Groundhog Day Messages Debunked

[Annie]

http://www.theamericanenterprise.org/issues/articleID.18837/article_detail.asp

Urban Legends About the Iraq War

In recent weeks, by claiming that President Bush lied us into the Iraq war, many on the Left have restarted their efforts to rewrite history. But this revisionism isn’t new. In the midst of the 2004 Presidential election, the cries were just as loud. The Bush Administration is finally pushing back, and many conservative bloggers are asking their readers to Google Clinton, Iraq, 1998 for all the information they need. Last fall, The American Enterprise debunked many of these same urban legends. Click here to purchase this issue.

Urban Legend: The Bush Administration in general, and the Vice President and his office in particular, pressured the Central Intelligence Agency to exaggerate evidence that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.


Reality: Here is the verdict of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence’s bipartisan Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq: “The Committee did not find any evidence that intelligence analysts changed their judgments as a result of political pressure, altered or produced intelligence products to conform with administration policy, or that anyone even attempted to coerce, influence, or pressure analysts to do so. When asked whether analysts were pressured in any way to alter their assessments or make their judgments conform with administration policies on Iraq’s WMD programs, not a single analyst answered ‘yes.’”

Urban Legend: The President and his administration intentionally misled the country into war with Iraq—and the “16 words” that appeared in the 2003 State of the Union are the best proof of it. In the words of Senator Ted Kennedy, “The gross abuse of intelligence was on full display in the President’s State of the Union…when he spoke the now infamous 16 words: ‘The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.’… As we all now know, that allegation was false….”


Reality: On July 14, 2004—after a nearly half-year investigation—a special panel reported to the British Parliament that British intelligence had indeed concluded that Saddam Hussein was seeking to buy uranium from Africa. The Review of Intelligence on Weapons of Mass Destruction, chaired by Lord Butler, summarized: “It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999. The British government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium…. The statement in President Bush’s State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that ‘The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa’ was well-founded.”

In the U.S., the Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq revealed that the CIA considered it important that the Nigerian officials admitted that the Iraqi delegation had traveled there in 1999, and that the Nigerian Prime Minister believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium, because this provided some confirmation of foreign government service reporting.” The Select Committee on Intelligence also noted that the CIA reviewed and cleared the President’s State of the Union address....


Urban Legend: Helping democracy take root in Iraq was a postwar rationalization by the Bush administration; it was an argument that was not made prior to going to war. In the words of a November 13, 2003 New York Times editorial, “The White House recently began shifting its case for the Iraq war from the embarrassing unconventional weapons issue to the lofty vision of creating an exemplary democracy in Iraq.”


Reality: The President argued the importance of democracy taking root in Iraq before the war began. A February 27, 2003 New York Times editorial shatters the very myth the paper was perpetrating just nine months later: “President Bush sketched an expansive vision last night [in an American Enterprise Institute speech] of what he expects to accomplish by a war in Iraq. Instead of focusing on eliminating weapons of mass destruction, or reducing the threat of terror to the United States, Mr. Bush talked about establishing a ‘free and peaceful Iraq’ that would serve as a ‘dramatic and inspiring example’ to the entire Arab and Muslim world, provide a stabilizing influence in the Middle East, and even help end the Arab-Israeli conflict. The idea of turning Iraq into a model democracy in the Arab world is one some members of the administration have been discussing for a long time.” President Bush’s 2002 State of the Union made the same case….

Urban Legend: Saddam Hussein posed no threat. In the words of former Senator Max Cleland, “Iraq was no threat. We now know that. There are no weapons of mass destruction, no nuclear weapons programs, no ties to al-Qaeda. We now know that.”


Reality: Upon his return from Iraq, weapons inspector David Kay, head of the Iraq Survey Group, said in Senate testimony: “I think the world is far safer with the disappearance and the removal of Saddam Hussein…. I actually think this may be one of those cases where it was even more dangerous than we thought…. After 1998, it became a regime that was totally corrupt…. And in a world where we know others are seeking WMD, the likelihood at some point in the future of a seller and a buyer meeting up would have made that a far more dangerous country.”

Dr. Kay’s report noted that, “We have discovered 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.” He concluded, “Saddam, at least as judged by those scientists and other insiders who worked in his military-industrial programs, had not given up his aspirations and intentions to continue to acquire weapons of mass destruction…. Saddam intended to resume these programs whenever the external restrictions were removed. Several of these officials acknowledge receiving inquiries since 2000 from Saddam or his sons about how long it would take to restart CW [chemical weapons] production.”

Urban Legend: There were no links between al-Qaeda and Iraq.


Reality: The 9/11 Commission Report indicates that a senior Iraqi intelligence officer met with Osama bin Laden in Sudan in late 1994 or early 1995 and that contacts continued after bin Laden relocated in Afghanistan. Iraq harbored senior members of a terrorist network led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, an al-Qaeda associate. CIA Director George Tenet told the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (in a 10/7/02 letter), “We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda going back a decade.” Senator Hillary Clinton stated on October 10, 2002 that Saddam “has given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaeda members.” The Clinton administration tied Iraq to al-Qaeda back in 1998, arguing that Saddam Hussein had provided technical assistance in the construction of an al-Qaeda chemical plant in Sudan….

Urban Legend: President Bush and his administration wrongly tried to link Iraq and Saddam Hussein to the September 11 attacks. “President Bush should apologize to the American people” for this “plainly dishonest” effort, insists a New York Times editorial.


Reality: Neither President Bush nor any member of his foreign policy team has ever said Iraq was linked to the attacks of September 11. On September 17, 2003, for example, in response to a question from a reporter, President Bush said: “No, we’ve had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September 11.”

Urban Legend: President Bush has shown an “arrogant disrespect” for the United Nations on Iraq, according to Senator Ted Kennedy.


Reality: The administration devoted enormous time and energy to pass five separate U.N. Security Council Resolutions on Iraq, each by unanimous vote.... President Bush personally addressed the U.N. General Assembly in September 2002. The administration supported the work of Lakhdar Brahimi, the U.N. special envoy in Iraq, and a continued U.N. role in Iraq’s political transition.

Urban Legend: The President launched a “unilateral attack on Iraq,” to use the words of former Vermont Governor Howard Dean.


Reality: The coalition that liberated Iraq ranks among the largest war coalitions ever assembled. President Bush in his 2004 State of the Union address: “Some critics have said our duties in Iraq must be internationalized. This particular criticism is hard to explain to our partners in Britain, Australia, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, Italy, Spain, Poland, Denmark, Hungary, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Romania, the Netherlands, Norway, El Salvador, and the 17 other countries that have committed troops to Iraq…. There is a difference, however, between leading a coalition of many nations, and submitting to the objections of a few. America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country.”

Urban Legend: Flights out of the country for members of the bin Laden family were allowed before national airspace reopened on September 13, 2001; there was political intervention to facilitate the departure of the bin Laden family from America; and the FBI did not properly screen them before their departure.


Reality: Here are excerpts from The 9/11 Commission Report: “First, we found no evidence that any flights of Saudi nationals, domestic or international, took place before the reopening of national airspace on the morning of September 13, 2001. To the contrary, every flight we have identified occurred after national airspace reopened.

Second, we found no evidence of political intervention. We found no evidence that anyone at the White House above the level of Richard Clarke participated in a decision on the departure of Saudi nationals....

Third, we believe that the FBI conducted a satisfactory screening of Saudi nationals who left the United States on charter flights.... The FBI interviewed all persons of interest on these flights prior to their departures. They concluded that none of the passengers was connected to the 9/11 attacks and have since found no evidence to change that conclusion. Our own independent review of the Saudi nationals involved confirms that no one with known links to terrorism departed on these flights.”

Published in The Year the Democratic Party Sailed to New England October-November 2004

 

[Mr. P]

And where do you come by that AV? No mention of that in the article.
Stop with the FACTS please…yer confusin me!!!!!!!!!

 

[Annie]

And where do you come by that AV? No mention of that in the article.
Stop with the FACTS please…yer confusin me!!!!!!!!!

Well if you would like to know why it's groundhog day, this guy nails the NYTimes:

http://americanfuture.net/?p=914

The New York Times on Iraq, 1993-2005

Baghdad forfeits the protection of the U.N. cease-fire resolution every time it violates the cease-fire terms. [January 21, 1993 editorial]

This page remains persuaded of the vital need to disarm Iraq. But it is a process that should go through the United Nations. [March 17, 2003 editorial]

A war can be lost because public opinion turns against its continued prosecution. The New York Times – the self-described “newspaper of record” – is among the world’s most influential opinion leaders. As shown by the cited quotations, the newspaper’s stance on Iraq underwent a complete transformation during the decade separating 1993 and 2003. While its editors never lost their fear of Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD), their prescription for countering the threat posed by the weapons was altered beyond recognition. In 1993, by arguing that cease-fire violations nullified U.N. protection, the Times affirmed the right of a victorious party to resume hostilities at its sole discretion if the party it defeated did not abide by the terms of the agreement to which it affixed its signature. Ten years later, the Times reversed its stance, asserting that the United States should not go to war without the approval of the United Nations. In so doing, the Times implicitly argued that going to war with the approval of a multilateral institution took precedence over the use of military force to expeditiously eliminate the threat posed by Iraq’s WMD.

This post, which covers the eight years of the Clinton administration, is the first of three that employ the Times’ editorials to trace and analyze the evolution of the newspaper’s position on Iraq. The second will cover the pre-invasion Bush administration, while the third will deal with the period from the fall of Baghdad to the present.

This initial installment is organized into four sections: editorials on inspections, sanctions, and WMD; editorials on the use of force; editorials on the U.N. Security Council and its members; and editorials on Clinton administration policies.

The Clinton Administration
Except for a brief period during 1994, The Times’ editorial position was distinctly hawkish during the Clinton presidency. At no time did the Times express any doubts regarding the credibility of intelligence information pertaining to WMD. Throughout this period, the paper’s editors insisted on an aggressive UN-directed inspection regime, which was their preferred means to disarm Saddam’s Iraq. They frequently made note of Saddam’s efforts to thwart the inspectors, and insisted that Iraq must fully cooperate before the sanctions implemented at the end of the Gulf War should be lifted. The Times’ objective was the elimination of Iraq’s WMD, not regime change. Bringing democracy to Iraq was not a topic in its editorials. Notwithstanding their preference for inspections, the editors did not shy away from advocating the use of air strikes – including unilateral American air strikes – if the obstacles constructed by Saddam made it impossible for the U.N.’s inspectors to fulfill their missions. The Times endorsed every U.S. military operation ordered by Clinton. None of the editorials insisted that the U.S. must obtain Security Council approval before undertaking a military action, nor did they require that military operations – unilateral or multilateral – be authorized by new Security Council resolutions. When the editors criticized the Clinton administration, it was for being too dovish, not too hawkish. They leveled similar criticisms at the U.N. Security Council. China, Russia and especially France were taken to task for giving priority to their commercial interests over coming to grips with the threat posed by Iraq’s WMD. The single exception to the Times’ hawkish stance stemmed from Iraq’s November 1993 decision to cooperate with the UN arms inspectors. In an editorial dated August 1, 1994, it was stated that Iraq was “now close to meeting the Security Council’s requirement that it destroy its stocks of biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons and accept long-term international monitoring.” For France, Russia, and China, this was sufficient for lifting the oil sanctions. The U.S. and Britain “opposed any acknowledgement of progress,” and the Clinton administration, “which insists on retaining sanctions as long as Mr. Hussein remains in power, has been reduced to strained reinterpretations of the cease-fire’s resolution’s clear language . . . “ The editors sided with France, Russia, and China. It wouldn’t be long, however, before the Times would be disabused of the notion that Saddam had changed his colors.

1. Editorials on Inspections, Sanctions, and WMD

Saddam’s apparent cooperation with the U.N. inspectors prompted the Times to recommend lifting sanctions:

(2/15/93) The inspectors found and destroyed much, though not all, of Iraq’s nuclear program. But the technicians that put it together remain, and so does Iraq’s will to acquire the technology.

(8/1/94) Last November, after years of obstructionism, Baghdad abruptly began cooperating with U.N. arms inspectors. It is now close to meeting the Security Council’s requirement that it destroy its stocks of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons and accept long-term international monitoring . . . Washington’s most realistic policy toward Iraq under these circumstances is containment. The best instrument for that is U.N. arms monitoring, not endlessly prolonging sanctions that have nearly done their work and will soon lose their meaning.

But his deployment of troops at the Kuwaiti borders causes the Times to change its mind:

(10/11/94) [Written the day after Iraq’s announcement that it would withdraw its troops from Kuwait’s northern border] U.N. inspectors reported that Iraq’s nuclear, biological and chemical weapons components and longer-range missiles had been fully located and destroyed. A thorough system for long-term monitoring is ready to go into operation in the coming weeks — assuming Iraq continues its recent pattern of cooperation with the U.N. . . . the U.S. and Britain, oppose any relief at this time, or perhaps at any time while Saddam Hussein remains in power. They argue that he cannot be trusted to continue his cooperation on arms once sanctions have been eased. That objection now carries added weight.

With the withdrawal of Iraq’s troops from the Kuwait’s border, The Times reverted to its previous position on eliminating sanctions:

(11/28/94) Washington refuses to acknowledge Iraq’s progress on arms control . . . Iraq is surely an aggressor state; but it can respond rationally to diplomatic incentives. For two years it has cooperated with U.N. arms inspectors, and its motive for this cooperation is clear. The resolution ending the Persian Gulf war stated that by complying with arms control requirements alone, even if it ignored other United Nations resolutions, Iraq could reclaim the right to sell oil on the world market. U.N. inspectors are now satisfied that Iraq’s most dangerous weapons have been located and destroyed. They are ready to begin an aggressive long-term monitoring program to assure that Iraq builds no more such weapons. A majority of the Security Council’s permanent members, eager to do business with Iraq, are prepared to lift oil sanctions after six months of successful monitoring. The U.S., supported only by Britain, will not agree. Washington, though it never says so directly, has made it plain that it will not consider relief so long as Saddam Hussein remains in power. That is no way to encourage Iraqi cooperation on arms control, or to encourage allies to maintain sanctions.

By early 1995, there were signs that Iraq had stopped cooperating with the U.N. inspectors, and the editors had another change of heart:

(1/14/95) The United Nations Security Council was right not to ease economic sanctions against Iraq this week. France and Russia pushed for relaxation and the United States and Britain resisted. A new report by the U.N. inspectors shows that Baghdad has yet to come clean. Iraq has impeded monitoring of biological arms-making by failing to identify all sites, material and equipment used for that purpose. Information provided on how it obtained equipment and materials to manufacture weapons is inaccurate and incomplete.

(2/21/95) Baghdad continues to provide incomplete and inaccurate disclosures on its biological weapons program and supplier networks. The embargo is still needed to compel full Iraqi compliance.

(4/18/95) The embargo should not be lifted now because Iraq has yet to comply fully with the requirements on disarming and international monitoring . . . The U.N. inspectors cannot account for 17 metric tons of material that could be used to breed germ warfare agents like anthrax . . . Concern about the continuing Iraqi concealment of its nuclear program was recently aroused by the disappearance of one of Iraq’s nuclear experts, who reportedly fled to Greece with documents showing that Iraq was still engaged in weapons design and nuclear research.

In mid-1995, Iraq finally acknowledged that it stockpiled large quantities of germ warfare agents in the late 1980’s. For the Times, admission to past stockpiles was not sufficient and the U.S. position on sanctions was justified.

(7/7/95) The U.N. now rightly demands a detailed report on how the biological agents were produced and which countries supplied what raw materials. It also needs to know how far Iraq got in turning these agents into weapons and exactly what happened to them after Baghdad ostensibly abandoned its germ warfare program in 1990 . . . The United States has been right to insist on full compliance before approving any sanction relief.

Following the defection of General Hussein Kamel to Jordan in early August 1995, Iraq provided the U.N. with previously-concealed information about its germ warfare program. The new documents showed that Iraq had bombs and Scud missiles armed with biological agents during the Gulf War.

(8/24/95) The long concealment of this information and the Machiavellian reasons behind its present disclosure invite troubling new questions about what else Baghdad may be hiding. Is this at last the whole truth, or another self-serving selective glimpse? . . . it is now clear that compliance with the arms control provisions of the cease-fire resolution must be proved beyond any doubt before sanctions are removed. Iraq has forfeited so much credibility with its deceptions that the U.N. commission charged with monitoring compliance now has no choice but to verify everything independently.

(10/19/95) . . . there are compelling reasons to keep the economic sanctions intact. Not the least of them is a United Nations report that Baghdad may be embarked on secret new efforts to build prohibited weapons, including long-range missiles equipped with chemical and perhaps biological warheads . . . now it is abundantly clear there has been less Iraqi compliance and far more deception than U.N. inspectors realized [six months ago]. Iraq has shown little interest in reporting truthfully.

After nearly a two-year hiatus, the editors returned to the subject of Iraq’s WMD.

(6/30/97) Six years after the Persian Gulf war, Saddam Hussein remains determined to manufacture chemical and biological weapons and the means to deliver them.

(10/29/97) For months, Iraq has actively misled United Nations inspectors about its continuing germ warfare program and blocked entry to military bases where prohibited materials may be stored.

(11/7/97) Iraq has been disabling surveillance cameras and moving suspicious materials and equipment out of the inspectors’ view. This new interference could mask an effort to produce biological weapons on the sly and will undermine the long-term credibility of the arms monitoring effort.

Following the departure of the UN inspectors from Iraq, the Times voiced its concerns.

(11/16/97) There have been no inspections of Iraq’s germ-warfare programs since Oct. 29. Its fermenters can prepare anthrax for weapons use in a matter of days. Given the right conditions, an airborne release of anthrax over a city could kill as many as 100,000 people. Friday’s departure of the inspection force means the system of arms control imposed after the gulf war has lapsed, leaving Iraq’s neighbors and the global community in a situation of intolerable vulnerability.

(11/21/97) Before the Security Council can consider ending sanctions, the inspection commission must be able to certify that Iraq’s biological, chemical and nuclear weapons programs have been completely shut down and their stocks destroyed, along with all missiles capable of flying farther than 95 miles. It must also establish and maintain a reliable system of long-term monitoring to assure that these weapons programs are not resumed in the future.

Two days after these words were written, the Times published a key editorial entitled “No Time to Ease Up on Iraq.”

(11/23/97) All [Security] Council members . . . have an urgent interest in halting Saddam Hussein’s determined effort to arm himself with deliverable biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. That effort appears already well advanced and largely moving forward in locations that U.N. investigators have been denied access to for many months . . . More than 2,200 gallons of anthrax remain untracked . . . Fifty-seven tons of ingredients for VX nerve gas are still loose, along with enough surviving and newly built missiles to deliver germ or chemical weapons well beyond Iraq’s borders . . . The inspectors also need to see the manuals, supply invoices and physical evidence that will tell them what new weapons programs Iraq has developed since the war. That will require unrestricted access to the 250 buildings the U.N. arms commission has identified as likely weapon storage sites. At scores of them, Iraq has either denied the inspectors entry or delayed long enough for any incriminating evidence to be removed. Inspectors also need access to the presidential palaces and secret police, intelligence and Republican Guard headquarters in which the commission believes documentation for weapons programs is kept. On Thursday, Iraq’s U.N. ambassador declared that these sites would remain off-limits. Inspectors must also physically examine underground locations where missiles may be buried out of sight of U-2 or satellite cameras.

The editors took note of Saddam’s fetish for palaces.

(11/29/97) The boom in palace construction has accompanied the rebuilding of weapons factories, and Washington and U.N. officials believe the palaces may house documentation of the weapons programs, the weapons themselves or even laboratories creating lethal germs.

(12/3/97) Saddam Hussein has poured government funds into building biological, chemical and nuclear weapons and constructing opulent palaces for himself and his family . . . the White House should be under no illusion that it can pretend it has solved the problem of Iraq’s effort to produce deadly biological and chemical weapons.

They also recalled his massacre of the Kurds.

(12/3/97) Hussein used chemical weapons against the Kurds in 1988 and is quite capable of using them again, or employing germ weapons.

The editors’ worries continued into 1998.

(1/27/98) . . . it seems increasingly clear that what Mr. Hussein really wants is not relief for Iraq but an operational germ warfare program.

(2/3/98) The inspectors must be free to visit any site where they suspect weapons of mass destruction are stored or manufactured, including not only all palaces but the buildings in and around presidential compounds. The inspection team believes that many of those buildings may house biological and chemical weapons or records of their production.

(6/18/98) Iraq must reveal what has happened to the anthrax and botulinum toxin it is known to have imported before the Persian Gulf war and may since have multiplied. It must also account for the deadly VX nerve gas it is known to have manufactured and the medium-range missiles it has tried to build secretly from imported designs. United Nations experts believe that documentation for these programs may be stored on computers in buildings that weapons inspectors have been barred from in the past. This documentation must be handed over, any illegal weapons must be destroyed and a long-term monitoring system put in place to detect future production of biological, chemical or nuclear weapons. Only then should the Security Council consider a timetable for lifting sanctions.

When Saddam kicked out the U.N. inspectors, the Times responded with a series of editorials.

(8/7/98) Prematurely ending the inspections would make it easier for Mr. Hussein to rebuild an arsenal of mass-destruction weapons, a prospect too dangerous to his neighbors and American interests to permit.

(8/12/98) Iraq has resisted inspection at every turn, leaving inspectors convinced it retains the ambition and means to develop biological and chemical weapons. Mr. Hussein has repeatedly demonstrated his willingness to attack his neighbors, even his countrymen. Allowing him to replenish his stockpile of biological and chemical weapons would threaten the Persian Gulf region and its oilfields, as well as Israel. Few developments would so directly endanger American security interests...and it goes on and on and on...

 

[fuzzykitten99]

if i (or someone else) posts this over at DU, wanna time how long it takes for them to delete it and ban the poster?

I would bet even if you posted like you were a liberal and posted this article as a talking piece, you'd still be banned and posts would be deleted.

 

[Hobbit]

if i (or someone else) posts this over at DU, wanna time how long it takes for them to delete it and ban the poster?

I would bet even if you posted like you were a liberal and posted this article as a talking piece, you'd still be banned and posts would be deleted.

You could post this as an example of the horrible lies the Bush administration tells to keep the 'sheeple' in line, and they would probably kill your parents.

 

[Mr. P]

And where do you come by that AV? No mention of that in the article.
Stop with the FACTS please…yer confusin me!!!!!!!!!

Somehow I got two posts merged here..Only the part in red was for this thread. Sorry.