Please send this to your Democratic (and Republican) friends as well.
Subject: Send to our Democratic friends
Where Bush Got His Marching Orders
This article purports that Democrats who have recognized the threats posed by Saddam at various times in recent history are hypocrites for claiming Bush's current Iraq war was started without necessity. Let us evaluate the statements below in light of events as they stood at the time they were made.
We will review our history of interaction with Saddam in chronological order.
Saddam became president of Iraq in 1979 and promptly invaded Iran in 1980. Reagan aggressively armed both countries to encourage them to destroy each other. Reagan took Iraq off the list of terrorist sponsors in 1982, and in 1983 Reagan sent Middle East special envoy Donald Rumsfeld to meet with Saddam and restore relations with Iraq. By 1984, Iraq was using chemical weapons and military aircraft obtained from the US in their attacks on Iranians. The war continued until a cease-fire in 1988, leaving a million people dead and the economies of both countries seriously damaged.
In 1988, Iraq used weapons purchased from the US to gas the Kurds in retaliation for their support of Iran during the war. The Reagan White House killed attempts by the Senate to issue sanctions against Iraq in response. In 1990, Saddam met with US Ambassador Glaspie to discuss Iraqi retaliation against oil-rich Kuwait on the pretext they had violated oil production limits set by OPEC. Glaspie replied: "We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America." Five days later, Iraq invaded Kuwait.
Later that year, the UN Security Counsel authorized use of troops to remove Iraq from Kuwait, and in 1991 the US under G.H.W. Bush led 39 countries into the Gulf War. The US bombed Iraq, forced them to withdraw from Kuwait, and left them subjected to sanctions and arms inspections. Between 1991 and 1997, Saddam was extremely uncooperative with the inspectors, repeatedly barring inspection, then recanting when challenged with force or threat of force. In 1993, Clinton responded to Saddam's defiance by attacking radar and missile sites in Iraq, and then attacked Iraqi intelligence headquarters later in the year in retaliation for an assassination plot against former president Bush. Clinton used force against Iraq again in 1996, hitting southern sites when Iraq ventured into Kurdish safe havens. Saddam's continued lack of cooperation resulted in the removal of inspectors and the launching of another attack by Clinton in 1998 called Operation Desert Fox, and air raids that continued throughout 1999.
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/06/09/1444258
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0802-01.htm
http://www.worldhistory.com/iraq.htm
http://csmonitor.com/cgi-bin/durableRedirect.pl?/durable/1999/05/27/p23s3.htm
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1998/iraq/9802/gulf.war.recap/prelude/
The following quotes are now placed in context:
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry ( D - MA), and others Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
In light of Saddam's continued defiance throughout the 90's, the need to degrade Saddam Hussein's ability to make and to use weapons of mass destruction was recognized by Democrats in power, as evidenced by the quotes above, and appropriate action was taken.
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/1998/t12201998_t1219coh.html
In November, 2001, G.W. Bush called on Saddam to allow UN weapons inspectors back into Iraq. There was reason to fear that Saddam had taken advantage of the absence of inspectors to reestablish weapons facilities and WMD production. As demonstrated in the quotes below, Democrats strongly agreed that any WMD in Saddam's possession needed to be eliminated to protect American security.
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force if necessary-- to disarm Saddam -- Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a realand grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapon stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
In October 2002, as the last of these quoted statements were made, the Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) issued a report outlining the Bush White House position that Saddam possessed WMD and was a threat to national security. However the report contained qualifications. For example: "The Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research (INR) believes that Saddam continues to want nuclear weapons and that available evidence indicates that Baghdad is pursuing at least a limited effort to maintain and acquire nuclear weapons-related capabilities. The activities we have detected do not, however, add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing what INR would consider to be an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquire nuclear weapons. Iraq may be doing so, but INR considers the available evidence inadequate to support such a judgment."
The Defense Intelligence Agency also put out a study in 2002, outlining the Bush administration's claims against Iraq, but qualifying them by saying: "There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons, or where Iraq has -- or will -- establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities." http://www.dia.mil/
While some in the CIA were calling the case against Iraq a "slam dunk," others were vigorously contending against the Bush administration's position on Iraq, making their opposition known to the White House. For example:
"A senior CIA official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the intelligence agency informed the White House on March 9, 2002 -- 10 months before Bush's nationally televised speech -- that an agency source who had traveled to Niger could not confirm European intelligence reports that Iraq was attempting to buy uranium from the West African country. Despite the CIA's misgivings, Bush said in his State of the Union address: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium in Africa."
In the months before the State of the Union speech, the CIA official said, agency personnel told the State Department, National Security Council staffers and members of Congress that they doubted Iraq had been trying to buy uranium from Niger. One senior administration official, also speaking on the condition of anonymity because the intelligence reports remain classified, said the CIA's doubts were well-known and widely shared throughout the government before Bush's speech.
Among the most vocal proponents of publicizing the alleged Niger connection, two senior officials said, were Cheney and officials in the office of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld." --Knight Ridder, June 13th 2003
The inspections that could determine the truth about WMD in Iraq resumed in November of 2002, conducted by the International Atomic Energy Agency Iraq Action Team, officially renamed Iraq Nuclear Verification Office (INVO), and by the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC).
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation .. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
Then the progress of the INVO inspections were reported on by IAEA Director General Dr. ElBaradei on January 27th 2003 in "Statements of the Director General," a statement to the United Nations Security Council:
"First, we have inspected all of those buildings and facilities that were identified, through satellite imagery, as having been modified or constructed over the past four years [when inspections were not performed in Iraq]. IAEA inspectors have been able to gain ready access and to clarify the nature of the activities currently being conducted in these facilities. No prohibited nuclear activities have been identified during these inspections."
"In support of the IAEA inspections to date, the Iraqi authorities have provided access to all facilities visited - including presidential compounds and private residences - without conditions and without delay. The Iraqi authorities also have been co-operative in making available additional original documentation, in response to requests by IAEA inspectors."
"In addition to the new authorities granted by resolution 1441, I believe that the unified resolve of the Council to support the inspection process has been a vital ingredient, and must remain so, if we are to achieve a peaceful resolution of the situation in Iraq."
"To conclude: we have to date found no evidence that Iraq has revived its nuclear weapons programme since the elimination of the programme in the 1990s. However, our work is steadily progressing and should be allowed to run its natural course. With our verification system now in place, barring exceptional circumstances, and provided there is sustained proactive cooperation by Iraq, we should be able within the next few months to provide credible assurance that Iraq has no nuclear weapons programme. These few months would be a valuable investment in peace because they could help us avoid a war. We trust that we will continue to have your support as we make every effort to verify Iraq's nuclear disarmament through peaceful means, and to demonstrate that the inspection process can and does work, as a central feature of the international nuclear arms control regime."
The progress of the UNMOVIC inspections were reported on by the Executive Chairman Dr. Hans Blix on February 28th 2003, in a report detailing inspections that were well planned and thorough, made use of high-tech equipment, were well coordinated, obtained a wealth of information, and were performed by hundreds of well trained staff of 55 nationalities. The tone of the report is very optimistic about their progress so far and their hopes for even more Iraqi cooperation as inspections continued. For example:
"Since the arrival of the first inspectors in Iraq on 27 November 2002, UNMOVIC has conducted more than 550 inspections covering approximately 350 sites. Of these 44 sites were new sites. All inspections were performed without notice, and access was in virtually all cases provided promptly. In no case have the inspectors seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew in advance of their impending arrival."
"The inspections have taken place throughout Iraq at industrial sites, ammunition depots, research centres, universities, presidential sites, mobile laboratories, private houses, missile production facilities, military camps and agricultural sites. At all sites, which had been inspected before 1998, re-baselining activities were performed. This included the identification of the function and contents of each building, new or old, at a site. It also included verification of previously tagged equipment, application of seals and tags, evaluation of locations for the future installation of cameras and other monitors, as well as taking samples and discussions with the site personnel regarding past and present activities. At certain sites, ground-penetrating radar was used to look for underground structures or buried equipment. Similar activities were performed at new sites. Inspections are effectively helping to bridge the gap in knowledge that arose due to the absence of inspections between December 1998 and November 2002."
"Iraq has from the outset satisfied the demand for prompt access to any site, whether or not it had been previously declared or inspected. There have thus been no sanctuaries in space. Nor have there been any sanctuaries in time, as inspections have taken place on holidays as on weekdays. Iraq has further been helpful in getting UNMOVIC established on the ground, in developing the necessary infrastructure for communications, transport and accommodation."
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/documents/quarterly_reports/s-2003-232.pdf
Despite Saddam's cooperation with the weapon's inspectors, despite the inspector's progress, despite the lack of WMD found in these inspections, despite the optimism of future cooperation from Iraq and further progress with continued inspections, despite the prospect of a peaceful resolution to possible Iraqi threat, G.W. Bush pulled the inspectors out a couple weeks later and invaded Iraq in March 2003.
SO NOW THESE SAME DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, AND THAT HE TOOK US TO WAR UNECESSARILY
TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT THE PRESIDENT LEADING US TO WAR.
So where did Bush get his marching orders?
In 1997, the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) was established by a group that included Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz. The PNAC wrote a policy document, "Rebuilding America's Defenses," that calls for US global domination through military forces able to "fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theator wars." The PNAC policy document stated that their imperialistic "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."
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
When G.W. Bush obtained the presidency in 2001, he gave PNAC members (including Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Richard Armitage, William Bennet, William Kristol, and Richard Perle) high positions in his administration.
On September 11th 2001, 19 terrorist (15 of whom were Saudi Arabian) attacked the US under the direction of Osama bin Ladan. Osama made his grievances against America known; he opposes US foreign policy regarding Israel and Palestine, he opposes the US because we provide support to countries such as Russia, India, or Israel when they attack Muslims, and because our troops occupy Arab lands.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,845725,00.html
On September 12th 2001, Richard Clark, counter-terrorism expert for Reagan, G.H.W. Bush, Clinton, and G.W. Bush, returned to the White House after catching an hour's rest after the harrowing events of the previous day. He said, "I expected to go back to a round of meetings examining what the next attacks could be, what our vulnerabilities were, what we could do about them in the short term. Instead, I walked into a series of discussions about Iraq. At first I was incredulous that we were talking about something other than getting al Qaeda. Then I realized with almost a sharp physical pain that Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were going to try to take advantage of this national tragedy to promote their agenda about Iraq. Since the beginning of the administration, indeed well before, they had been pressing for a war with Iraq."
Clarke's account is corroborated by Paul O'Neill, Bush's Secretary of the Treasury, until Bush fired him for disagreeing with his tax cuts for the wealthy. O'Neill provided (to author Ron Suskind for his book, The Price of Loyalty) 19,000 internal White House documents that reveal "From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go. "O'Neill, "adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11...It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying "Go find me a way to do this " (CBS, 60 Minutes, March 22, 2004).
A year and four months into this War in Iraq, and three months from deciding if the man who got us into this war deserves a second term, Americans must ask themselves some tough questions:
1. In March 2003, Bin Laden remained at large, al Qaeda cells still existed throughout the world despite the capture of some al Qaeda leaders, North Korea had defiantly announced that it held WMD and planned to continue production, and Iran and many other rouge states were suspected of seeking out WMD and WMD programs. Previously, Saddam had been contained through a system of threatened force and pinpointed air strikes, while current weapons inspections were indicating that Saddam did not have WMD and was not immediately close to producing them... Have our troops, weapons, and $200 billion (so far) in Iraq been put to the best possible use?
2. In August 2004, Bin Laden remains at large, Iraq festers with insurgent discontent at continued US occupation, citizens of coalition countries are held hostage and beheaded for supporting the US in Iraq, al Qaeda has used the chaos and anger in the region to swell its ranks by the tens of thousands, and Americans live on constant hyper-elevated terrorism alert... Is America safer for having focused the vast majority of our resources on Iraq, a country that did not support al Qaeda's terrorism before the invasion?
3. Is a preemptive foreign policy that alienates the US internationally, increases the deficit, strains the military to the breaking point, kills and mutilates thousands of our men and women in uniform, and guarantees our endless involvement in major theator wars the best course for our nation?
Sixteen months after invasion, fourteen months after the mission in Iraq was declared accomplished, chaos still reigns in Iraq and US soldiers see no prospect of coming home.
There is an alternative.
Take the opportunity to discover John Kerry undistorted by malicious attack ads and party propaganda, and read about his vision for America at www.johnkerry.com. Decide for yourself by examining the evidence which candidate has a better plan for the security of our great country.
John Kerry recognizes the need to change course and win the peace in Iraq. Kerry will internationalize the security and reconstruction effort by making Iraq part of NATO's global mission and by involving allies in rebuilding the country, providing troops and financial commitments. He will convene a regional conference with Iraq's neighbors in order to secure a pledge of respect for Iraq's borders and non-interference in Iraq's internal affairs, and he will launch a massive training effort to build a professional Iraqi security force, including a major role for NATO.
John Kerry will also launch a New Era of Alliances for a post 9-11 world, to restore America's place in the world and make us safer. He has a comprehensive plan to secure nuclear weapons and nuclear materials worldwide, to secure all nuclear weapons and materials in the former Soviet Union, and to complete Global Cleanout of bomb material within four years. He will strengthen our military, including doubling our Special Forces capability to fight the war on terror, and end America's dangerous dependence on Mideast oil.
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_security/compare.html