| “ | Originally
Posted By: Pope_Wingnut 
why did we invade iraq? | ” |
|
The left repeats the two falsehoods that Bush's critics seem to think will magically become true if they just keep chanting them:
1) The only reason the US invaded Iraq was because of its WMD programs, and
2) Bush emphasized Iraq was an "imminent threat" to American security.
In fact, Iraq did have active WMD programs, which even the UN's special commission, UNMOVIC (UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission),
confirmed this (
also here).
| “ | The United Nations has determined that Saddam Hussein shipped weapons of mass destruction components as well as [forbidden] medium-range ballistic missiles before, during and after the U.S.-led war against Iraq in 2003.
The UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission briefed the Security Council on new findings that could help trace the whereabouts of Saddam's missile and WMD program. | ” |
|
The Senate Intelligence Committee confirmed this summer as well that Iraq was seeking to acquire "yellowcake," uranium ore, from Africa, just as British intelligence had claimed all along, and President Bush used 16 words to declare in his 2002 State of the Union speech. Since the end of the invasion, chemical-filled munitions have been found and one chemical artillery shell was used as a roadside bomb against American troops.
Iraq, of course, used massive quantities of chemical weapons against the Kurds in the 1980s, killing thousands. Following 1991's Gulf War, the UNSC resolved - repetitively - that Iraq must divest itself of existing stockpiles of unconventional weapons (meaning nuclear, chemical or biological weapons), certain kinds of long-range attack weapons such as missiles with a range longer than (from memory
100 kilometers, and cease development programs thereof. Furthermore, the burden of proof for compliance with these resolutions rested on Saddam's government. The weapons and weapons programs' materiel had to be destroyed by the United Nations inspection teams or Iraq had conclusively to document its own destruction of its WMDs and WMD programs.
Significant progress was made over the ensuing years, but increasing and finally total resistance and evasion of the requirements finally led the UN to withdraw its inspection teams in late 1998. That December, citing grave danger from Iraqi WMDs and WMD programs, President Bill Clinton launched Operation Desert Fox, an intensive bombardment of Iraq that lasted four days. The UK participated also. Clinton did not seek authorization from Congress to conduct this brief war; he said that the 1991 Gulf War resolution was still in effect and inherently authorized whatever military actions he ordered against Iraq.
Over the next four years every Western intelligence service and many others (i.e., Russia) and the UN itself concluded that Saddam had restarted WMD programs and was making significant progress in several areas. The UNSC passed Resolution 1441 in December 2002 that gave Saddam an ultimatum: admit the UN inspection teams for unfettered activity or face "serious consequences;" the resolution authorized member states to enforce its terms. All diplomats understood this resolution was diplo-speak for threat of war.
That Iraq possessed actual nuclear, chemical or biological weapons by early 2003 was hardly doubted by any Western nation. Since the invasion the existence of forbidden weapons and weapons programs has been conclusively proven, although except for some chemical shells no actual weapons have been found.
However, that Iraq had active WMD programs, forbidden by the UN, has been decisively proven, as I related above. So I would like to ask Mr. Walloski and others scoffing at the WMD-related rationale for the invasion to say whether they think
President Clinton was right or wrong in December 1998:
We began with this basic proposition: Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to develop nuclear arms, poison gas, biological weapons, or the means to deliver them. He has used such weapons before against soldiers and civilians, including his own people. We have no doubt that if left unchecked he would do so again.
Saddam must not be prepared to defy the will -- be permitted -- excuse me -- to defy the will of the international community. . . . So long as Saddam remains in power he will remain a threat to his people, his region and the world. . . .
Why, if this claim was right and just in 1998, was it less so in 2003? Why, if Clinton was right and just to attack Iraq in 1998 - and not resolve the issue!- was Bush wrong to attack in 2003 and conclusively resolve the issue?
Now let's turn our attention to the "imminent threat" canard. The president's opposition, Mr. Walloski being the latest example, continues to claim that Bush said Iraq posed an "imminent threat" to the security of the United States.
But Bush said no such thing. I quoted Kerry supporter Andrew Sullivan last October:
The administration claimed that Saddam had used WMDs in the past, had hidden materials from the United Nations, was hiding a continued program for weapons of mass destruction, and that we should act before the threat was imminent. The argument was that it was impossible to restrain Saddam Hussein unless he were removed from power and disarmed. The war was legally based on the premise that Saddam had clearly violated U.N. resolutions, was in open breach of such resolutions and was continuing to conceal his programs with the intent of restarting them in earnest once sanctions were lifted. Having read the report carefully, I'd say that the administration is vindicated in every single respect of that argument. This war wasn't just moral; it wasn't just prudent; it was justified on the very terms the administration laid out.
Here are some pertinent facts laid out by John Hawkins, for which I am providing the original citations and other commentary. Bush explicitly addressed the Iraqi threat in his S
tate of the Union Speech in January 2002:
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.
There was no claim of an "imminent threat" there, but instead an explicit continuation of Bill Clinton's existing policy , that the threat posed by Saddam's weapons programs must not be allowed to become imminent.
Furthermore, the potential WMD threat was only one point of the casus belli laid out by Bush before the invasion. On Sept. 12, 2002, President Bush addressed the United Nations General Assembly. In this speech, Bush concisely
explained the case against Iraq:
If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose, and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles, and all related material.
If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all support for terrorism and act to suppress it, as all states are required to do by U.N. Security Council resolutions.
If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shi'a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans, and others, again as required by Security Council resolutions.
If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown. It will return the remains of any who are deceased, return stolen property, accept liability for losses resulting from the invasion of Kuwait, and fully cooperate with international efforts to resolve these issues, as required by Security Council resolutions.
If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept U.N. administration of funds from that program, to ensure that the money is used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people.
Finally, consider the words of this prominent American political figure in 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, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. 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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.
Who said that? Hillary Clinton,
Oct. 10, 2002, who said in the same speech on the Senate floor that if the UNSC passed a "strong resolution" requiring Iraq's compliance, then,
I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 UN resolution, as President [Bill] Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998.
What this means is that that her position was that no further Congressional authorization was needed for President Bush to force Iraq's compliance by military power.
A final point: Mr. Walloski said in the interview that the world is better of without Saddam in power and that the liberation of Iraq was a good thing. Yet now he calls the liberation and Saddam's removal a mistake. I can't explain the cognitive dissonance found in these kinds of statements, especially when they are coupled with claims that freeing the Iraqi people was sort of beside the point of the war (it was either all about Dubya-Emmm-Deees or the ooooiiiiiiiiiiiilllllll). Somehow, this explicit statement by Bush to the UN General Assembly on Sept. 12, 2002 has escaped their attention:
Liberty for the Iraqi people is a great moral cause, and a great strategic goal. The people of Iraq deserve it; the security of all nations requires it. Free societies do not intimidate through cruelty and conquest, and open societies do not threaten the world with mass murder. The United States supports political and economic liberty in a unified Iraq. ...
If we fail to act in the face of danger, the people of Iraq will continue to live in brutal submission . The regime will have new power to bully and dominate and conquer its neighbors, condemning the Middle East to more years of bloodshed and fear. The regime will remain unstable -- the region will remain unstable, with little hope of freedom, and isolated from the progress of our times. With every step the Iraqi regime takes toward gaining and deploying the most terrible weapons, our own options to confront that regime will narrow. And if an emboldened regime were to supply these weapons to terrorist allies, then the attacks of September the 11th would be a prelude to far greater horrors. [italics added]
Twice in as many paragraphs the president emphasized the liberation of the Iraqi people as both a moral and strategic imperative of the United States, yet his critics now claim this goal was retrojected onto the campaign after the occupation seemingly turned sour and after stockpiles of WMDs were not located.
Yet it is blindingly obvious that as early as this speech's date, Bush was not claiming at all that Iraq had a storehouse of WMDs; note well his language: "With every step the Iraqi regime takes toward gaining and deploying the most terrible weapons... ."
An objective consideration of the facts shows that the administration never claimed that Iraq posed an imminent threat because of its WMDS or WMD programs, and that in fact the president pretty clearly indicated the threat was not imminent. But he also was clear, as were previously both President and Senator Clinton, that Saddam WMD programs must not be allowed to come to fruition.
