Posted on 03/08/2016 12:32:52 PM PST by SeekAndFind
As Peter Allen once sang, Everything old is new again — including the claim that George W. Bush lied about Iraq to get us into a war. Last month, Donald Trump revived the allegations as an attack on Jeb Bush, whose candidacy was already fading out of contention. Judith Miller, who went to jail to prevent disclosing her sources, addresses this claim in a new Prager University video released earlier today, arguing that most of what people think they know about the march to war in Iraq is simply wrong … much like the intelligence analyses that took us to war 13 years ago this month:
There was no shortage of mistakes about Iraq, and some of the media’s prewar WMD stories were wrong, including some of mine. But so is the enduring, pernicious accusation that the Bush administration fabricated WMD intelligence to take the country to war. Before the 2003 invasion, President Bush and other senior officials cited the intelligence community’s incorrect conclusions about Saddam’s WMD capabilities and, on occasion, went beyond them. But relying on the mistakes of others — completely understandable mistakes given Saddam’s horrendous record — and making errors of judgment are not the same as lying. …
Over the previous 15 years, none of the congressional committees routinely briefed on Iraq’s WMD assessments expressed concern about bias or error. The decision to go to war in Iraq received broad support in Congress from both Republicans and Democrats — and again for good reason. Even if the intelligence community overestimated Saddam Hussein’s WMD capability, it didn’t create it out of thin air. Saddam had used chemical weapons on his own people, killing thousands. He had invaded his neighbors, repeatedly.
No, President Bush did not take America into a war because he was strong-armed by a neoconservative cabal. As President Bush himself famously asserted, he was the “decider.” And no, he didn’t go to war for oil. If we wanted Saddam’s oil, we could have bought it.
President’s Bush decision to go to war was based on the information that he and his team relied on — information that was collected by the world’s top agents and analyzed by the world’s top analysts, including the intelligence agencies of France, Germany and Russia, countries whose leaders did not support going to war. But they all agreed on one thing — Saddam had and was continuing to develop WMD.
Our intelligence professionals, and those of major European countries, overestimated Saddam’s capabilities. Mistakes like that filter through the system — from the White House to Congress to journalists to the public. And those mistakes impact policy. But here’s the key thing to remember — they were mistakes…not lies.
Miller rebuts one particular argument about the pre-war intelligence. It didn’t get “cooked,” she says, but instead the devastation of 9/11 made underestimating threats look a lot more dangerous than overestimating them:
The members of the intelligence community with whom I dealt were overwhelmingly reliable, hardworking and honest. But they were also human, and, in the aftermath of 9/11, they were very wary of ever again underestimating a terrorist threat.
There’s an enduring myth that policy makers pressured intelligence analysts into altering their estimates to suit the Bush administration’s push to war. Yet several thorough, bipartisan inquiries found no evidence of such pressure. What they reveal, instead, is that bad intelligence led to bad policy decisions.
There is no small amount of irony in this argument coming up now. The Department of Defense and the intelligence community have active investigations looking into whether CENTCOM and other analysts have been cooking intelligence to make our anti-ISIS strategy look more successful than it truly is — and bury the threat of ISIS until it was too late. Warnings about cooked intel analyses went all the way to James Clapper, who apparently didn’t do much to correct the issue at the time.
However, several investigations have made clear that this was not the case with Iraq. Bush didn’t lie; he relied on bad intelligence amplified by the heightened concern after 9/11. The Saddam-WMD intel preceded Bush’s term in office, and Democrats before and after 9/11 offered the same warnings about Saddam’s intentions and his preparations. And while WMD was not found in bulk quantities, some undeclared chemical weapons actually were found by US forces after the invasion, as well as records that made clear that Saddam would reconstitute his WMD capabilities after the US and UK finally left. On top of that, Saddam refused to comply with the terms of the 1991 cease-fire and 17 UN resolutions demanding his cooperation.
All of this has been known for a decade. Only conspiracy theorists and manipulative demagogues continue to claim that “Bush lied us into war in Iraq.” Consider it a self-identifying behavior and choose accordingly.
The media became openly against us when Walter Cronkite (may he burn) screwed us in Vietnam days from the North Vietnamese coming to the table for a peace agreement.
He didn’t lie, and he didn’t defend himself against those who said he was lying. He was just an idiot.
Yep.
No.
GWB did not lie.
Iraq not only had WMD but also used them and many chemical warheads were later found Iraq after coalition forces liberated that country.
If chemical weapons are considered WMD, GWB was definitely not lying.
I saw much of that same intel. Bush didn’t lie about Iraq... where he grossly failed was following Rasputin Rove’s advice and not vigorously defending himself when the dems jumped ship and accused him of lying.
Donald Trump should see this.
Well said.
Bush "lied" is one of the things Trump was wrong about.
However, rightly or wrongly, the majority of the people in this nation have been convinced by the media and the Dems that Bush lied.
For that matter, Obama STILL blames everything wrong with the country on Bush, as do Hillary and the Democrat party.
That line will not work against Trump in any way, including attempting to use the disaster that Iraq has become against Trump.
Concerning the presence of WMD’s, David Kay reported Hussein was developing missiles with ranges in excess of UN limitations, saying they were the center pole of the tent under which Hussein would rebuild his WMD’s as the sanction regime further deteriorated. He found Hussein retained the scientists and technology to restart production of mustard and VX gas. Hussein was also currently developing an indigenous precursor for VX and a stimulant for freeze-drying anthrax. Kay reported Hussein was rebuilding infrastructure and staff for nuclear weapons. Mahdi Obeidi maintained in the New York Times that when the world looked the other way, the knowledge of hundreds of scientists could be applied to existing designs and a centrifuge prototype to jump start the operation. Iraq already had 500 tons of yellow cake in the country under U.N. seal, which was confirmed to have no meaning after the North Korean experience. The regime just needed a latter day Albert Speer or Leslie Groves to replace Hussein Kamel.
The idea Hussein did not have stockpiles of WMD’s is not a creditable assumption. One has to believe that a fracturing, Oriental dictatorship of several competing and self-interested spheres of influence achieved an unparalleled intelligence deception. The sophisticated intelligence services of U.S.A., Britain, France, and Germany had independently determined Iraq had stockpiles of WMD’s.
These intelligence professionals apply different methods using different resources, and jealously guard their insights and prerogatives. As an example the Butler Commission still maintains Hussein’s people went to Niger to acquire yellow cake contrary to the amateurish assertion of Joe Wilson. Common sense tells you his dictatorship would never allow valuable people to leave the country just to collect a few local crafts from a country whose leading export is uranium. All four of them were not wrong. The most reasonable assumption, for which much evidence exists, is that Syria and Russia received inventories in trust for the regime.
The evidence was sufficiently creditable that not only Bush, but Congress believed the stockpiles were present. I quote, “We have known for years Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing WMD’s. Iraq’s search for WMD’s has proven impossible to deter and we should assume it continues as long as Saddam is in power. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that demanded he disarm and destroy chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq October 1998. We are confident Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up chemical and biological warfare capabilities. There is unmistakable evidence Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons, and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. That is why we must be prepared to use force, if necessary, to disarm Hussein and eliminate Iraq’s WMD’s once and for all.”
The above quotes compile statements respectively by Ted Kennedy, Al Gore, Henry Waxman, Robert Byrd, Jay Rockefeller, and John Edwards. These quotes were uncontested points in 2002, and formed a basis for legislation enabling Bush to follow U.N. resolutions to use military force to remove Hussein’s regime, and the threat posed by his material breach of obligations to prove abandonment of WMD’s and terrorist support.
Concerning the irrelevance of WMD’s, the ceasefire ended and war began in 1991 was resumed, because Hussein behaved in material breach of international obligations as reaffirmed in Resolution 1441. Nowhere in Congressional resolutions of 1991, 1998 and 2002, or U.N. Resolutions 678, 687 and 1441 can one see possession of stockpiles of WMD’s as a reason for confronting him with military action. Behavior in terms of threats, evasion, intimidation, and past use, not possession, was always the key. He was to unconditionally accept destruction or removal of all stocks and programs for WMD’s and for all missiles over 150-kilometre range. He was enjoined from committing, supporting or providing safe haven for international terrorism. I was continually frustrated by Bush Administration spokesmen and media advocates, who would not craft sound bites emphasizing that behavior and the resultant uncertainty was central to resuming the war.
Resolution 687 incorporated 678 and 19 previous resolutions without amendment, and offered Hussein a conditional ceasefire in 1991. Instead he ignored the responsibility to submit a comprehensive declaration of all WMD stockpiles and programs, and missiles with greater than 150 kilometre range. He thwarted the program envisioned by menacing, eluding, and deceiving inspectors. The U.N. resorted to surveillance, analysis, and investigation to destroy material and disrupt programs until Hussein expelled them in 1998. He also continued forbidden involvement in international terrorism. In response, Bush #1, U.N. and Clinton ignored their responsibilities to deal with Hussein’s ongoing material breaches.
None of these resolutions were cobbled together like a middle schooler’s term paper. Diplomats and politicians laboriously parsed each phrase for clear focus on actions instead of nouns; behaviors not stockpiles. The key words were guarantee, reaffirm, accept, submit, declare, yield, forgo, agree, inform, comply, cooperate, lie, omit, and thwart. The U.N.’s ultimatums in Resolutions 678 and 1441 authorized disarming Hussein’s regime through military operations in Iraq “to restore international peace and security in the area”, and did not instruct the coalition to merely expel Hussein from Kuwait.
U.N. precedent from the Korean War ensured the above phrase intended invasion of Iraq. The term “in the area” used phraseology, confirmed by the U.N. and Congress, authorizing military action above the 38th parallel to disarm North Korea. Everyone in the Security Council and Congress understood that a further material breach required ending the ceasefire, and resuming the war authorized by Resolution 678.
The war against Saddam Hussein was resumed because Bush #2 finally obeyed U.N. and confirming Congressional mandates. Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill envisioned re-establishment of collective security when founding the U.N. in San Francisco. Finally in 2003 the United States, heading a coalition exceeding that Churchill and Roosevelt assembled to confront Hitler’s Germany, toppled Hussein’s regime, and forced the U.N. to confront the reason for its’ existence.
Text U.N. Resolution 678
http://www.casi.org.uk/info/undocs/gopher/s90/32
Text U.N. Resolution 687
http://www.casi.org.uk/info/undocs/gopher/s91/4
Text U.N. Resolution 1441
http://www.casi.org.uk/info/undocs/scres/2002/res1441e.pdf
David Kay Interview
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r108:S28JA4-0018:
Saddam, the Bomb and Me
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/26/opinion/26obeidi.html?pagewanted=print&position
CIA World Fact Book: Niger
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ng.html
Ted Kennedy Sept. 27, 2002; http://kennedy.senate.gov/~kennedy/statements/02/09/2002927718.html
Al Gore Sept. 23, 2002: www.commonwealthclub.org/archive/02/02-09gore-speech.html
Henry Waxman October10, 2002; http://www.house.gov/waxman/news_files/news_statements_res_iraq_10_10_02.htm
Robert Byrd October 3, 2002; http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/archive/2002/byrd100302.htm
Jay Rockefeller October 10, 2002; http://rockefeller.senate.gov/news/2002/flrstmt0102002.html
John Edwards October 10, 2002; http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r107:7:./temp/~r107pqkqkf:e858562:
Korean War Resolution 84 (1950) of 7 July 1950
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3b00f1e85c.html
Butler Commission: Review of Intelligence on Weapons of Mass Destruction
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Politics/documents/2004/07/14/butler.pdf
Text U.N. Resolution 678
http://www.casi.org.uk/info/undocs/gopher/s90/32
Public Law 102-1: Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Iraq_Resolution
Text U.N. Resolution 687
http://www.casi.org.uk/info/undocs/gopher/s91/4
Text of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/105/hr4655/text
Text U.N. Resolution 1441
http://www.casi.org.uk/info/undocs/scres/2002/res1441e.pdf
Text of Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/107/hjres114/text
David Kay Interview
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r108:S28JA4-0018:
Saddam, the Bomb and Me
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/26/opinion/26obeidi.html?pagewanted=print&position
CIA World Fact Book: Niger
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ng.html
Korean War Resolution 84 (1950) of 7 July 1950
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3b00f1e85c.html
Butler Commission: Review of Intelligence on Weapons of Mass Destruction
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Politics/documents/2004/07/14/butler.pdf
No.
I would also add that there were some articles a few years ago that added some context to Bush's mysterious failure to proclaim that there were WMDs in Iraq. It was that he didn't want to say what Saddam had because they were scattered all over the country and he didn't want insurgents looking for and finding them, something to that effect. I wasn't entirely convinced, but there might be some aspect of that in Bush's silence.
In any event, the sight of miles of Russian trucks heading south into Bekaa valley is etched into our minds, and we are not stupid. Thanks for a great post.
Good work. It looks like you did more research than Jeb Bush.
I am throwing in with Trump on the possibility that there is still a chance we can overcome the last 8 years (that Bush helped bring about!) but I fear it is like a Humpty Dumpty and can't be put back together again.
He may have exaggerated the threat.
The reason I call this into question is that Bush had an ax to grind with Saddam. After Gulf War I, Saddam put together a plot to have George H.W. Bush assassinated during one of his trips to Kuwait. George W. Bush swore vengeance.
It would have been tough for Jeb to get into the esoterics of the argument about whether Bush lied in the debate. 95 percent of the people have concluded that he did, or at least, that there were no WMDs and the war was a mistake. It was a no win situation for him, which is among the reasons it was stupid for the GOPe to think it even remotely possible to run anyone named Bush.
Thanks for this posting. Although I was disappointed in the first Bush administration because it strayed from the Reagan foreign policies, the GWB admin seemed to be better grounded. Until of course all the problems with the bankruptcies on Wall Street.
I still like GWB. He was a true patriot who took lots of guff from the liberals in the media and at the universities. They seemed to hate him, and I once read that the animosity for GWB began when the story of his turnaround of his life his through faith in Jesus Christ, and his quitting alcoholic beverages.
I do wish he would have rebutted some of the numerous lies and innuendos that the Democrats spread around like horse manure.
Time to let all this nonsense go...........
But it doesn't excuse Jack Wilson's LYING claim that Hussein never purchased yellow cake uranium.....
Pentagon announces 500 tons of Uranium shipped from Iraq to Canada
500 tons of uranium shipped from Iraq, Pentagon says
So how exactly did Hussein come across 500 metric tons of uranium let alone allow Canada to purchase it and the U.S. clandestinely ship it to them????????
I have never doubted that George W. Bush sincerely believed that Saddam possessed WMD. No one, including W. could be stupid enough to justify a war on WMD grounds, knowing he would be skewered if relatively little was found. I suspect he thought the US could control Iraq, and thereby protect Israel and the Persian Gulf oil states and contain Iran. Not a bad objective of itself, but a gigantic undertaking.
Bush completely failed by not thinking through, before starting, how to manage the aftermath of the military phase. On his watch, idiots made bad fundamental decisions that set the stage for a prolonged insurgency and continuing state of multi-faction civil war (notably by disbanding the Iraqi army instead of co-opting it, and not imposing a federal system). If Bush wanted to destabilize the ME, his post-war management did a heck uv a job.
RE: But it doesn’t excuse Jack Wilson’s LYING claim that Hussein never purchased yellow cake uranium.....
I think his name was JOE WILSON.
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.