Steve Savicki
01-18-2005, 04:35 PM
POSTED: 11:03 am CST January 18, 2005
http://www.thebostonchannel.com/helenthomas/4103665/detail.html
"In case there was any
doubt, it is now official: Saddam Hussein did not possess an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction.
Because President George W. Bush used Iraq's presumed possession of such weapons to justify the U.S. invasion and occupation, he owes the nation an apology and a full explanation. He also should make a second-term course correction in his foreign policy goals. The American people are not likely to buy another Bush White House argument for preemptive war.
The Iraq Survey Group, tasked by Bush to uncover hidden weapons caches, finished its work shortly before Christmas. With a few minor additions, the September 2004 report by the group's chief, Charles A. Duelfer, will stand as the search effort's epitaph. That report's main conclusions: Iraq destroyed its WMD stockpiles shortly after the 1991 Persian Gulf War and "its ability to produce such weapons anew had eroded significantly by the time U.S. forces took Baghdad in 2003.
House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi thinks the president should be more forthcoming on what went wrong.
Pelosi said: "President Bush needs to explain to the American people why he was so wrong, for so long, about reasons for war ... Not only was there not an imminent threat to the United States, the threat described in such alarmist tones by President Bush and the most senior members of his administration did not exist at all."
David Kay, who headed the weapons-search group until January 2004, had reached the same dead end. "We were all wrong, probably," about the existence of Iraqi chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, he said at the time.
Bush and his top aides never quite gave up the fruitless hunt, holding out the possibility that stockpiles had been shifted out of Iraq prior to the war.
The president told Barbara Walters in an interview Friday: "I felt like we would find weapons of mass destruction, like many, many here in the United States ... (and) many around the world. Therefore, one, we need to find out what went wrong with the intelligence gathering."
On the need to remove to Saddam with or without weapons, he remained adamant.
"Saddam was dangerous and the world is safer without him in power," the president said.
Asked if the war was worth it, even with no Iraqi WMD, Bush said, "Absolutely."
The fallback position of Bush and his top advisers has always been that Saddam had the "intent" to acquire unconventional weapons and to use them against his enemies. But I doubt this country will want to take up arms again on assumptions that a potential adversary poses a threat. From now on, solid evidence will be required.
Sadly, the news that no weapons were found has been met mostly with a shrug. It was no bombshell to the skeptics who assumed all along that a war-bent Bush was faking the threat.
Bush supporters are probably relieved that the public's reaction to the administration's shattered credibility has been benign.
Where is the outrage at the human and financial cost? Americans seem to be taking in stride the more than 1,350 American dead and thousands wounded in Iraq, not to mention our lack of a viable exit strategy.
There have been other costs as well. The National Intelligence Council, the CIA director's think tank, concluded in a report that Iraq has become the next training ground for "professionalized" terrorists, replacing Afghanistan.
The debacle in Iraq should bury the president's neoconservative policy of preemptive war on the ash heap of history.
The policy -- framed by administration ideologues -- has lost us allies and friends around the world and credibility at home.
Last September, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said the U.S. invasion of Iraq was illegal under the United Nations Charter.
Bush should go back to the drawing board. If we are in a war of ideologies -- as White House press secretary Scott McClellan said -- the United States can compete by peaceful means.
The prime example is the Cold War, when American democracy triumphed gradually over Soviet communism. The West achieved victory through ideas and culture, not swords.
There is a legitimate concern over the spread of doomsday weapons. But diplomacy can and has worked. In the case of Libya, Moammar Gadhafi was talked into getting rid of his weapons and rejoining the family of nations.
In the meantime, strong efforts are being made to rein in Iran and North Korea, which either have nuclear weapons or will have them soon. As a better part of valor, it does not appear that even the hawks in the Bush administration would opt for a new war in the near future.
It's time for the president to face the reality and consequences of his actions."
Who's intelligent enough to find out what's wrong with the intelligence gathering?
http://www.thebostonchannel.com/helenthomas/4103665/detail.html
"In case there was any
doubt, it is now official: Saddam Hussein did not possess an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction.
Because President George W. Bush used Iraq's presumed possession of such weapons to justify the U.S. invasion and occupation, he owes the nation an apology and a full explanation. He also should make a second-term course correction in his foreign policy goals. The American people are not likely to buy another Bush White House argument for preemptive war.
The Iraq Survey Group, tasked by Bush to uncover hidden weapons caches, finished its work shortly before Christmas. With a few minor additions, the September 2004 report by the group's chief, Charles A. Duelfer, will stand as the search effort's epitaph. That report's main conclusions: Iraq destroyed its WMD stockpiles shortly after the 1991 Persian Gulf War and "its ability to produce such weapons anew had eroded significantly by the time U.S. forces took Baghdad in 2003.
House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi thinks the president should be more forthcoming on what went wrong.
Pelosi said: "President Bush needs to explain to the American people why he was so wrong, for so long, about reasons for war ... Not only was there not an imminent threat to the United States, the threat described in such alarmist tones by President Bush and the most senior members of his administration did not exist at all."
David Kay, who headed the weapons-search group until January 2004, had reached the same dead end. "We were all wrong, probably," about the existence of Iraqi chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, he said at the time.
Bush and his top aides never quite gave up the fruitless hunt, holding out the possibility that stockpiles had been shifted out of Iraq prior to the war.
The president told Barbara Walters in an interview Friday: "I felt like we would find weapons of mass destruction, like many, many here in the United States ... (and) many around the world. Therefore, one, we need to find out what went wrong with the intelligence gathering."
On the need to remove to Saddam with or without weapons, he remained adamant.
"Saddam was dangerous and the world is safer without him in power," the president said.
Asked if the war was worth it, even with no Iraqi WMD, Bush said, "Absolutely."
The fallback position of Bush and his top advisers has always been that Saddam had the "intent" to acquire unconventional weapons and to use them against his enemies. But I doubt this country will want to take up arms again on assumptions that a potential adversary poses a threat. From now on, solid evidence will be required.
Sadly, the news that no weapons were found has been met mostly with a shrug. It was no bombshell to the skeptics who assumed all along that a war-bent Bush was faking the threat.
Bush supporters are probably relieved that the public's reaction to the administration's shattered credibility has been benign.
Where is the outrage at the human and financial cost? Americans seem to be taking in stride the more than 1,350 American dead and thousands wounded in Iraq, not to mention our lack of a viable exit strategy.
There have been other costs as well. The National Intelligence Council, the CIA director's think tank, concluded in a report that Iraq has become the next training ground for "professionalized" terrorists, replacing Afghanistan.
The debacle in Iraq should bury the president's neoconservative policy of preemptive war on the ash heap of history.
The policy -- framed by administration ideologues -- has lost us allies and friends around the world and credibility at home.
Last September, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said the U.S. invasion of Iraq was illegal under the United Nations Charter.
Bush should go back to the drawing board. If we are in a war of ideologies -- as White House press secretary Scott McClellan said -- the United States can compete by peaceful means.
The prime example is the Cold War, when American democracy triumphed gradually over Soviet communism. The West achieved victory through ideas and culture, not swords.
There is a legitimate concern over the spread of doomsday weapons. But diplomacy can and has worked. In the case of Libya, Moammar Gadhafi was talked into getting rid of his weapons and rejoining the family of nations.
In the meantime, strong efforts are being made to rein in Iran and North Korea, which either have nuclear weapons or will have them soon. As a better part of valor, it does not appear that even the hawks in the Bush administration would opt for a new war in the near future.
It's time for the president to face the reality and consequences of his actions."
Who's intelligent enough to find out what's wrong with the intelligence gathering?