"A leader's lie that kills and maims
his own citizens and destroys the lives of innocent people in the land
he orders attacked is in many ways the ultimate historical tragedy.” |
|
Bush's
War Lie is a Historical Tragedy for America and Iraq
Posted January 30, 2004 thepeoplesvoice.org
By Dave Chandler, Editor/Publisher of www.earthside.com
Let us 'remember' ....
Less than one year ago, George W. Bush knew the truth: Iraq posed no weapons
of mass destruction threat. He knew because that is what the United Nations
weapons inspectors were telling him and the whole world. Yet Bush clung to
what he knew was a lie. He was not mislead by American intelligence -- he
decided to use the lie and start a war.
Since the beginning of the year, there have been momentous developments in
the tale about why George Bush ordered the unprovoked attack, invasion, and
occupation of Iraq. These days may be remembered as the point when the
American people started to come to the realization that when Bush was
confronted with the decision to choose war or peace -- he, and he alone, by
virtue of his office -- betrayed the republic on what is the gravest action
a nation can take, to make war.
In this month, January 2004, has come the insightful report of the Carnegie
Endowment for International Peace that meticulously compared the
"pre-war intelligence, the official presentation of that intelligence,
and what is now known about Iraq's programs." There has been the
release of Ron Susskind's book "The Price of Loyalty" about former
Bush administration Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill and his
contention that: "From the very beginning, there was a conviction that
Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go." And, we have
heard the astonishing revelation by resigned chief US weapons searcher in
Iraq, David Kay, that: "I don't think they existed ... What
everyone was talking about is stockpiles produced after the end of the last
(1991) Gulf War, and I don't think there was a large-scale production
program in the nineties."
Yet in light of these reports and disclosures, when now asked about whether
he believes the weapons of mass destruction (WMD) will be found, the very
casus belli for the war, Bush does not answer the question. His reply
references only his mental state at the time he launched his "shock and
awe" attack: "There is no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein was
a gathering threat to America and others."
But what was in Bush's mind and the facts on the ground in Iraq were not the
same thing. The question around the world and in the United Nations in March
2003, was did Bush really have concrete, substantial, and significant
information on which to start a war?
The answer to that life and death question, and what ultimately exposes the
lie that Bush used to begin the killing, can be found in the simple act of
.. 'remembering'.
'Remembering' is something that Bush is going to increasingly not want
Americans to do. Two weeks before Bush ordered the unprovoked attack on
Iraq, he held a press conference to set out his justifications for
the use of force. Here are a couple of particularly salient Bush remarks to
'remember':
"If the Iraqi regime were disarming, we would know it because we would
see it. Iraq's weapons would be presented to inspectors and the world would
witness their destruction."
"There's a lot of talk about inspectors. It would have taken a handful
of inspectors to determine whether he was disarming. They could've showed up
at a parking lot and he could've brought his weapons and destroyed
them."
In that discourse, his reason for war was not "liberation". His
urgency was based on what he claimed was his certain knowledge that Saddam
Hussein had weapons of mass destruction that would soon be used against
Americans. Yet as we read the quotations from that press conference, we can
identify the one point of abject immorality and criminality that now hangs
around George Bush's neck like a millstone -- even he had to acknowledge the
UN weapons inspectors in Iraq at the time and the fact that they were not
finding the alleged illegal weapons.
We must 'remember' Hans Blix's January 27, 2003 report to the Security
Council explaining in detail the efforts of his inspection team in Iraq.
Reading this report again, one cannot but be struck by the rigorousness and
competence of the still ongoing process. Despite Bush's and the pro-war
faction's political ridicule of the weapons inspectors, they were, in fact,
diligent in their search. Then, in Blix's March 7, 2003 report, he
told of increasing Iraqi cooperation. Blix noted that: "This is not to
say that the operation of inspections is free from frictions, but at this
juncture,we are able to perform professional no-notice inspections all over
Iraq and to increase aerial surveillance. American U-2 and French Mirage
surveillance aircraft already give us valuable imagery, supplementing
satellite pictures, and we would expect soon to be able to add night-vision
capability through an aircraft offered to us by the Russian Federation. We
also expect low-level, close-area surveillance through drones provided by
Germany." The United Nation's inspections effort was able to do things
that we now know, all of our own intelligence agencies in the United States
could not do or interpret adequately. And Blix was able to state just days
before Bush launched his war that: "No underground facilities for
chemical or biological production or storage were found so far."
Furthermore, it must be 'remembered' that the chief inspector of the
International Nuclear Energy Agency, Mohammed ElBaradei reported to the
Security Council on February 14, 2003, that: " We have to date
found no evidence of ongoing prohibited nuclear or nuclear related
activities in Iraq." And 'remember' in ElBaradei's March 7, 2003
report, again before Bush ordered the attack, it was revealed that:
"With regard to uranium acquisition, the IAEA has made progress in its
investigation into reports that Iraq sought to buy uranium from Niger in
recent years. The investigation was centered on documents provided by a
number of states that pointed to an agreement between Niger and Iraq for the
sale of uranium between 1999 and 2001. ... Based on thorough analysis, the
IAEA has concluded with the concurrence of outside experts, that these
documents, which formed the basis for the report of a recent uranium
transaction between Iraq and Niger, are in fact not authentic. We have,
therefore, concluded that these specific allegations are unfounded." In
other words, half a year before Ambassador Joseph Wilson blew the whistle
publicly on Bush's infamous false sixteen words in the 2003 State of the
Union speech, the truth was disclosed by the UN nuclear weapons inspection
team. What would have been a deafening siren of warning to anyone genuinely
interested in war only as a last resort, was either ignored or covered-up by
a White House determined to invade and occupy an independent sovereign
nation.
Now, recently the former head of the Iraq Survey Group, David Kay, has
personally concluded that: "I don't think they [WMD]
existed." It is a stunning declaration coming from one of the loudest
proponents of war on the cable news televisions channels before the attack.
Perhaps conscience compelled Kay to tell the naked truth about the
non-existent weapons, yet loyalty apparently also drives him to make excuses
for Bush. So Kay scapegoats the American intelligence establishment saying,
"It's an issue of the capabilities of one's intelligence service to
collect valid, truthful information ... I actually think the intelligence
community owes the president [an explanation], rather than the president
owing the American people." It is essentially the same argument one is
hearing from Bush political operatives that since everyone believed Hussein
had weapons of mass destruction, the "commander-in-chief" was
justified in acting on the best information he had at the time. But, of
course, as has been demonstrated above, this is where the inexcusable and
damning lie is made. 'Remember' that the best information at the time was
available to the entire world ... Hans Blix and Mohammed ElBaradei laid it
all out for you and me and George Bush and Dick Cheney and Tony Blair and
Jack Straw. What morally and criminally condemns George W. Bush is that in
spite of the truth staring him in the face, or because he purposefully
ignored the facts, he ordered an aggressive war that has meant a death
sentence for many American, British, Italian, and Spanish soldiers, and
thousands of innocent Iraqis.
An illuminating dimension to this scandalous affair is that there are indeed
indications that Bush, himself, at some level comprehends that he has lied
As the book about the tenure of former Treasury secretary Paul O'Neill
demonstrates, Bush and his minions began the planning for "regime
change" in Iraq from their first day in office. By March 2003, Bush had
wanted war with Iraq for over two years and the reason that worked best was,
as he said, "we will disarm Saddam Hussein." It simply must not
have added up for him, therefore, that the UN inspections program, that the
United States itself had voted in favor of at the UN in November
2003, was not finding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. A display of cognitive
dissonance has betrayed him publicly at least twice. Somewhere in Bush's
mind he 'remembers' and gives voice to the inconsistencies. At a press
conference with Kofi Anan on July 14, 2003, Bush said: " ... the
fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the
answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in,
and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we
decided to remove him from power ..." Again, on January 27, 2004,
taking questions with Polish president Kwasniewski, Bush said "
And then we went to the United Nations, of course, and got an overwhelming
resolution -- 1441 -- unanimous resolution, that said to Saddam, you must
disclose and destroy your weapons programs, which obviously meant the world
felt he had such programs. He chose defiance. It was his choice to make, and
he did not let us in."
'Remembering' ... reveals the lie.
There is very little else in the history of humankind that can be as
scandalous and tragic as a leader who lies to take his nation to war. Think
of the social turbulence that enveloped the United States and the cataclysm
caused in Vietnam by the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution; or consider the invasion
"invitation" made by Afghanistan to the Soviet Union in 1979
that began a chain reaction of calamity that haunts us to this day. A
leader's lie that kills and maims his own citizens and destroys the lives of
innocent people in the land he orders attacked is in many ways the ultimate
historical tragedy. It is a betrayal of the people's trust that breeds
cynicism, indifference, and decline.
When George W. Bush started the war with Iraq, in defiance of the truth at
hand, he betrayed America and what had been our unique special place in
history ... and he betrayed the cause of decent humanity on the planet
Earth.
On election day, this, you must 'remember'.
http://www.earthside.com/remember.html
-###-
Dave
Chandler lives in Arvada, Colorado. He is publisher of the
environmental and political web site: earthside.com Comments to: editor_earthside@msn.com