The President told the nation, without equivocation, that Iraq possessed chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons.
He further told the nation that rogue states such as Iraq formed an "unholy axis" with terrorists, drug traffickers, and international criminals.
The President lied.
We were unwilling to reach this conclusion before. But based upon the indefensible lies in the following speech, we must finally, as an act of intellectual honesty, admit the President deceived the nation into supporting unilateral military action:
But for all our promise, all our opportunity, people in this room know very well that this is not a time free from peril, especially as a result of reckless acts of outlaw nations and an unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers and organized international criminals.
We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century. They feed on the free flow of information and technology. They actually take advantage of the freer movement of people, information and ideas.
And they will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen.
There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq. His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region and the security of all the rest of us.
I want the American people to understand first the past how did this crisis come about?
And I want them to understand what we must do to protect the national interest, and indeed the interest of all freedom-loving people in the world.
Remember, as a condition of the cease-fire after the Gulf War, the United Nations demanded not the United States the United Nations demanded, and Saddam Hussein agreed to declare within 15 days this is way back in 1991 within 15 days his nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them, to make a total declaration. That's what he promised to do.
The United Nations set up a special commission of highly trained international experts called UNSCOM, to make sure that Iraq made good on that commitment. We had every good reason to insist that Iraq disarm. Saddam had built up a terrible arsenal, and he had used it not once, but many times, in a decade-long war with Iran, he used chemical weapons, against combatants, against civilians, against a foreign adversary, and even against his own people.
And during the Gulf War, Saddam launched Scuds against Saudi Arabia, Israel and Bahrain.
Now, instead of playing by the very rules he agreed to at the end of the Gulf War, Saddam has spent the better part of the past decade trying to cheat on this solemn commitment. Consider just some of the facts:
Iraq repeatedly made false declarations about the weapons that it had left in its possession after the Gulf War. When UNSCOM would then uncover evidence that gave lie to those declarations, Iraq would simply amend the reports.
For example, Iraq revised its nuclear declarations four times within just 14 months and it has submitted six different biological warfare declarations, each of which has been rejected by UNSCOM.
In 1995, Hussein Kamal, Saddam's son-in-law, and the chief organizer of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, defected to Jordan. He revealed that Iraq was continuing to conceal weapons and missiles and the capacity to build many more.
Then and only then did Iraq admit to developing numbers of weapons in significant quantities and weapon stocks. Previously, it had vehemently denied the very thing it just simply admitted once Saddam Hussein's son-in-law defected to Jordan and told the truth. Now listen to this, what did it admit?
It admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs.
And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production.
As if we needed further confirmation, you all know what happened to his son-in-law when he made the untimely decision to go back to Iraq.
Next, throughout this entire process, Iraqi agents have undermined and undercut UNSCOM. They've harassed the inspectors, lied to them, disabled monitoring cameras, literally spirited evidence out of the back doors of suspect facilities as inspectors walked through the front door. And our people were there observing it and had the pictures to prove it.
...
It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them.
The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons.
Now, against that background, let us remember the past here. It is against that background that we have repeatedly and unambiguously made clear our preference for a diplomatic solution.
...
Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made?
Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction.
And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal. And I think every one of you who's really worked on this for any length of time believes that, too.
Now we have spent several weeks building up our forces in the Gulf, and building a coalition of like-minded nations. Our force posture would not be possible without the support of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, the GCC states and Turkey. Other friends and allies have agreed to provide forces, bases or logistical support, including the United Kingdom, Germany, Spain and Portugal, Denmark and the Netherlands, Hungary and Poland and the Czech Republic, Argentina, Iceland, Australia and New Zealand and our friends and neighbors in Canada.
...
Let me be clear: A military operation cannot destroy all the weapons of mass destruction capacity. But it can and will leave him significantly worse off than he is now in terms of the ability to threaten the world with these weapons or to attack his neighbors.
...
Saddam Hussein's Iraq reminds us of what we learned in the 20th century and warns us of what we must know about the 21st. In this century, we learned through harsh experience that the only answer to aggression and illegal behavior is firmness, determination, and when necessary action.
In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.
If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program.
But if we act as one, we can safeguard our interests and send a clear message to every would-be tyrant and terrorist that the international community does have the wisdom and the will and the way to protect peace and security in a new era. That is the future I ask you all to imagine. That is the future I ask our allies to imagine.
Emphasis added.
The President claimed, in the above-cited speech, that Saddam possessed nuclear, biological, and chemical capabilities. The he resisted inspections in order to preserve those capabilities. That among his weapons was
anthrax.
You will of course note that the list of "allies" the President lists as taking part in his heedless rush to military conflict omits our most important allies, like France, Russia, China, Belgium and Luxembourg. His "allies" for his military action are a mere "Coalition of the Bought," a clutch of second-raters, like Britain and Australia and the Czech Republic and Poland and Hungary and Turkey and Spain.
Furthermore, he inflamed the Arab street by couching the struggle in a needless invocation of Christian religious metaphor, using the word "unholy" to describe the threats facing us in the 21st century. He further described their alliance as an "axis," dishonestly comparing this collection of thugs -- who are better dealt with as a law-enforcement problem -- as an "axis," recalling the Central Powers in WWII.
He insisted that Saddam posed a clear threat to "freedom-loving peoples" of the world. Not only is this quite plainly
false as an empirical matter, but his choice of language indicates a fundamental unseriousness. This is the "baby-talk" style of rhetoric that Chris Matthews and other liberal commentators so abhor. It is childish, simplistic, and dishonest to claim that Saddam posed a threat to "freedom-loving people" -- Saddam did not hate our "freedom," and neither does Al Qaeda. Only a simple-minded, Mannichean jingoist of the worst sort would imply that the Muslim world's dispute from us enmity towards us is somehow due to our "freedom."
Finally, and most importantly, he made it quite clear that Saddam would, without doubt, one day use that arsenal. And that, one day, Saddam could well deliver this arsenal to terrorists.
There is no walking back that particular cat. The President's words were clear and direct and without ambiguity.
In two short words that we hesitate to use about a President of the United States:
He lied.
So what are we waiting for? Why don't we impeach this lying, unilateralist, unserious, messianic, childishly simplistic warmonger?
For a simple reason: because, as you have probably guessed, we already have impeached him.
For it was not President Bush delivering the above-quoted speech.
The President delivering this address was William Jefferson Clinton, 42d President of the United States, impeached in late 1998 (on different grounds, of course).
The speech was delivered February 17, 1998, at the Pentagon.
Read the full speech at
the CNN archives.
Sorry, Ace, the prez is right.
Somewhere a deck is short a joker.