Replies

Bush's Rush To War Was Several Years In The Making(Good Chronology of UN Resolutions on Iraq)
San Antonio Express-News | March 12, 2003 | By Jonathan Gurwitz

Insanity, goes a popular saying, is doing the same thing over and over yet expecting a different result.

By that nonclinical definition, the U.N. Security Council — and anyone who believes it can, in its current form, offer a meaningful solution to the Iraqi crisis — is certifiably nuts.

The Security Council has passed 17 resolutions related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, to which President Bush now feels compelled to add an 18th "final opportunity" for Iraq to comply fully with its international obligations.

Here, then, is an abbreviated version of President Bush's "rush to war," which has, in fact, spanned 12 years, three U.S. presidents and a series of unanimous Security Council votes.

Resolution 687, April 3, 1991: "Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of all chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities ... (and) all ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers."

Resolution 707, Aug. 15, 1991: "Condemns Iraq's serious violation of a number of its obligations ... which constitutes a material breach of the relevant provisions. ... Demands that Iraq provide full, final and complete disclosure.

Resolution 949, Oct. 15, 1994: "Underlining that it will consider Iraq fully responsible for the serious consequences of any failure to fulfill the demands in the present resolution ... demands that Iraq cooperate fully."

Resolution 1060, Oct. 12, 1996: "Deplores the refusal of the Iraqi authorities to allow access to sites ... which constitutes a clear violation of the provisions of Security Council resolutions. Demands that Iraq cooperate fully ... and that the government of Iraq allow ... inspection teams immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to any and all areas, facilities, equipment, records and means of transportation which they wish to inspect."

Resolution 1115, June 21, 1997: "Condemns the repeated refusal of the Iraqi authorities to allow access. ... Demands that Iraq cooperate fully."

Resolution 1134, Oct. 23, 1997: "Condemns the repeated refusal of the Iraqi authorities ... to allow access. ... Decides that such refusals to cooperate constitute a flagrant violation. ... Demands that Iraq cooperate fully."

Resolution 1154, March 2, 1998: "Stresses that compliance by the government of Iraq with its obligations ... is necessary for the implementation of Resolution 687, but that any violation would have severest consequences for Iraq."

Resolution 1194, Sept. 9, 1998: "Determined to ensure full compliance by Iraq ... condemns the decision by Iraq to suspend cooperation ... which constitutes a totally unacceptable contravention of its obligations. ... Demands that Iraq ... cooperate fully."

Resolution 1205, Nov. 5, 1998: "Demands that Iraq ... provide immediate, complete and unconditional cooperation."

Resolution 1441, Nov. 8, 2002: "Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions. ... Decides ... to afford Iraq ... a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations ... with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687."

From the perspective of international law, the international community remains in a state of war with the regime of Saddam Hussein. The 1991 cease-fire was premised on Iraq's acceptance of all provisions of Resolution 687, most notably the obligation to unconditionally disarm.

Iraq's manifest failure to do so renders operative its diplomatic antecedent — Resolution 678, which authorizes member states "to use all necessary means to uphold and implement ... all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area."

With or without an 18th resolution, the United States and its coalition of the willing are fully justified in using force against the regime of Saddam.

That Russia, China and France, whose troops are today operating in Chechnya, Tibet and the Ivory Coast respectively in promotion of narrow, national interests — and often brutally so — without any U.N. sanction, might veto the legitimate use of force against Iraq is the proverbial nail in the coffin for a United Nations that has consigned itself to irrelevancy.

The first casualty of a war with Iraq may be, mercifully, the U.N. legacy of impotence and hypocrisy. May it, if nothing else, rest in peace.

Psssst, imminent threat, pass it on
A few weeks ago, I read remarks attributed to weapons inspector David Kay that his report would offer ample evidence of programs of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq.
Oct 8, 2003
by Kathleen Parker ( bio | archive | contact )

Email to a friend Print this page Text size: A A A few weeks ago, I read remarks attributed to weapons inspector David Kay that his report would offer ample evidence of programs of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq.

Fast-forward to last week, when Kay made his long-awaited interim report. Imagine my surprise when I read stories in papers such as the New York Times that Saddam's alleged arsenal was just a bunch of precursors, potentials and bluffs.

Imagine my surprise when I read that Kay's report confirmed that Iraq posed no imminent threat to the United States or our allies, and that, therefore, there was no justification for war against Iraq.

Had Kay been lying in that earlier story? Faking us out? Teasing with promises to keep us riveted only to make us the world's deadliest fools later on?

So one might think that unless one bothered to read Kay's actual report - rather than news stories about the report by reporters and headline writers whose preference for bad news - if not a Democratic president - is no longer in question.

What Kay really says in his report is that he and his inspectors have found "dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002."

And that's just the beginning of a laundry list of findings that should chill a vampire, including a clandestine network of laboratories suitable for chemical and biological warfare research and a prison lab complex possibly used in the human testing of biological agents.

But, as most news outlets noted as dramatically as possible, he found no stocks of weapons. Bada-bingo.

What Kay also said - and in fact what constitutes the first two long paragraphs of his report - is that we are nowhere close to being finished. His report "is a snapshot," he said, and "much remains to be done."

And then Kay said in perfectly good English: "It is far too early to reach any definitive conclusions."

Yet, conclusions have been reached. Again and again, stories regurgitate claims that Bush exaggerated the case for war against Iraq by insisting that Saddam Hussein posed an imminent threat.

Everybody knows that Bush cast Iraq as an imminent threat, right? We know it the same way we know that one in seven women in college have been raped and that more women are victims of domestic violence on Super Bowl Sunday than any other day.

We "know" these things, even though they are not factually true, because we've read and heard them repeated so often. So it goes with "imminent threat" even though Bush, factually, claimed the opposite in both his address to Congress a year ago and in his 2003 State of the Union address. In the State of the Union address, he said:

"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."

In other words, Bush preempted Saddam's imminence.

Yet news outlets repeatedly headlined stories such as this one, for example, from Radio Free Europe on Oct. 8, 2002: "Iraq: Bush tells Americans Saddam is an imminent threat." Several paragraphs into this same story, reporter Andrew F. Tully, wrote: "But the U.S. president said this urgency does not mean that war is imminent or inevitable."

Come again?

Toward the end of his report, Kay said that, barring conclusions, this much is clear: "Saddam . had not given up his aspirations and intentions to continue to acquire weapons of mass destruction."

Perhaps most important of all were Kay's concluding remarks that, despite enormous physical risk to inspectors, they are committed to finishing the task for two reasons.

One, because whatever they find will be different from pre-war intelligence. Discovering those differences is critical to the quality of future intelligence and thus future security. And two, chillingly, he said:

"We have found people, technical information and illicit procurement networks that if allowed to flow to other countries and regions could accelerate global proliferation."

And that is after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. Surely before the war, those circumstances posed a threat, perhaps even imminent, that if allowed to flower would have provided the incontrovertible proof we so crave - too late.

Kathleen Parker is a popular syndicated columnist and director of the School of Written Expression at the Buckley School of Public Speaking and Persuasion in Camden, South Carolina.

Putting Words in the President's Mouth
Notra Trulock
Thursday, Nov. 6, 2003
Congressional Democrats and their friends in the media continue to distort President Bush’s case for war on Iraq. The controversy that erupted over the president’s reference to Iraq’s quest for uranium is one example of how his opponents have misrepresented what the president has actually said.

Recall that in his State of the Union address, the president said the British told us that Iraq had been seeking to purchase uranium in Africa. A British parliamentary investigation recently validated that conclusion.

David Kay’s interim report on the search for weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq occasioned another outburst. Kay reported that his team had uncovered dozens of WMD activities and programs that had been concealed from United Nations inspectors. But he also said that his team had yet to find stockpiles of existing WMD. Kay told reporters that the preliminary finding "does not mean we’ve concluded there are no actual weapons."

But the president’s political opponents seized on Kay’s report to charge that the administration had misled the American public. In a New York Times "News Analysis," for example, David E. Sanger wrote that Kay’s report shows that "nothing found so far backs up administration claims that Mr. Hussein posed an imminent threat to the world."

CBS News’ coverage of a recent speech by Vice President Cheney concluded that he had "offered no new evidence that Saddam posed an imminent threat as the administration claimed before the war." ABC News made similar claims on its Internet site. It ran a wire story that charged "administration claims that Iraq posed an imminent threat were unfounded."

Other media outlets were content to endlessly replay similar allegations levied against the president by congressional Democrats. For example, House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi told reporters that it was "very clear to me that there was no imminent threat of WMD." Similar allegations by Senators Carl Levin and Jay Rockefeller received widespread media coverage. Sen. Ted Kennedy could be seen over and over again charging that the president’s case against Iraq was all lies.

But numerous Internet Web sites, like AndrewSullivan.com, reminded readers that the president had said no such thing in his State of the Union address. To the contrary, he rejected the advice of those who "said we must not act until the threat is imminent."

Instead, he said, America could not afford to wait until terrorists and tyrants "politely [put] us on notice before they strike." Journalists have yet to uncover an explicit presidential reference to an "imminent threat."

With a few notable exceptions, however, such distortions have gone unchallenged. On Fox News Sunday, host Tony Snow openly disputed Sen. Rockefeller on this point. He even quoted Rockefeller as saying more than a year ago, "I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat."

The fallback for the president’s opponents is now to claim that, even if he didn’t say it, that’s what he really meant. One said that while it was not an exact quotation, "it’s a summary of the president’s assessment." He didn’t say whose summary.

Dem WMD Hypocrisy: Dems Now Attacking Bush Administration On Iraq War Are Same Dems Who Declared Iraq Had WMDs

DEM SENATORS' HYPOCRITICAL ATTACKS ON MANIPULATING FACTS, PRESSURING ANALYSTS
Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY): "[W]hat Happened With Scooter Libby Is Just A Continuation Of A Long Line Of Policy Of Don't Have Debate, Don't Hear Other Facts, Try To Manipulate The Facts So It Meets The Argument You Want." (Sen. Schumer, Press Conference, 11/1/05)

Schumer: "[J]ay Rockefeller Has Been Trying For A Year To Get The Intelligence Committee To Keep Its Promise And Investigate The Misuse Of Intelligence Information." (Sen. Schumer, Press Conference, 11/1/05)
Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV): "The Manipulation Of Intelligence To Sell A War In Iraq, Vice President Cheney's Involved In That." (Sen. Reid, Press Conference, 11/8/05)

Reid: "[Americans] Are Interested In Knowing How An Administration, Led By The Vice President, Can Manipulate Evidence To Bring Us Into The Intractable War We Now Have In Iraq." (Sen. Reid, Press Conference, 11/3/05)
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL): Analyst Faced An "Environment Of Intense Pressure." (Michael Kranish, "CIA Analysts Were Pressured, Democrats Say Senators Differ On Panel Report," The Boston Globe, 7/10/04)

Durbin: "Another Form Of Pressure On The Intelligence Community During 2002 Came From Policy Makers Repetitively Tasking Analysts To Review, Reconsider, And Revise Their Analytical Judgments." (Michael Kranish, "CIA Analysts Were Pressured, Democrats Say Senators Differ On Panel Report," The < I>Boston Globe, 7/10/04
DEMS IGNORE THE FACTS: REPORTS AND OFFICIALS SHOW NO MANIPULATING, PRESSURE
British Butler Report: "In General, We Found That The Original Intelligence Material Was Correctly Reported In [Joint Intelligence Committee] Assessments. ... We Should Record In Particular That We Have Found No Evidence Of Deliberate Distortion Or Of Culpable Negligence. ... We Found No Evidence Of JIC Assessments And The Judgements Inside Them Being Pulled In Any Particular Direction To Meet The Policy Concerns Of Senior Of?cials On The JIC." ("Review Of Intelligence On Weapons Of Mass Destruction," Report Of A Committee Of Privy Counsellors, 7/14/04, p. 110)

Robb-Silberman Commission: "The Commission Found No Evidence Of Political Pressure To Influence The Intelligence Community's Pre-War Assessments Of Iraq's Weapons Programs." (Charles S. Robb And Laurence H. Silberman, The Commission On The Intelligence Capabilities Of The United States Regarding Weapons Of Mass Destruction, 3/31/05)

Bipartisan Senate Select Committee On Intelligence Report: "The Committee Did Not Find Any Evidence That Administration Officials Attempted To Coerce, Influence Or Pressure Analysts To Change Their Judgments Related To Iraq's Weapons Of Mass Destruction Capabilities." ("Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq," U.S. Senate Select Committee On Intelligence, 7/7/04, Pg. 284-285)

Senate Report: "The Committee Found No Evidence That The Vice President's Visits To The Central Intelligence Agency Were Attempts To Pressure Analysts, Were Perceived As Intended To Pressure Analysts By Those Who Participated In The Briefings On Iraq's Weapons Of Mass Destruction Programs, Or Did Pressure Analysts To Change Their Assessments." ("Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq," U.S. Senate Select Committee On Intelligence, 7/7/04, Pg. 284-285)
Duelfer Report: Saddam Sought To "Recreate Iraq's WMD Capability" When Sanctions Were Lifted And "Aspired To Develop A Nuclear Capability." (Comprehensive Report Of The Special Advisor To The DCI On Iraq's WMD, 9/30/04, Pg. 1)

Former Clinton Director For Defense Policy And Arms Control, National Security Council Staff, Peter Feaver: "How Could Even The All-Powerful Neocons Have Manipulated The Intelligence Estimates Of The Clinton Administration, French Intelligence, British Intelligence, German Intelligence And All The Other 'Co-Conspirators' Who Concurred On The Fundamentals Of The Bush Assessment?" (Peter D. Feaver, Op-Ed, "The Fog Of WMD," The Washington Post, 1/28/04)

Former Secretary Of State Colin Powell: "The Best Intelligence Information Available To The President And All Of His Advisors, Available To The International Community, Available To The UN, Available To The United Kingdom And France And Germany And All Others, Left No Doubt In Our Mind That [Saddam] Had Stockpiles ..." (Committee On Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 1/27/05)

DEMS IGNORE THEIR PAST: SAID IRAQ WAS THREAT, HAD WMDs
Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV): "The Problem Is Not Nuclear Testing; It Is Nuclear Weapons. ... The Number Of Third World Countries With Nuclear Capabilities Seems To Grow Daily. Saddam Hussein's Near Success With Developing A Nuclear Weapon Should Be An Eye-Opener For Us All." (Sen. Harry Reid, Congressional Record, 8/3/92, p. S11188)

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY): "If Iraq Were To Develop A Nuclear Weapon ... They Certainly Could Give It To A Suicide Bomber, Put It On A Container That Comes In A Ship Or A Plane, Or Assembled In Another Country And Comes Across Our Border In Mexico Or In Canada. And So That's A Real Danger, The Combination." (CNN's "Late Edition," 9/8/02)

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL): "One Of The Most Compelling Threats We In This Country Face Today Is The Proliferation Of Weapons Of Mass Destruction. Threat Assessments Regularly Warn Us Of The Possibility That North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Or Some Other Nation May Acquire Or Develop Nuclear Weapons." (Sen. Dick Durbin, Congressional Record, 9/30/99, p. S11673)

Former President Bill Clinton: "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." (President Bill Clinton, Remarks To Joint Chiefs Of Staff And Pentagon Staff, 2/17/98)

Former Vice President Al Gore: "[I]f You Allow Someone Like Saddam Hussein To Get Nuclear Weapons, Ballistic Missiles, Chemical Weapons, Biological Weapons, How Many People Is He Going To Kill With Such Weapons? He's Already Demonstrated A Willingness To Use These Weapons ..." (CNN's "Larry King Live," 12/16/98)

Former Secretary Of State Madeline Albright: "Iraq Is A Long Way From [Here], But What Happens There Matters A Great Deal Here, For The Risk That The Leaders Of A Rogue State Will Use Nuclear, Chemical Or Biological Weapons Against Us Or Our Allies Is The Greatest Security Threat We Face, And It Is A Threat Against Which We Must And Will Stand Firm." ("Secretary Of State Madeleine Albright, Secretary Of Defense William Cohen And National Security Adviser Sandy Berger Participate In Town Hall Meeting," Federal News Service, 2/18/98)

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY): "I Voted For The Iraqi Resolution. I Consider The Prospect Of A Nuclear-Armed Saddam Hussein Who Can Threaten Not Only His Neighbors, But The Stability Of The Region And The World, A Very Serious Threat To The United States." (Sen. Hillary Clinton, Press Conference, 1/22/03)

Sen. John Kerry (D-MA): "According To The CIA's Report, All U.S. Intelligence Experts Agree That Iraq Is Seeking Nuclear Weapons. There Is Little Question That Saddam Hussein Wants To Develop Nuclear Weapons." (Sen. John F. Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/9/02, pp. S10172-10173)

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT): "I Have No Doubt Saddam Hussein Is Lying. He Has Lied Countless Times Before. He Is Likely Hiding Weapons, Including Chemical And Biological Weapons. The U.N. Inspectors' Report Leaves Little Doubt Of That." (Sen. Patrick Leahy, Congressional Record, 1/30/03, p. S1782)

Leahy: "The Iraqis Have Not Explained What Happened To Thousands Of Tons Of Chemical Weapons Material, And Other Biological Munitions They Had In Their Possession 5 Years Ago." (Sen. Patrick Leahy, Congressional Record, 1/30/03, p. S1782)

Leahy: "There Have Been Discoveries Of Empty Chemical Weapons Shells And Documents They Had Not Disclosed. These Are Serious Discrepancies By A Regime That Is Among The World's Most Dangerous, Deceptive, And Brutal." (Sen. Patrick Leahy, Congressional Record, 1/30/03, p. S1782)