|
WMD: Dennis Kucinich Was Right Summary: George W. Bush’s hand-picked weapons inspector, Dr. David Kay, testified before the Senate on Wednesday January 28, stating there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. He used his time before the Senate to place blame for the fact that Iraq had no WMDs on the American intelligence community. Further, he defended the Bush administration by stating that the White House itself never put forth exaggerated claims of the threat posed by Iraq, and that White House officials never pressured intelligence analysts to inflate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s regime. Facts clearly on the record fly in the face of these claims. Since August 2002, the Bush administration stated time and again that Saddam Hussein posed an immediate threat to the security of the United States. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld created a group within the Pentagon, called the Office of Special Plans, to exaggerate the threat posed by Iraq. Vice President Dick Cheney, along with several individuals within and without the administration, personally pressured intelligence analysts to overstate the threat posed by Iraq. Before this administration took office, plans were being laid by future administration officials to invade Iraq. The official tally, to date, stands at 519 American soldiers killed in Iraq, thousands of medical evacuations of American soldiers from Iraq, and nearly $200 billion spent on Iraq. There is no accurate count of the number of Iraqi civilians who have been killed and wounded in the invasion, but every estimate runs into the thousands. No weapons promised by the administration, weapons which were the premise for this invasion, have been found. Dennis Kucinich, in word and deed, has since September of 2002 stood against the claims made by the Bush administration about the threat posed by Iraq. He is the only candidate in this race to vote against the Iraq War Resolution. He has stated clearly, time and again, that the rhetoric of fear from the Bush administration about the threat posed by Iraq was baseless. Dennis Kucinich was right. Report: A Detailed History of the WMD Issue The news has been dominated by missing weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Bush’s hand-picked weapons inspector, Dr. David Kay, testified in the Senate on Wednesday that, “It turns out we were all wrong” about the status of Saddam Hussein’s weapons capabilities. Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/29/politics/29WEAP.html The official tally, to date, stands at 519 American soldiers killed in Iraq, thousands of medical evacuations of American soldiers from Iraq, and nearly $200 billion spent on Iraq. There is no accurate count of the number of Iraqi civilians who have been killed and wounded in the invasion, but every estimate runs into the thousands. No weapons promised by the administration, weapons which were the premise for this invasion, have been found. Links: http://lunaville.org/warcasualties/Summary.aspx http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,976392,00.html Dr. Kay said we were all wrong. This is incorrect. Dennis Kucinich was right. On September
4, 2002, Dennis Kucinich said, “Well, frankly we haven't seen evidence On September 12, 2002, Dennis Kucinich said, “Prior to 1998, the United Nations made much progress in weapons inspections and assured Iraq had no usable capacity for the manufacture of weapons of mass destruction or the ability to deliver such weapons. Since 1998 no credible intelligence has been brought forward which suggests that Iraq is manufacturing weapons of mass destruction or has developed capabilities for delivery of such weapons.” On September 21, 2002, Dennis Kucinich said, “This attempt to foment a war is really against the best interests of America, it is against the spirit of the country, it is against the economic interests of the people.” On September 25, 2002, Dennis Kucinich said, “Since when do we equate patriotism with going to war? Since when do we equate patriotism with preemptive strikes and with unilateralism? America's always been a nation that's worked with other nations. And after September 11 of last year, we had the entire world community working with us. Now we're separating ourselves, isolating ourselves from the world community because we want to go it alone.” On September 29, 2002, Dennis Kucinich said, “At this point, frankly, the evidence does not suggest that Iraq was connected to 9/11, that there's any connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, that there's any connection between Iraq and the anthrax attacks on this country. We don't hear from the CIA that Iraq has any usable weapons of mass destruction that they could deliver to the United States. There's no imminent threat. If I thought there was an imminent threat to this country, I wouldn't hesitate to vote for action. But I have to tell you, there is no imminent threat.” On October 3, 2002, Dennis Kucinich made a statement before the House of Representatives announcing his intention to vote against the pending Iraq War Resolution. In that statement, he said, “The American people need to know there is no credible evidence that connects Iraq to the events of 9-11 or to participation in those events by assisting al Qaeda. The key issue here is that there is no credible evidence that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction. If Iraq had successfully concealed the production of such weapons since 1998, and let us assume that somebody has information they have never told Congress, they have never been able to back up, but they have this information and it is secret, and they secretly know Iraq has such weapons, there is no credible evidence that Iraq has the capability to reach the United States with such weapons, if they have them, and many of us believe no evidence has been presented that they do.” When the day came to vote on the Iraq War Resolution, Dennis Kucinich led 126 House members to join him in voting ‘No.’ On March 20, 2003, after the invasion had begun, Dennis Kucinich said, “This is a sad day for America, the world community and the people of Iraq. These are offensive, not defensive attacks, and they are in violation of international law.” On January 19, 2003, Dennis Kucinich said, “On September 12, 2001, a little more than 24 hours after the planes hit the World Trade Center, the Secretary of Defense, in a meeting at the White House, called for immediate strikes against Iraq. In sixteen months since America was attacked, no credible evidence has been presented that Iraq perpetrated 9-11, or conspired in 9-11. Iraq was not responsible for the anthrax attack on our country. Nor does Iraq have missile strike capability against the U.S., usable weapons of mass destruction nor the intention to use them against us.” On March 11, 2003, Dennis Kucinich said, “Contrary to Administration assertions, a war against Iraq will not be in self-defense: Iraq does not pose an imminent threat to the United States. It doesn't have the ability, nor has it ever had the ability, to shoot a missile or send a bomber to harm America. Iraq does not possess nuclear weapons. Furthermore, there is no credible evidence that Iraq had anything to do with the terrorist attacks of 9/11. No credible link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda has been made.” On June 4, 2003, Dennis Kucinich said, “This Administration made many assertions, for which they have yet to produce any evidence, about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. The President led the nation to war, and spent at least $63 billion on that war, on the basis of these unfounded assertions. Let me repeat, the President led the nation to war on the basis of unfounded assertions. It is long past time that the Administration shows its evidence, and today, we are announcing the intention to introduce a resolution of inquiry tomorrow, to compel the White House to justify its claims.” On June 7, 2003, Dennis Kucinich introduced the resolution to force the Bush administration to turn over any and all evidence to back its assertions that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. He was backed by 30 fellow House members. Upon introducing this resolution, Dennis Kucinich said, “This administration owes an explanation to this Congress and to the American people. Now is the time for truth telling.” On August 25, 2003, Dennis Kucinich said, “It is clear now that the United States is bogged down in an ongoing guerrilla war with almost daily casualties. The situation is one that the Administration did not plan for and is not adequately prepared to handle. Assertions by the President, and his Administration, that the war is over and that our mission was accomplished, like their claims about Iraq's 'vast stockpiles' of WMD's, are false and misleading. While this Administration was quick to send troops into harm's way, it has no exit strategy for removing US troops from the country.” On December 5, 2003, Dennis Kucinich released a letter he wrote to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, in which he said, “Your testimony to Congress was influential in shaping the debate about going to war against Iraq and persuaded many Members to vote in favor of the use of military force. Yet your testimony contained information that you should have known to be false at the time you asserted it.” On January 11, 2004, Dennis Kucinich said, “The Bush Administration is still with us. They manufactured justifications for the war, and they are now manufacturing justifications for continuing this occupation. The war is not over, and the invention of justifications for it is not over.” Link: http://www.kucinich.us 519 dead American soldiers in Iraq. Thousands of medical evacuations of American soldiers from Iraq, many for grievous and permanently debilitating wounds. Nearly $200 billion spent on Iraq. Tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians killed and maimed. No weapons of mass destruction. Dennis Kucinich was right. How did he know? He knew because the information was there for all to see. Between 1991 and 1998 the UNSCOM weapons inspectors dismantled every facet of weapons manufacturing infrastructure in Iraq, along with all weapons themselves. He knew because Scott Ritter, who headed the UNSCOM weapons inspections on the ground in Iraq from 1991 to 1998, made it clear that Iraq’s weapons capabilities had been dismantled, and that Iraq posed no threat to the United States or its neighbors. He knew because former intelligence insiders like Greg Thielmann and Joseph Wilson stated clearly to the world that the threat posed by Iraq, reported ad nauseam by the Bush administration, was based upon profoundly questionable data. Links: http://www.truthout.com/docs_02/07.25A.wrp.iraq.htm http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/14/60II/main577975.shtml http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0706-02.htm He knew because the Secretary of State said so. “He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction,” said Colin Powell in Cairo on February 24, 2001. “He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.” http://pilger.carlton.com/print/133099 Dr. David Kay, in his testimony before the Senate on Wednesday, attempted to place the blame for the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq on the American intelligence services. He rejected the premise that the Bush administration was personally responsible for foisting exaggerated claims of the Iraqi threat upon the American people, and rejected the premise that administration officials pressured the intelligence services to overstate the threat posed by Iraq. The facts say different. The words of senior administration officials, and George W. Bush himself, say different. "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction," said Dick Cheney on August 26, 2002. Link: http://electroniciraq.net/news/1063.shtml "We know for a fact that there are weapons there," said Ari Fleischer on January 9, 2003. Link: http://www.abc.net.au/am/s760815.htm "We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more," said Colin Powell before the United Nations on February 5, 2003. In that same statement, Powell warned of the “sinister nexus between Iraq and al Qaeda.” Link: http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/05/sprj.irq.powell.transcript.10/ "We know where they are,” said Donald Rumsfeld about these weapons on March 30, 2003. “They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad." Link: http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Mar2003/t03302003_t0330sdabcsteph.html "We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons," said George W. Bush on February 8, 2003. Link: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030208.html “Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised," said George W. Bush on March 17, 2003. Link: http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2004/01/27/bush3/print.html The invasion of Iraq commenced over 300 days ago. In all that time, not one of the dire threats described by the Bush administration have been validated by evidence. Yet there is a page on the White House website titled ‘Disarm Saddam Hussein.’ This page holds the administration’s description of the threat posed by Iraq. According to the administration’s official website, Iraq is purported to possess 26,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, and 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. 500 tons amounts to 1,000,000 pounds. The page further describes Iraq’s possession of almost 30,000 munitions to deliver these agents, mobile biological weapons labs, and al Qaeda connections. Finally, the page claims that Iraq was seeking uranium from the nation of Niger for use in a nuclear weapons program. Although this last claim was thoroughly debunked, somehow it found its way into George W. Bush’s January 2003 State of the Union address. That page, and those false uranium claims, remain on the official White House website as of January 30, 2004. Link: http://www.whitehouse.gov/response/disarm.html Dr. Kay denied that pressure was put on intelligence analysts by White House officials to overstate the threat posed by Iraq. The facts say different. Before the Iraq invasion, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld cobbled together a group of ideologically like-minded allies to form the Office of Special Plans. Intelligence reports coming out of this office seemed to be at a striking variance from intelligence reports that went into the office. The Office of Special Plans operated out of the Pentagon, and beyond any Congressional oversight. The Office of Special Plans was run primarily by Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith, and by William Luti, a former navy officer and former aide to Vice President Dick Cheney. In order to make sure the Office of Special Plans received and forwarded intelligence reports symmetrical to preconceived notions, this group, according to news reports, used senior administration officials to browbeat intelligence analysts. Vice President Cheney made several unprecedented trips to CIA headquarters to demand “forward-leaning” interpretations of the threat posed by Iraq. When he was unable to do this, he sent his senior aide, Lewis “Scooter” Libby, to perform this task in his stead. On several occasions, former Representative Newt Gingrich appeared before the analysts to demand that they toughen up their assessments of the threat posed by Iraq. He did so as an emissary of the Office of Special Plans. Links: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,999737,00.html http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030512fa_fact Air Force Lieutenant Colonel and career Pentagon official Karen Kwiatkowski worked under Douglas Feith, and worked often with the Office of Special Plans, until her retirement in April of 2003. "What I saw was aberrant, pervasive and contrary to good order and discipline," said Kwiatkowski in August of 2003. "If one is seeking the answers to why peculiar bits of 'intelligence' found sanctity in a presidential speech, or why the post-Saddam occupation has been distinguished by confusion and false steps, one need look no further than the process inside the Office of the Secretary of Defense." Kwiatkowski went on to charge that the operations she witnessed during her time in Feith's office, and particularly those of the Office of Special Plans, constituted, "a subversion of constitutional limits on executive power and a co-optation through deceit of a large segment of the Congress." Most importantly, Kwiatkowski stated, “What these people are doing now makes Iran-Contra look like amateur hour. . . it's worse than Iran-Contra, worse than what happened in Vietnam.” Links: http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=19542 http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1030-08.htm During the debate in South Carolina on Thursday January 29, Dennis Kucinich mentioned a think tank called the Project for a New American Century in the context of the Iraq invasion. The existence of this group is vital to understanding the all-important question: Why did the Bush administration push so hard to invade Iraq? Why did they manufacture a case for war? Why did they distort the tragedy of September 11, using Iraq as a foil? The Project for a New American Century provides an answer. Founded in 1997, its principals have been agitating for a war with Iraq. PNAC was the driving force behind the drafting and passage of the Iraqi Liberation Act. The names of every prominent PNAC member were on a letter delivered to President Clinton in 1998 which castigated him for not implementing the Act by sending troops into Baghdad. In the months before the invasion, PNAC created a new sub-group called The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq. Staffed entirely by PNAC members, The Committee set out to "educate" Americans about the need for war in Iraq. This group met in February 2003 with National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice regarding the ways and means of this education. Why is PNAC an important piece of the Iraq puzzle? It is important because individuals, soon to become high-ranking members of the Bush administration, signed on to their goals, their policies, and their ideology:
In short, members of the Project for a New American Century control, from top to bottom, the national security and military apparatus of the United States. Their motives and ultimate goals, therefore, deserve close scrutiny. The flagship document put forth by PNAC was produced in 2000, and is titled ‘Rebuilding America’s Defenses.’ In it, PNAC made their case for an invasion of Iraq is made more than a year before the September 11 terrorist attacks. Page 26 of the report carries the following lines: "The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.” In short, and according to PNAC, the purported threat posed by Saddam Hussein is far less important that the need to get an American military force presence into Iraq by any means necessary. Along with this admission, ‘Rebuilding America’s Defenses’ outlines a plan for American unilateralism and military expansionism. The Project for the New American Century seeks to establish what they call 'Pax Americana' across the globe. Essentially, their goal is to transform America, the sole remaining superpower, into a planetary empire by force of arms. 'Rebuilding America's Defenses' codifies this plan, which requires a massive increase in defense spending and the willingness to fight several major theater wars in order to establish American dominance. Specifically for the Middle East, PNAC sought to invade and occupy Iraq to establish a permanent military presence, which would subsequently become a launching point for the invasion and overthrow of governments all across the region. Another PNAC signatory, author Norman Podhoretz, quantified this central aspect of the plan in the September 2002 issue of his journal, 'Commentary'. In it, Podhoretz notes that the regimes, "that richly deserve to be overthrown and replaced, are not confined to the three singled-out members of the axis of evil. At a minimum, the axis should extend to Syria and Lebanon and Libya, as well as 'friends' of America like the Saudi royal family and Egypt's Hosni Mubarak, along with the Palestinian Authority, whether headed by Arafat or one of his henchmen." At bottom, for Podhoretz and PNAC, this action is about "the long-overdue internal reform and modernization of Islam." Links: http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=1&num=53 http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf Evidence to support the fact that the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction or September 11 goes beyond the pages of PNAC reports. Former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill recently stated that attacking Iraq was in the works from the very first day George W. Bush took office in January 2001. Pulitzer prizewinning journalist Ron Suskind captured O'Neill's views in a new book titled 'The Price of Loyalty.' "From
the very first instance, it was about Iraq," says Suskind about his
interviews with O'Neill and his review of 19,000 pages of documentary
evidence provided by O’Neill. "It was about what we can do to change
this regime. Day one, these things were laid and sealed." Suskind
got his hands on one Pentagon document, dated March 5, 2001. The document
was titled 'Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts,' and included
a map of potential areas for exploration. "It talks about contractors
around the world from, you know, 30-40 countries," says Suskind,
"and which ones have what intentions on oil in Iraq." Links: http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/011204A.shtml http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/04/september11/main520830.shtml Finally, the scandals surrounding Halliburton Corporation’s involvement in the rebuilding of Iraq offers further evidence to support the fact that this war was planned long before September 11, and had little to do with Hussein’s purported threat to American security. The New York Times carried a story on January 23 titled, ‘Halliburton Turns Over $6.3 million to Government.’ Admitting that at least one employee had participated in a $6.3 million kickback deal with a Kuwaiti company to provide support services to American troops, Halliburton said it had repaid the money to the government. This came on the heels of accusations that Halliburton, and its subsidiary Kellog Brown & Root, got the contracts in Iraq to begin with because Vice President Cheney served as Halliburton’s chief executive before becoming Bush’s Vice President. The fourth paragraph of this New York Times story continues, “The contract was awarded two years ago by the Army Field Support Command. It called for the subsidiary to provide a number of logistical services for troops in Iraq, including housing, transportation, food, laundry and recreation. Kellogg Brown & Root, in turn, contracted with the Kuwaiti company to handle some of the work.” The contract for troop support was given to Halliburton two years ago, more than a year before the invasion was undertaken, and more than a year before any national discussion of whether the invasion was just or necessary was undertaken. Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/24/politics/24HALL.html?8bl Dr. Kay’s claims that the Bush administration had nothing to do with the spreading of disinformation and lies about the threat posed by Iraq do not stand up to scrutiny. The words of senior White House officials, the statements on the White House’s own website, the facts surrounding the Office of Special Plans, the plans laid by the Project for a New American Century before Bush ever took office, the contracts handed out to corporations with ties to the administration before any discussion of war was broached with the American people, the documented pressure placed on intelligence analysts by Dick Cheney and others, the eyewitness reports of insiders like Karen Kwiatkowski and Paul O’Neill, and the words of George W. Bush himself, expose Kay’s testimony. The facts are clear. This administration arrived in Washington determined to invade Iraq by any means. They set out, before and after September 11, to build a case to support a decision for invasion that had already been made – That Iraq should be invaded. Even the tragedy of September 11 was not so grave a matter that it could not be manipulated towards the administration’s goal of attacking Iraq. It was never about weapons of mass destruction, or even about Saddam Hussein. It was about regional control of petroleum in the Middle East. It was about wholesale regime change in the Middle East. It was about the rise of American unilateralism across the globe. It would have been difficult, if not impossible, for George W. Bush and his administration to give the American people false information about Iraq without help. The information was used to create a war. It was picked up, uncritically disseminated and even embellished by members of Congress, some of whom went on to become Presidential candidates. Their own statements tell the story: John Kerry: "Why is Saddam Hussein attempting to develop nuclear weapons when most nations don't even try? According to intelligence, Iraq has chemical and biological weapons. . .Iraq is developing unmanned aerial vehicles capable of delivering chemical and biological warfare agents…The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War. It has been with us for the last four years… It is clear that in the four years since the UNSCOM inspectors were forced out, Saddam Hussein has continued his quest for weapons of mass destruction." - October 9, 2002 Howard Dean: "[I and others] have never been in doubt about the evil of Saddam Hussein or the necessity of removing his weapons of mass destruction." - March 17, 2003 From the CBS News program Face The Nation, September 29 2002: GLORIA BORGER,
U.S. News & World Report: Governor, what exactly does the Wesley Clark: "He [Hussein] does have weapons of mass destruction." Questioner: "And you could say that categorically?" Clark: "Absolutely . . . I think they will be found. There's so much intelligence on this." - January 18, 2003 "Many Gulf states will hustle to praise their liberation from a sense of insecurity they were previously loath even to express. Egypt and Saudi Arabia will move slightly but perceptibly towards Western standards of human rights." (George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair) "should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt. Their opponents, those who questioned the necessity or wisdom of the operation, are temporarily silent, but probably unconvinced." – April 10, 2003 Joe Lieberman: "Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States…I think it ought to happen before this session of Congress recesses, ought to be a congressional debate on whether or not to authorize the president as commander in chief to take military action to remove Saddam Hussein. I will support that resolution. I will do anything I can to convince my colleagues to adopt it, because I feel it is so critical to our security. " - August 4, 2002 Links: http://slate.msn.com/id/2092376/ http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0404/mondo2.php http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/30/ftn/printable523726.shtml http://www.fair.org/press-releases/clark-antiwar.html http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2002_1009.html http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,59538,00.html http://www.senate.gov/%7Eedwards/statements/20021010_iraq.html On this all-important matter, Dennis Kucinich stands alone. He is the only Democratic candidate who voted against the Iraq War Resolution. He is the only Democratic candidate whose public statements on the issue have remained consistent and unambiguous since the idea of invasion was first introduced by the Bush administration. He is the only Democratic candidate who consistently rejected the rhetoric and fear used by the administration to manufacture a cause for war. He is the only Democratic candidate who will ensure that American soldiers are brought home within 90 days of U.N approval of his exit strategy. http://www.kucinich.us/bringourtroopshome.php As Dennis Kucinich said on June 7, 2003, now is the time for truth telling. Iraq had nothing to do with September 11. There are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. There was no justification for this war. It was wrong to go in. It is wrong to stay in. Dennis Kucinich was right in September of 2002, and he is right today. |