Oops! We were all wrong. Our bad.
That's essentially what David Kay, former chief weapons inspector, said today when he testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Let me begin by saying, we were almost all wrong, and I certainly include myself here. Sen. [Edward] Kennedy knows very directly. Senator Kennedy and I talked on several occasions prior to the war that my view was that the best evidence that I had seen was that Iraq indeed had weapons of mass destruction. I would also point out that many governments that chose not to support this war -- certainly, the French president, [Jacques] Chirac, as I recall in April of last year, referred to Iraq’s possession of WMD. The Germans certainly -- the intelligence service believed that there were WMD. It turns out that we were all wrong, probably in my judgment, and that is most disturbing.No one was pressured, he said, to come up with evidence that wasn't there. "Never -- not in a single case -- was the explanation, 'I was pressured to do this,'" he said. "The explanation was very often, 'The limited data we had led one to reasonably conclude this. I now see that there’s another explanation for it.'" And Iraq was in violation of some aspects of "UNSCR 1441":http://www.back-to-iraq.com/archives/000085.php#000085, which required Iraq to make a full disclosure of its unconventional weapons and programs. One violation included the discovery of dozens of rockets capable of carrying chemical warheads and of flying farther than allowed by the United Nations. "There was no evidence the warheads themselves had ever been filled" with chemicals, but the rockets should have been reported to U.N. inspectors and destroyed, Kay said. OK. Most of the West's intelligence services were wrong. No doubt about that. For the record, "I thought Saddam had chems and bios, too.":http://www.back-to-iraq.com/archives/000112.php#000112 But -- and this was probably the thinking of the French and the Germans -- _what remained of the weapons and programs didn't warrant going to war._ Saddam was contained, his striking power was laughable. He wasn't going to hook up with al Qaeda. Kevin Drumm over at Calpundit has assembled a collection of statements from people who weighed on on the WMD issue before the war. Some of them include: Former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook in his March 2003 resignation speech:
Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the commonly understood sense of that term -- namely, a credible device capable of being delivered against strategic city targets. It probably does still have biological toxins and battlefield chemical munitions. But it has had them since the 1980s when the US sold Saddam the anthrax agents and the then British government built his chemical and munitions factories.As Kevin notes, the assumption is that Saddam had the WMD, but that they weren't very dangerous.
Australian Intelligence officer Andrew Wilkie in March 2003:
Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program is, I believe, genuinely contained. There is no doubt they have chemical and biological weapons, but their program now is disjointed and limited. It's not a national WMD program like they used to have.Again, the WMDs are there, just not much of a threat. And so on, with the most skeptical voice coming from Russian President Vladimir Putin saying in October 2002 that it's unlikely that any weapons exist, but even so, the Russians worry that they might. So everyone thought they were there, but only the Bush administration thought they were an imminent existential threat to the United States. (And for those who said the White House never said Iraq was an "imminent threat" because they didn't utter the _actual words_ "imminent threat," I roll my eyes at you. Just read this collection of statements from members of the administration.) The question that we have it answer is why did everyone else think Iraq was manageable while Washington didn't? Sept. 11? Greed for Oil? Strategic positioning in a new Great Game? Personal grudges? Manifest destiny in the sands of Arabia? I think it's all of those and more. The Bush administration believed the worst about Iraq not because they had to but because they wanted to. For all of those reasons and goals, Iraq had to become the number one target. Was it a legitimate one? In hindsight, obviously it appears no. At the time, I and others smarter than me argued that it wasn't worth going to war over it. That the threat wasn't imminent, that Iraq wasn't worth the blood and treasure that would be paid. The Center for American Progress has put up a devastating critique of the White House's willful ignorance regarding Iraq's weapons. David Kay is, at best, playing the loyal soldier with this "faulty intelligence" meme. "A review of the facts," the Center says, "shows the intelligence community repeatedly warned the Bush Administration about the weakness of its case, but was circumvented, overruled, and ignored."
- In 2001 and before, intelligence agencies noted that Saddam Hussein was effectively contained after the Gulf War. In fact, former weapons inspector David Kay now admits that the previous policy of containment – including the 1998 bombing of Iraq – destroyed any remaining infrastructure of potential WMD programs.
- Throughout 2002, the CIA, DIA, Department of Energy and United Nations all warned the Bush Administration that its selective use of intelligence was painting a weak WMD case. Those warnings were repeatedly ignored.
- Instead of listening to the repeated warnings from the intelligence community, intelligence officials say the White House instead pressured them to conform their reports to fit a pre-determined policy. Meanwhile, more evidence from international institutions poured in that the White House’s claims were not well-grounded.
OK, so did Bush also lie when in his SOTU speech he said the US should intervene before the threat is imminent?
OK seriously, the Bush Administration was off base, and it was a mistake to use WMD as one of the leading reasons to go to war. But to make “Bush Lied” a mantra over and over again just rings hollow. There are real, serious criticisms of the Bush Administration and this war in Iraq, but this one is a nonstarter. Even former president Clinton has more or less been in agreement with the Bush administration, saving his criticisms for the things that really matter — postwar planning, cooperation with allies, terrorism, whether we are truly at war or not, etc.
I guess I’ve stated this before in these comments, but I get frustrated to see so many people lob this “Bush lied” argument around when there just seems to be so many more important and more clear-cut issues to discuss. And, frankly, more serious missteps by the Bush Administration to deal with.
Someone very wise said ” The war only starts on the outside when first has started on the inside”
Mistr Bush & company had the inner war that only the hunger for power can build.
And this hunger ,do never comes from the heart,but only from the ego,who doesn’t know about the value of life.
Even if he doesn’t recieve the propper punishment from his people,he will get it from life itself.
And he’ll be remembered as the worse elective mistake…in many many year.
The larger question is: Does the American public care? Activist journalism is founded on the notion that, if you shout the truth from the rooftops, the masses will rise from their Barcaloungers and storm the battlements of the power elite. Or something like that. Trouble is, the masses don’t seem to be doing much rising these days. A significant chunk of the electorate thinks Saddam was behind 9/11, for Chrissakes. Color me cynical, but how can we stake our faith in hard facts and sweet reason at a time when, according to a recent study by the Pew Research Center, Americans are three times more likely to believe in the virgin birth than in Darwinian evolution?
Do you really think lying to mobilize support at home is a new phenomenon? Maybe it seems hopeless now to pursue widespread enlightenment in America. But if these lies are let to pass in the future you’ll be more sorry than you can now imagine.
Join a global day of action against war and occupation on March 20, 2004, the one-year anniversary of the Iraq War. March 20 is shaping up to be an enormous day of protest in the spirit of last year’s February 15, when millions of people in hundreds of cities and towns around the globe proclaimed in one voice, “The World Says No to War!”
The Bush Administration dismissed last year’s massive protests and went on to invade Iraq in clear violation of international law. One year later, it’s clearer than ever that we were right to oppose the invasion of Iraq and to call for just and peaceful solutions to the conflict there. The death toll from the Iraq War grows every day — more than 500 U.S. soldiers and 8000 Iraqi civilians have died so far — and new evidence continues to surface that the Bush Administration knowingly lied about the alleged threat posed by the Iraqi regime. March 20 provides a key opportunity to expose the lies, condemn the killing, and build a worldwide movement to oppose the policies of empire. March 20 will also be an important occasion to highlight the links between the occupation of Iraq and other unjust U.S.-backed military occupations, particularly those of Palestine and Afghanistan, as well as to expose the domestic social costs of U.S. military empire.
S étonner que J Chirac n’ait pas dit que Saddam possèdait des WMD n’est pas crédible. Déja, la prise de position française a fait grincer des dents une bonne partie de l’occident libéral. Penser qu’il s’opposerait frontalement au gouv. US est illusoire dans le cadre de l’ONU (UN). Une prise de risque totalement disproportionnée.
MikeB and others of like mind…
I personally hope that the “Bush lied” mantra is never forgotten, and repeated over and over, supported by facts of course, so that people see how truly hollow Bush and his administration are. Sure, Clinton and others may have lied, but that’s not the issue. Also, getting frustrated because others won’t let go of pointing out the incessant and ongoing culture of lying that is now controlling the US seems a bit indicative of the apathetic malaise that seems to have clouded the eyes of many in the States.
Not to say that your eyes are clouded MikeB, but I am curious as to what exactly all these other “more important and more clear-cut issues to discuss” are. To me Bush’s and his administration’s lying is at the very root of all the other missteps you (and all of us) would like to be dealt with.
Also, Chris, I think the link you wanted to use in this post (“collection of statements” about WMDs) is more specifically Billmon’s WMD quotes. Same site, different link.
And here’s that link that went missing from my previous post…
Billmon’s WMD quotes
http://lunaville.org/WMD/billmon.aspx
(How do you do links in these comments anyway? The usual HTML doesn’t seem to work.)
Chris wrote:
“….and this was probably the thinking of the French and the Germans — what remained of the weapons and programs didn’t warrant going to war. Saddam was contained, his striking power was laughable. He wasn’t going to hook up with al Qaeda….”
There was more to it, Chris. At least in Holland, where I witnessed the discussion among politicians. The main issue was NOT whether or not Saddam was a threat. The main issue was wether or not the US had the right to go after him without backing of the UN and in violation with international law. For many of us, in Europe, the question is if the US has the right AT ALL to go after some foreign dictator. Because let’s face it: even if Saddam had his wmd would he have been able to hit the US homeland?
No way.
So what the hell is the US doing messing in the affairs of foreign countries anyway? Does the ‘necessity’ to fill up the huge gas-tanks of suvs grant that right?
I’m glad we got rid of Saddam.
But let’s not forget who helped him to get there in the first place. Perhaps if the US made of point of NOT messing in foreign affairs, there wouldn’t be so many mad dictators to get rid of….
Somehow captain Kirk’s ‘prime directive’ comes to mind:
” Do not interfere with the development of foreign civilisations. It is forbidden to all spaceships and members of Starfleet to interfere with the normal development of any culture or society. This directive is more important than the protection of spaceships or members of Starfleet. Losses are tolerated as long as they are nessesary to observe this directive.”
Ron, thanks for the link correction. It’s fixed now. Sorry, everyone, for the error. Kodia: You’re correct in that there was more to it than just a different threat assessment. The question of whether any country has the right to intervene in the sovereignty of another is a tricky business, but it’s been going on since before nation-states. That doesn’t make it right, of course.
But thanks for the comment. I hope others read it.
As to the comment from Holland: Germans today are, I think, particularly sensitive when it comes to invading other countries, for obvious reasons, which again the people in Holland know from sad experience. Ordinary Germans’ resistance against its old friend’s, the US’s, plans was to a large degree motivated by that ingrained collective memory. Invading other countries for no good reason is the supreme crime, ‘we’ were rightly told at Nuremberg, and most of the world still thinks that the US and its allies invaded Iraq for no good reason at all. This crime will, I am certain, be a stain on the US’s international reputation for a whole generation or more.
So far, 99% of the people I know make a clear distinction between the US government and its people. However, that might change; as I read somewhere the other day: “If you reelect Bush, you are on your own.”
“invaded Iraq”, of course, not Poland :-(
Christopher, could you PLEASE correct my Freudian slip???
Ron — “more important and clear-cut issues” are, IMO, the inadequate post-war planning, the occasional hedging on fully funding the reconstruction effort, the viability and authority of the United Nations, the extent to which the Western world should enourage democracy. Those are the real issues at stake here.
Bush lied… I am NOT saying it doesn’t matter, just that this is less important than many other things. If you want to rage against politicians lying, ok — but I don’t see why the current American president is any worse in this regard than most world leaders. Bush lied in selling the Iraq war? Chirac was grossly hypocritcal in fighting against it? Aren’t we really concerned with the underlying motovations here? Cause if lying was the issue I’m not sure who would be worty of supporting.
I personally think the war was/is entirely justifyable for other reasons beyond WMD. I think the Western world has played a significant part in the current state of the Middle East, from colonialism through the present. Politcally, militarily (via WMD or even terrorism), and demographically the region has serious issues. I think for the sake of both Eastern and Western culture that something has to be done, and it needs to be a long-term effort. I hope this war is part of that. There are many, many things more worthy of debate here than “bush lied.”
Whether or not war was the best way to deal with Iraq is of course also debatable. But I think there is more than one way to achieve a positive outcome and the fact is that the American leaders with authority chose war in this case. I’m willing to work within that context for a broader goal, and when the next decision on military action comes along I’ll judge it independently of the last one. Hell, the military aspect is probably the best executed thing this administration has done in Iraq — it’s the rest of the effort that has stumbled.
I realize this view probably isn’t in the majority here, and I’m not trying to denounce the stances of those who disagree with me. But I would like to point out that there are plenty of people who support liberal and democratic ideals with whom the “Bush Lied” thing is not a very relevant issue. And these people supported the war in so far as it is part of an attempt to end a cruel dictatorship and bring about positive change within a region that could use it. There is, I hope, a lot of common ground between that view and many readers on this site.
If this war “was/is entirely justifiable for other reasons” why weren’t these reasons presented at the outset?
Do you suppose that the Bush administration, with all of the intellegence and intellectual resourses available to it, did not anticipate the moment we’ve come to? To suggest that this war is a result of ill-gathered, misrepresented or misinterpreted intelligence is laughable (and not only in light of the international condemnation of the cheese-cloth bag of excuses that were presented before the war).
I agree that the current occupation is worthy of criticism. But without a credible accounting of how you got into this war all else will be meaningless.
We all think that there’s no WMD, but the truth is
WERE JUST NOT SURE!!! That doesn’t mean that there isn’t any! They could have buried them and built a house on them for all we know. Then after it all cools off they’ll
start back up again. Saddam Hussian might look like there is nothing he can do, but the truth is that just because he can’t, doesn’t mean that someone else won’t. People were terrified of him and you never know what there reaction will be after we have left. Someone else might try to step up!!!!
MikeB…
First off, very good points. I have absolutely no disagreement with them at all, and believe that all of us who care a wit about the direction our country is headed address every one of them. The Iraq war brings out a plethora of other issues too, like the moral, legal and economic extent and viability of continued US military might in other countries (more than 700 military installations in over 130 countries[1]), the degree to which the annual budget of the US is directed more and more toward military ventures at the expense of just about every thing else[2], and the treatment and questionable use of America’s soldiers (e.g., the misuse of the reserves and cutbacks in healthcare & benefits) in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. Being one who cares about the environment somewhat more than other issues, I would add in all the environment-related problems being created by BushCo[3], as well as other non-Iraq and domestic US issues that need to be addressed. Each of us probably has an agenda of issues most dear to his/her heart and goals/solutions to resolve them, just as the nation hopefully does as well, so prioritizing these many important issues is quite hard indeed. Who’s really to say which issue is more important or “real” here over another?
My point is that we should address this lie, and continue doing so, but not ONLY this lie. Doing this would surely distance ourselves from these other undoubtedly critical issues at home and abroad, as well as make our ultimate efforts for workable and equitable change ineffective. I agree… if we continue ranting on and on merely about the WMD lie, without connecting it to all the other lies being committed and their effects on other issues at hand, and without using these lies as a springboard for a national discussion of viable alternatives & solutions, just as in opposing the Vietnam war we’ll initially be painted as nothing more than whiners and “nattering nabobs of negativism”, only to once again wait decades for the full and embarrassing truths to come out. Complaining about a single lie when others abound would be kind of like criticizing a badly printed book for the typeface on a single hard-to-read page rather than critiquing its overall typeface AND its content.
Rather, I strongly recommend using the WMD lie and all the many other lies perpetrated by this administration as a clear and continual example of the morally corrupt (and bankrupt) foundation upon which all these other issues are being decided and executed. If you or I lied on our resume about something as comparably innocuous as what degrees we got from college, and then never relented in spreading that lie, the company that hired us would fire us in a minute if it had any kind of conscience or moral backbone. (A Diet member here in Japan is going through this dilemma right now as his continual lies about his supposed American college degrees and studies are being revealed. His party kicked him out yesterday and calls are now building for him to resign from the Diet itself.)
Lying about the WMDs as a reason to go to war in Iraq is important because it would help destroy the trust all of us are asked to place in those who lead us. If those in control lie about this issue, then how can and why should they be believed about any other? And what does that portend for the long-term marketability, or true value, of the American image and products abroad, not to mention at home — empire or no empire? A nation can’t survive economically on the sales of flags, bumper stickers and lapel pins alone. Something as seemingly “less important” as the WMD lie — especially given the way it’s relentlessly adhered to by our dear leaders — can easily spread havoc into many other areas of our (and others’) lives, principally because it affirms such a basic flaw in the character of those making the life and death decisions in America’s name. Trade issues and the breakdown of international relations come to mind as just one example of the far-reaching implications of this and other lies. With the extensive reach and omnipresence America has abroad, be it military or otherwise, our country’s prosperity literally depends on implications like this.
This WMD lie is important[4], just as all the other issues are also important, and we who care should connect them all, not letting go of that connection nor the lie’s ability to infest everything else uttered and executed from the corporate-owned administration now in power. There is a lot more at stake here than just a simple misstatement of the truth, and I feel that simply ignoring it because there are “more important” issues would be wrong. I say let’s keep on exposing this entire culture of lying[5] that has invaded our country’s leadership and use that information to the fullest possible advantage that it’s offering us — exposing the lying for the damage it’s doing to our people, our country, and other peoples and nations around the world, with the ultimate goal of seeking viable solutions from the climate of openness and honesty that inevitably has a chance to blossom forth.
[1] according to Chalmers Johnson:
http://www.nationinstitute.org/tomdispatch/index.mhtml?pid=1181
[2] Moving the Oreos
http://ww11.e-tractions.com/truemajority/oreo/landing/index.htm
[3] http://bushgreenwatch.org/
[4] http://www.moveon.org/false/video/
[5] http://www.misleader.org/
Let me preface this with a quote from the above.
“Ok. Most of the west’s intelligence services were wrong. No doubt about that.”
The shame is that the only argument the U.N. would ever possibly accept against Saddam was the one based on WMDs. So much for rape rooms, torture chambers, children’s prisons and totalitarian regimes. Apparently, the U.N. doesn’t care.
I’ve toyed with the idea of getting Shrub out of the white house. I think he sucks as a president. He is certainly no uniter. And as many fiscal conservatives would tell you, he’s no damn von Hayek. (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/lo/story/ch_menu.html)
But I have yet to see one question posed to a democratic candidate about their vision for the future of Iraq — all I hear is that bush lied, mislead, and/or insinuated about the existence of WMDs ad infinitum. Who cares? He was forced to present a cast to the morally derelict U.N. many of whose members possibly profited from the oil for food program, the same oil for food program that was used to blame America for the starvation of Iraqi children, despite the fact that Iraq was not in violation and had no WMD’s in the first place. WTF?
What about the future of Iraq? Not one democratic candidate has a plan for Iraq, nor are they required to, because the democrats simply don’t care. It is not their problem.. Most I’ve met would piss themselves with glee if Iraq fell apart. So much for everything liberals are supposed to stand for. Seriously, I’ve seen the wicked gleam in their eye when I asked them about it, as they backed away cravenly licking their lips.
Damn it parsed in the parenthesis.
RE: MikeB - I get frustrated to see so many people lob this “Bush lied” argument around when there just seems to be so many more important and more clear-cut issues to discuss …
RE: arbalest - Who cares? …
Geez, guyz, those are the exact words I was saying a few years ago when the neo-cons, other cons and all the mindless idiots in America were yakking incessantly about a BJ in the White House and a stupid stained dress. Enough of those yakking idiots cared to spend the money on a Wannabe Lawyer [remember Kenny?] to stage a ridiculous impeachment drive.
Thusly, I CARE.
I think Paul Krugman puts it succinctly…
“the big story isn’t about Mr. Bush; it’s about what’s happening to America.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/30/opinion/30KRUG.html
If Bush would have a sex life as Clinton had, we would have saved tons of lifes and trouble on this planet.