the liberty of using it as the basis for this week’s Wizbang podcast. I went to the sources you mentioned and used NPR’s audio & Bush’s actual words in the podcast where you quoted them.
Another one that drives me crazy is the accusation that Bush killed Kyoto. That died during the Clinton administration when the Senate refused to vote on it.
Would you be surprised to find out that Iran and Russia were supporting those
that assemble and design the IEDs? Currently Russian is protecting in the
UN their fighter in the old Iran Iraq wars! Could it be that the Cold War never
ended due to the ineptitude of Bush1, Clinton, and Bush2? Why is it that
the people of the Ukraine recently elected a pro soviet era government? Is
it likely that this is simply the payback of the Russian government for our
interference with Afghanistan during the Regan years? War is the natural
state of humanity. Consider that the "fight or flight response" is our
body’s primitive, automatic, inborn response that prepares the body to "fight"
or "flee" from perceived attack, harm or threat to our survival. Although we
think that this is true it doesn’t mean that the enemy cares what we think. War
is a tool that can advance humanity. Unfortunately every government fails
at some point. Even the experts in the CIA missed the fact that the Soviet
Union was about to fall. Don’t forget if your like me and have to write a
big check the day is coming soon! Where is the
Peace Dividend
Jason Spalding,
What? A single paragraph and it’s all over the board from the cold war, to evolution, to the darker side of human nature, to the fall of the west, to the Peace Dividend. The only common thread seems to be that you’re not happy with history.
Just because anyone can have a blog doesn’t mean everyone should.