HOME
DV NEWS
SERVICE ARCHIVE SUBMISSIONS/CONTACT ABOUT DV
“The
Road to Hell is Paved With Good Intentions”:
How
Can The White House Justify Iraq War
If
WMD’s Aren’t Found?
by
Jason Leopold
July
16, 2003
Since
the start of the war in Iraq four months ago, 212 American soldiers have been
killed, including 79 who have died since May 1, when President George Bush
declared an end to major hostilities in Iraq. It’s unclear how many Iraqi
civilians perished during major combat, but estimates say it is “several
thousand.”
The
Iraqi’s did not welcome U.S. soldiers with bouquets of flowers, as the hawks in
the White House suggested. Instead, they are begging us to leave and are
engaging soldiers in guerrilla warfare. Iraq is in such disarray that experts
predict it will take at least 10 years to rebuild the country’s infrastructure
at a cost of tens of billions of dollars. More importantly though, to date, no
weapons of mass destruction have been found and there isn’t a shred of proof
that Iraq was building a nuclear weapons arsenal.
Still,
Bush said Iraq was an imminent threat to its neighbors in the Middle East and
to the United States. But how can that be if the evidence of its chemical,
biological and nuclear weapons program are nowhere to be found? How then can
these casualties be justified?
Saddam
Hussein was an evil dictator who repressed, murdered and tortured his own
people. That and that alone was a good enough reason enough to go to war,
according to Bush and his cabal of neoconservatives.
But
that’s only true if Iraq proved to be an “imminent” threat. As the old saying
goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Bush may have meant well,
but he lied and lied and lied.
A
bulk of the intelligence information the CIA gathered to help the President
build a case for war has not held up. There’s the now infamous uranium
purchases Iraq was supposedly seeking from Niger, the mobile
trailers that were purportedly used to cook up some chemical weapons, the aluminum
tubes that Iraq bought to allegedly
enrich uranium for a nuclear bomb, the International
Atomic Energy Agency Reports that don’t exist and on
and on.
Some
of Bush’s most frightening statements on Iraq, posted on the website
findlaw.com, none of which have been proven accurate are:
* "We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein
recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very
weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."
(Radio Address, October 5, 2002)
* "The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical
and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."
"We know that the regime has
produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin
nerve gas, VX nerve gas."
"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. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS
for missions targeting the United States."
"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."
(Cincinnati, Ohio Speech, October 7,
2002)
* "Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam
Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and
VX nerve agent."
(State of the Union Address, January 28,
2003)
John
Dean, the former counsel to President Richard Nixon, made an excellent argument
in June for possibly impeaching Bush if the president intentionally misled
Congress and the public into backing the war with Iraq.
“Presidential
statements, particularly on matters of national security, are held to an
expectation of the highest standard of truthfulness,” Dean wrote in a June 6
column. “A president cannot stretch, twist or distort facts and get away with
it. President Lyndon Johnson's distortions of the truth about Vietnam forced
him to stand down from reelection. President Richard Nixon's false statements
about Watergate forced his resignation.”
Based
on the bogus intelligence information that has come to light thus far, there
very well could be a case for impeaching Bush. Although no Democrat in
Washington has so far had the guts to utter the “I” word with regards to Bush
and the Iraq war, the lousy intelligence information supplied to the White
House by the CIA begs for a bipartisan investigation into what Bush knew and
when he knew it.
“To
put it bluntly, if Bush has taken Congress and the nation into war based on
bogus information, he is cooked,” Dean said in his column. “Manipulation or
deliberate misuse of national security intelligence data, if proven, could be
"a high crime" under the Constitution's impeachment clause. It would
also be a violation of federal criminal law, including the broad federal
anti-conspiracy statute, which renders it a felony “to defraud the United
States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose.”
“It's
important to recall that when Richard Nixon resigned, he was about to be
impeached by the House of Representatives for misusing the CIA and FBI. After
Watergate, all presidents are on notice that manipulating or misusing any
agency of the executive branch improperly is a serious abuse of presidential
power,” Dean said.
What’s
clear so far is that many of Bush’s top advisers, including Deputy Secretary of
Defense Paul Wolfowitz, have misused the CIA. Wolfowitz
had the spy agency investigate United Nations weapons inspector Hans Blix in
February 2002 in an attempt to discredit the scientist and possibly launch an
early war with Iraq. Vice President Dick Cheney frequently visited the CIA
and put pressure on agents to beef up some intelligence information to portray
Iraq as a threat to world security. It’s unclear whether Bush took any part in
any of these schemes but it is a question Congress should ask the President.
Remember,
this is a country that impeached a president for accepting sexual favors in the
oval office and lying about it. There’s no doubt that the White House has so
far failed to prove that Iraq was a lethal threat to the U.S. It’s time for our
elected lawmakers to find out who should carry the blame.
Jason Leopold, formerly the
bureau chief of Dow Jones Newswires, is a freelance journalist based in
California. He is currently finishing a book on the California energy crisis. He
can be contacted at jasonleopold@hotmail.com.