Sinners all, for a despicable act (Alleged child molester: “Iraq Invasion was a monstrous crime”)

The invasion of Iraq was a monstrous crime for which everyone shares the blame, writes Scott Ritter.

The White House's acknowledgement last month that the US has formally ended its search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq brought to a close the most calamitous international deception of modern times.

This decision was taken a month after a contentious presidential election in which the issue of those weapons and the war in Iraq played a central role. George Bush was unwavering in his conviction that Iraq had such weapons.

When one looks at the situation in Iraq today, the only way it would be possible to justify the current state of affairs - a once secular society now the centre of a global anti-American Muslim jihad, tens of thousands of civilians killed, an unending war that costs almost $US6 billion ($7.67 billion) a month, and the basic principles of democracy mocked - is if the invasion of Iraq was for a cause worthy of the price. With no weapons of mass destruction there is no justification for the war. And yet there are no repercussions.

The culpability for the war can be traced to Senate hearings in 2002, when the then Secretary of State, Colin Powell said: "We can have debates about the size of the stockpile ... but no one can doubt two things. One, they [Iraq] are in violation of these resolutions ... And second, they have not lost the intent to develop these weapons of mass destruction."

Politicians, the mainstream media and the public alike accepted this line of argument, without debate, thus setting the stage for an illegal war.

UN weapons inspections were never given a chance. Ever since the Clinton administration ordered them out of Iraq in 1998, the US has denigrated the efficacy of the inspection process. This was a policy perfected by Bush. In October 2002, a month after Saddam Hussein agreed to the unfettered return of weapons inspectors, the US postulated the existence of secret production facilities, protected by a "concealment mechanism" designed to defeat inspectors. Thus, even if they returned, a finding of no weapons of mass destruction was meaningless.

Inspectors did return, and they found nothing. Iraq submitted a complete declaration of its weapons holdings, which was dismissed as lies by the Bush Administration. Everyone seemed to accept this rejection of fact. "Intelligence information" was assumed to be infallible. And yet it was all just hype.

There was never any serious effort undertaken by the Bush Administration to find Iraqi weapons. Before the invasion, the US military re-designated an artillery brigade as an "exploitation task force" designed to search for weapons of mass destruction as the coalition advanced into Iraq. It did little more than serve as a vehicle for its embedded media representative.

A new organisation, the CIA-led Iraq Survey Group, led by David Kay, spun data for the political benefit of the White House. Kay hinted at dramatic findings, only to suddenly reverse course once Saddam Hussein was captured. Kay told us that everyone had got it wrong on weapons of mass destruction, that it was no one's fault. He was replaced by Charles Duelfer, whom

I witnessed manipulate reports to the Security Council, rejecting all that didn't sustain his (and the US Government's) foregone conclusion that Iraq had such weapons.

Politicians, the mainstream media and the public at large failed to let facts get in the way of assertions. The survey group had accomplished its mission - to establish an alibi. Its job done, it slipped quietly away.

Through the invasion of Iraq, a crime of gigantic proportions has been perpetrated. If history has taught us anything, it is that it will condemn both the individuals and respective societies who not only perpetrated the crime, but also remained blind and mute while it was being committed.

Except that the assumption both of them rest on is false--there were no stockpiles.

There were stockpiles. Get your facts straight.

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

The question was whether or not Iraq had destroyed those stockpiles that they admitted to having. They were obligated under the UN resolutions that ended the first Gulf War to prove that those stockpiles were destroyed. They refused. There is unanimous agreement on this point – from Bill Clinton, to Scott Ritter, to Kofi Annan, to George Bush.

Both of those statements by Powell that Ritter cites as untruthful were demonstrably true beyond reasonable doubt.

And his contention that Bush was pushing this “lie” is only true if you believe that everybody else was knowingly lying about the same thing. Here is just a few examples (there are hundreds more):

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of 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. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"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." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

Saddam Hussein used the weapons inspection process to specifically create confusion about whether or not he still retained stockpiles of WMD. He was gambling that the coalition arrayed against him would back down because of that lingering threat.

He lost.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.