No WMD: “Gone as Far as Feasible”

We’ve known for a while that, in fact, there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq – just as the UN weapons inspectors had warned the Bush administration prior to the invasion and, in spite of the lies used by Bush & Co. to sell their war of choice, just as millions of people around the world had suspected all along. Now, however, it is absolutely final (Associated Press – April 25, 2005):

Of course, the latest finding on the lack of WMD in Iraq will not stop the Bush & Co. supporters, the Republican loyalists and other fellow Chickenhawks* from continuing to support their lame duck president’s war of choice in Iraq.

Finally, I agree with Kos, it’s time for the Chickenhawk Bush loyalists to atone:

* Chickenhawk n. A person enthusiastic about war, provided someone else fights it; particularly when that enthusiasm is undimmed by personal experience with war; most emphatically when that lack of experience came in spite of ample opportunity in that person’s youth.

Hans Blix: Iraq Invasion Over Oil

Here’s something that’ll probably not get much play on our mainstream media:

STOCKHOLM: Former UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix has said he now believed the US-led invasion of Iraq was motivated by oil.

“I did not think so at first. But the US is incredibly dependent on oil,” Swedish news agency TT quoted Mr Blix as saying at a security seminar in Stockholm.

“They wanted to secure oil in case competition on the world market becomes too hard.” [article: AP- April 08, 2005]

Since leaving his post as the UN weapon’s inspector at the time of Bush’s Iraq invasion, Hans Blix has spoken out about how the Bush administration bullied the UN and then proceeded to invaded — even though many in the international community were urging Bush & Co. to let the inspections continue, specially given that there were serious doubts about the continued existence of the WMD which Bush cited as reason for invading Iraq. Of course, recent history has proven Hans Blix to be correct: there were no WMD, Bush & Co. ignored the warnings and proceeded with their war of choice.

Bush Apologists’ Limp And Dishonest “Plausible Deniability” Defense

I don’t buy the Bush Apologists’ limp and dishonest “plausible deniability” defense; which merely underscores their rabid partisanship, and lack of desire to look at the evidence candidly, critically and in context. Here’s how Bush’s “plausible deniability” defense was set up: Bush & Co. knew, it is now clear, that elements of their Iraqi WMD argument rested on shaky ground (i.e., hyped evidence and, even, forged documents). Accordingly, Bush & Co.’s statements on Iraqi WMD (and alleged pursuit of nuclear weapons) were crafted so that, while closely straddling the line of common decency and honesty, could not easily be called out as outright fabrications. Given this, I find Bush’s statement in his 2003 State of the Union address very telling, and a tell-tale sign of dishonesty in the works (i.e., a lie):

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.

That line is purposely crafted to: (1) Give credibility to the claim that Iraq had “recently” reconstituted its nuclear program, (2) all the while giving Bush the ability to distance himself from a claim that was known (by his administration) to be false; since, (3) Bush could factually (even if dishonestly) claim that he had been relying on “British government intelligence” (i.e., the forged Nigerian uranium document) whose veracity he could not control.

For now leave aside the fact that the Bush administration had been informed that the claims made in the “British government intelligence” brief were not true; we’re then left with an administration that relied on the advice of a foreign government (i.e., Britain) to formulate our national defense strategy. Moreover, if Bush’s defense is, When I made that statement I thought it to be true. Then I ask, When we ask our fellow citizens to make the ultimate sacrifice, shouldn’t the standard be a tad higher?

The Bush Apologists will never admit that their man mislead and lied to us all; so am not at all surprised at how stubbornly they cling on to the “plausible deniability” defense. Think of it, if these Bush apologists were to ever acknowledge and recognize that Bush & Co. lied our country into a war, why it would totally shake their foundation — it would be akin to admitting that the earth is, in fact, round. If the Bush apologists ever admitted that their man lied, they would have to face the ugly truth that their unabashed support for Bush & Co. facilitated Bush’s war of choice.

I’ll spare you all an already long post, and not reproduce the entire chronology of when Bush & Co. knew what, which you can read here; however, let me leave you with the following:

“March 1, 2002: The State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) sends a memorandum to Secretary of State Colin Powell stating that claims regarding Iraqi attempts to obtain uranium from Niger are not credible, according to a knowledgeable government official.”

[...]

“September 24, 2002: The United Kingdom issues a report on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program stating “there is intelligence that Iraq has sought the supply of significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Iraq has no active civil nuclear power programme or nuclear power plants, and therefore has no legitimate reason to acquire uranium.”

September/October 2002: U.S. intelligence officials tell Senate committees about their differences with the British report regarding the Iraq/uranium claim, according to Tenet (July 11, 2003).”

[...]

“January 28, 2003: President Bush asserts that “the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa” during his State of the Union address.”

The Bush Apologists’ argument rests solely on the factual claim that Bush merely cited “British government intelligence;” however, shouldn’t the standard be just a tad higher? Shouldn’t we also expect honesty and unmitigated truthfulness from our leaders before committing our nation to war?

Freedom, Freedom, Freedom…

It’s more than “politics” that gets in the way of what’s right and good: blind nationalism, is often at a greater fault for much of the evil that’s ever been perpetuated — on all sides. Many Americans are finding easy to unquestionably swallow this administration’s lies because Bush & Co. have managed to tie American nationalism with support for the administration, support for their catastrophic policies, and with the memory of 9/11.

I’m always amazed at how so many of my fellow Americans fall into line so easily, and so readily repeat whatever the slogan of the day is. What’s the rule of advertisement, oh, yes: repetition, repetition, repetition… Freedom, freedom, freedom… Bush said the word 27 times during his inaugural, and went on to say in so many words that his administration would topple regimes to establish “freedom.” So, of course, many close observes of politics thought, Well, here’s a new Bush Doctrine and a new American policy. Not so fast, Bush Senior said, as he was sent before the cameras the following day to explain that his son was merely metaphorically speaking, and not spelling out anything concrete.

Now, of course, it is clear that Bush’s intent was to create a new excuse/reason, for having gone to war: First, it was weapons of mass destruction; then, it became terrorism; then, Bush said that Saddam Hussein was an evil man; and now, it’s freedom. Of course, what we have here is just another excuse to rationalize the Iraqi invasion. Bush’s repetitive use of the word “freedom” is nothing more than the latest slogan his supporters can rattle off to rationalize the war.

I wonder, what would have happened if at the state of the union speech where Bush said that Saddam Hussein possessed WMDs that threatened America, Bush had instead said, “We will invade Iraq, and a year and a half after the invasion 1,500 of your sons and daughters will have been killed; another 10,000 to 20,000 of them will have been wounded — many of them irreparably damaged for the rest of their lives; it’ll cost you, the American tax-payer an initial $200 billion dollars, and another $80 billion dollars a year and a half later; and, yes, we will remain in that part of world for many years to come — yes, this is a generational endeavor. Finally, you may be asking, why are we going, well, we’re invading Iraq to bring’em “Freedom” — we’re going there to nation build. I wonder how many of Bush’s supporters would’ve lined up to volunteer themselves for that cause? Remember, many of Bush’s supporters had long-been the most outspoken anti-”nation building” critics in the political landscape. Furthermore, many of them had long criticized what they considered the irresponsible and un-planned use of our military; and now, of course, out of blind-nationalism and party loyalty, many of them readily utter the latest slogan to come out of this administration: Freedom.

I, personally, as a former Marine and as an American, cannot pardon the irresponsible miss use of our military by the Bush administration. As an American, I cannot forgive their lies about WMD, nor their lies about the alleged links between Al Quada and Saddam Hussein… I know the Bush administration had lied to me about matters of life and death, and for that I will never forgive them.

PNAC & the Bush White House

I’m always amazed to learn that some people are still not aware of the players inside the Bush administration. Recently, I was asked this question, What does The Project for the New American Century have to do with the Bush administration?

The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) is composed of a group of men (I frankly don’t know whether there are any women in it) that had long advocated the overthrow of Saddam Hussein for various reasons, including oil, the necessity to project American power in the Middle East, the need to protect an ally (Israel), and to prevent Hussein from developing weapons of mass destruction. On January of 1998 the group sent a letter to president Clinton urging him to remove Saddam Hussein:

“In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.” [letter]

Moreover, the same group sent another letter to the then majority leader in the House of Representatives, Newt Gingrich, urging that Congress exert pressure on the White House to persue the removal of Saddam Hussein.

Please note that this is five years before Mr. Bush warned us of the “grave and gathering danger in Iraq” if we did not do something soon. Now, if you scroll down, you’ll see the list of signatories on the letter addressed to president Clinton. If you’ve followed the events and players surrounding the Bush White House over the past couple of years, there ought to be a couple of names that immediately jump out at you, for example: Richard Perle, Donald Rumsfeld & Paul Wolfowitz — just to name some of major players.

Furthermore, if you were to do a search on the signatories to the letter, you’d find that many of them ended up working in the Bush administration, in various governmental positions*:

Elliott Abrams
http://uscirf.gov/cirfPages/bio_Abrams.php3?scale=1152s

http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Elliott_Abrams

Richard L. Armitage
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/biog/2991.htm

http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Richard_L._Armitage

William J. Bennett
http://www.mediatransparency.org/people/wbennett.htm

Jeffrey Bergner
http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Jeffrey_Bergner&redirect=no

John Bolton
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/02/20010221-6.html

http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=John_Bolton

Paula Dobriansky
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/03/20010312-9.html

http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Paula_Dobriansky

Francis Fukuyama
http://www.bioethics.gov/about/fukuyama.html

http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Francis_Fukuyama

Robert Kagan

Zalmay Khalilzad
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/05/20010523-7.html

http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Zalmay_Khalilzad

William Kristol
http://www.mediatransparency.org/people/bill_kristol.htm

Richard Perle
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/04/text/20010406-7.html

http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Richard_Perle

Peter W. Rodman
http://www.dod.mil/policy/isa/bios/peter_w_rodman.html

Donald Rumsfeld
http://www.defenselink.mil/bios/secdef_bio.html

William Schneider, Jr.

Vin Weber

Paul Wolfowitz
http://www.defenselink.mil/bios/depsecdef_bio.html

R. James Woolsey

Robert B. Zoellick
http://us-mission.ch/BIOS/Zoellick.htm

(*Note that for those individuals without links I could not find any relevant information.)

Moreover, some — here and elsewhere — contend (me among them) that the Bush administration exploited 9/11 and exaggerated the threat that Saddam Hussein posed in order to pursue an elective war against Iraq. Many point to the Bush administration’s appointment of many of the above individuals to key posts, as a sign that there existed in the administration a predisposition to see Iraq as an enemy — even when it did not pose a threat to the US. Futhermore, many point to a document published by PNAC, which hints at a “larger plan” involving Iraq, the Middle East and the US military. That document includes this graft:

“Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event � like a new Pearl Harbor.” [Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century, p. 51. PDF]

The above statement is offered in the context of “transforming” the US military into a more “mobile” and “nimble” fighting force; however, when placed in the context on 9/11 and its Pearl Harbor like psychological affect on the nation, one can understand how the authors of the document — that is, the members of PNAC — saw 9/11 as the opportunity to enact their plans for the Middle East, Iraq and the US military. For example, one of PNAC’s goals was to transform the military, and to do so they needed to illustrate how a more “mobile” and “nimble” force could be effectively used in combat. Now, if you recall, before going into Iraq the administration (namely, Rumsfeld) argued that we would need less troops than what the Pentagon was asking for. Now, the Pentagon lost that argument, so we went into Iraq with a lot less troops than was required to secure the country after the fall of Saddam Hussein. Of course, we’re now paying for this blunder. However, Mr. Rumsfeld, as a member of and signatory to the PNAC letter, for ideological reasons, chose to go into Iraq with less troops than what the Pentagon had originally requested.

Finally, the signatories to PNAC’s Statement of Principles include the following: Dick Cheney, Jeb Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and others.

To say that the Bush administration did not have plans for Iraq long before 9/11 is simply not borne out by the record. Now, “absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event � like a new Pearl Harbor” who knows when the Bush administration would’ve invaded Iraq; however, it’s clear that 9/11 presented the Bush administration the perfect rationale to go into Iraq and then enact the plans laid out by PNAC to remove Hussein, transform the military and project US power in the Middle East.