Truespeak

Not surprisingly, the Iraq Survey Group has determined that Saddam Hussein did not possess stockpiles of WMD when the United States invaded in March, 2003. As stated in the report, the WMD programs were basically destroyed back in 1991 after the end of the first Gulf War. According to Charles Duelfer, the U.N. sanctions had further weakened the programs causing them to deteriorate into a dormant state. In other words, the U.N. sanctions were working. (I don't care what Tony Blair says.)

All of this started me thinking about the original rationale for going to war. I remembered phrases like "mushroom cloud," "smoking gun," "sarin nerve gas," and numerous others. But as I get older, my memory gets cloudy, so I thought I'd better do a little research before jumping to conclusions. What I found was even worse than I had expected.

On October 7, 2002, President George W. Bush laid out the threat from Iraq in a speech at the Cincinnati Museum Center in Cinncinati, Ohio. In hindsight, it is astounding how inaccurate the speech was. Claims were made and accusations were leveled that we now know to be false. Although I recommend that everyone reads the transcript, there are a number of passages that I think deserve special attention.

Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons.
[.....]
Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?
[.....]
Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles -- far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, and other nations -- in a region where more than 135,000 American civilians and service members live and work. We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas.
[.....]
Before being barred from Iraq in 1998, the International Atomic Energy Agency dismantled extensive nuclear weapons-related facilities, including three uranium enrichment sites. That same year, information from a high-ranking Iraqi nuclear engineer who had defected revealed that despite his public promises, Saddam Hussein had ordered his nuclear program to continue.
[.....]
The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" -- his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.
[.....]
If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year.
[.....]
Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.
[.....]
After eleven years during which we have tried containment, sanctions, inspections, even selected military action, the end result is that Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more. And he is moving ever closer to developing a nuclear weapon.

According to Charles Duelfer, all of these statements are false. By Duelfer's account, Iraq not only didn't possess these weapons, but they were unable to produce them. While the report does state that Saddam wanted to reconstitute his WMD programs, it clearly states that he had not and was unable to do so because of the sactions against him. He did not pose the threat that President Bush said he did.

In light of recent events, I was also struck by some of the other comments made during the speech. As many of us saw in last night's V.P. debate, Dick Cheney falsely asserted that he has not suggested there was a connection between al Qaeda and Iraq. He most certainly has. Although, it appears as if he was simply following the lead of our President. In his speech in Cincinnati that day, the President made no less than five references to September 11, 2001, while speaking about the threat posed by Iraq.

On September the 11th, 2001, America felt its vulnerability -- even to threats that gather on the other side of the earth.
[.....]
He has ordered chemical attacks on Iran, and on more than forty villages in his own country. These actions killed or injured at least 20,000 people, more than six times the number of people who died in the attacks of September the 11th.
[.....]
And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.
[.....]
Some citizens wonder, after 11 years of living with this problem, why do we need to confront it now? And there's a reason. We've experienced the horror of September the 11th.
[.....]
The attacks of September the 11th showed our country that vast oceans no longer protect us from danger. Before that tragic date, we had only hints of al Qaeda's plans and designs. Today in Iraq, we see a threat whose outlines are far more clearly defined, and whose consequences could be far more deadly. Saddam Hussein's actions have put us on notice, and there is no refuge from our responsibilities.

As John Edwards pointed out last night, there is no connection between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein. However, in a recent Gallup poll, 62% of Republicans think there is. I guess I can understand where they would get that idea.

Finally, I found many of the President's comments during this speech ironic in light of what we know today. For instance:

There is no easy or risk-free course of action. Some have argued we should wait -- and that's an option. In my view, it's the riskiest of all options, because the longer we wait, the stronger and bolder Saddam Hussein will become. We could wait and hope that Saddam does not give weapons to terrorists, or develop a nuclear weapon to blackmail the world. But I'm convinced that is a hope against all evidence. As Americans, we want peace -- we work and sacrifice for peace. But there can be no peace if our security depends on the will and whims of a ruthless and aggressive dictator. I'm not willing to stake one American life on trusting Saddam Hussein.

(Instead, we've staked over 1,000 lives on the lies told to us by our own President.)

Some worry that a change of leadership in Iraq could create instability and make the situation worse. The situation could hardly get worse, for world security and for the people of Iraq. The lives of Iraqi citizens would improve dramatically if Saddam Hussein were no longer in power,...

(It's clear that things have not improved dramatically.)

Later this week, the United States Congress will vote on this matter. I have asked Congress to authorize the use of America's military, if it proves necessary, to enforce U.N. Security Council demands. Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable. The resolution will tell the United Nations, and all nations, that America speaks with one voice and is determined to make the demands of the civilized world mean something.

(To hear them talk about it now, this was a vote for war, not to tell the U.N. that we were determined to make the demands of the civilized world mean something.)

In my opinion, this speech is proof enough that we were lied to. Intentionally or not, the Presiedent mislead the country into the wrong war for the wrong reasons. And the most shocking part of the story is that when asked at the V.P. debate last night, Dick Cheney stated unequivocally:

"What we did in Iraq was exactly the right thing to do. If I had it to recommend all over again, I would recommend exactly the same course of action."

So let me make sure I understand this: Given the choice, Vice President Cheney would choose to have over 1,000 American soldiers die for lies.

That's all I need to know.