An intelligence official in the State Department who retired last September is now coming out and saying that Iraq posed no imminent threat to either the US or its neighbors as of March 2003. Such disturbing news, for a number of reasons. If this person, Greg Thielmann, is correct, then the administration has perpetrated a massive fraud on the American public - a fraud that resulted in the loss of life, both American and Iraqi. Should we have gone into Iraq anyway? I think there are still strong arguments that we should have, with the expulsion of UN weapons investigators in 1998 and the apparently mass slaughter of the country's own citizens by a ruler who seems from outside evidence to be positively demonic in his capacity for evil.
However, a republic must have an informed public that can press representatives for the actions that they think wisest. We might not agree with the outcome one way or the other - democracy guarantees a voice, not satisfaction - but open debate is paramount. Now Rumsfeld says that the decision was based not on new information, but on the reinterpretation of information in the light of 9/11. Let us revisit the stated rationale in remarks Bush made in October 2002:
"Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people. The entire world has witnessed Iraq's eleven-year history of defiance, deception and bad faith."
Also, there was the following from the same speech:
"Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?"
The drive for nuclear weapons was based on such evidence as a supposed attempt to buy uranium, an allegation based on what was known at the time to be a forged document. Notice Bush stating that Iraq "possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons." These are not the words of suspicion or likelihood, but an assertion of fact.
"And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons. Every chemical and biological weapon that Iraq has or makes is a direct violation of the truce that ended the Persian Gulf War in 1991. Yet, Saddam Hussein has chosen to build and keep these weapons despite international sanctions, U.N. demands, and isolation from the civilized world. "
Surveillance photos? Then surely we know where the facilities were and had proof. Why isn't this being explored? Could it be that it, too, fell short of accuracy?
"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. "
Where are the vehicles? Did the US destroy them? If not, there must be some evidence of them. But in other areas - that of terrorism, the US did deliver some of the goods:
Over the years, Iraq has provided safe haven to terrorists such as Abu Nidal, whose terror organization carried out more than 90 terrorist attacks in 20 countries that killed or injured nearly 900 people, including 12 Americans. Iraq has also provided safe haven to Abu Abbas, who was responsible for seizing the Achille Lauro and killing an American passenger.
The US did, indeed, find Abbas in Iraq, and Nidal died there prior to the invasion. So we are left with the question of what the administration actually did know, and whether it completely lied to justify a military action, or inflated its assertions.
And why did not Thielmann and his equivalents make these statements before now? If he is correct, surely the time to take action should have been before the invasion. We are too close to a society where spin and perception, not fact, rules.
7:04:37 AM 
|
