[Peace-discuss] Whistling in the wind? Senator Robt. Byrd

[Morton K. Brussel]

A pretty damning, if courteously and carefully stated, indictment. It 
should make headline news, but don't count on it. Of course, he avoids 
discussion of motivation.
Most of us knew at the time of the deceit that Sen. Byrd implies, but 
Congress, privy to secret information, evidently was either hoodwinked 
of afraid to express doubts and criticisms. A sad commentary on our 
system.

MKB

The Road to Coverup Is the Road to Ruin

by US Senator Robert Byrd
US Senate Floor Remarks - June 24, 2003

 

Mr. President, last fall, the White House released a national security 
strategy that called for an end to the doctrines of deterrence and 
containment that have been a hallmark of American foreign policy for 
more than half a century.

This new national security strategy is based upon pre-emptive war 
against those who might threaten our security.

Such a strategy of striking first against possible dangers is heavily 
reliant upon  interpretation of accurate and timely intelligence.  If 
we are going to hit first, based on perceived dangers, the perceptions 
had better be accurate.  If our intelligence is faulty, we may launch 
pre-emptive wars against countries that do not pose a real threat 
against us.  Or we may overlook countries that do pose real threats to 
our security, allowing us no chance to pursue diplomatic solutions to 
stop a crisis before it escalates to war.  In either case lives could 
be needlessly lost.  In other words, we had better be certain that we 
can discern the imminent threats from the false alarms. 

Ninety-six days ago [as of June 24], President Bush announced that he 
had initiated a war to "disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend 
the world from grave danger."  The President told the world: "Our 
nation enters this conflict reluctantly -- yet, our purpose is sure. 
The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not 
live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with 
weapons of mass murder." [Address to                              the 
Nation, 3/19/03]

The President has since announced that major combat operations 
concluded on May 1. He said: "Major combat operations in Iraq have 
ended.  In the battle of Iraq, the United States                        
       and our allies have prevailed."  Since then, the United States 
has been recognized by the international community as the occupying 
power in Iraq.  And yet, we have not found any evidence that would 
confirm the officially stated reason that our country was sent to war; 
namely, that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction constituted a grave 
threat to the United States.

We have heard a lot about revisionist history from the White House of 
late in answer to those who question whether there was a real threat 
from Iraq.  But, it is the President who appears to me to be intent on 
revising history.   There is an abundance of clear and unmistakable 
evidence that the Administration sought to portray Iraq as a direct and 
deadly threat to the American people.  But there is a great difference 
between the hand-picked intelligence that was presented by the 
Administration to Congress and the American people when compared 
against what we have actually discovered in Iraq.  This Congress and 
the people who sent us here are entitled to an explanation from the 
Administration.

On January 28, 2003, President Bush said in his State of the Union 
Address: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein 
recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."  [State 
of the Union, 1/28/03, pg. 7] Yet, according to news reports, the CIA 
knew that this claim was false as early as March 2002.  In addition, 
the International Atomic Energy Agency has since discredited this 
allegation.

On February 5, Secretary of State Colin Powell told the United Nations 
Security Council: "Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a 
stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent.  That 
is enough to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets."  [Remarks to UN Security 
Council, 2/5/03, pg. 12] The truth is, to date we have not found any of 
this material,                              nor those thousands of 
rockets loaded with chemical weapons. 

On February 8, President Bush told the nation: "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, 2/8/03] Mr. President, we are all 
relieved that such weapons were not used, but it has not yet been 
explained why the Iraqi army did not use them.  Did the Iraqi army flee 
their positions before chemical weapons could be used? If so, why were 
the weapons not left behind?  Or is it that the army was                
               never issued chemical weapons?  We need answers.

On March 16, the Sunday before the war began, in an interview with Tim 
Russert, Vice President Cheney said that Iraqis want "to get rid of 
Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States 
when we come to do that."  He added, "...the vast majority of them 
would turn [Saddam Hussein] in in a minute if, in fact, they thought 
they could do so safely."  [ Meet the Press , 3/16/03, pg. 6]  But in 
fact, Mr. President, today Iraqi cities remain in disorder, our troops 
are under attack, our occupation government lives and works in 
fortified compounds, and we are still trying to determine the fate of 
the ousted, murderous dictator.

On March 30, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, during the height of 
the war, said of                              the search for weapons of 
mass destruction: "We know where they are. They're in the area around 
Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat." [ This 
Week , 3/30/03, pg. 8] But Baghdad fell to our troops on April 9, and 
Tikrit on April 14, and the intelligence Secretary Rumsfeld spoke about 
has not led us to any weapons of mass destruction.

Whether or not intelligence reports were bent, stretched, or massaged 
to make Iraq look like an imminent threat to the United States, it is 
clear that the Administration's rhetoric played upon the well-founded 
fear of the American public about future acts of terrorism.  But, upon 
close examination, many of these statements have nothing to do with 
intelligence, because they are at root just sound bites based on 
conjecture.  They are designed to prey on public fear.

The face of Osama bin Laden morphed into that of Saddam Hussein.  
President Bush carefully blurred these images in his State of the Union 
Address.  Listen to this quote from his State of the Union Address: 
"Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans – this 
time armed by Saddam Hussein.  It would take one vial, one canister, 
one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none 
we have ever known."  [State of the Union, 1/28/03, pg 7] Judging by 
this speech, not only is the President confusing al Qaeda and Iraq, but 
he also appears to give a vote of no-confidence to our homeland 
security efforts.  Isn't the White House, the brains behind the 
Department of Homeland Security?  Isn't the Administration supposed to 
be stopping those vials, canisters, and crates from entering            
                   our country, rather than trying to scare our fellow 
citizens half to death about them?

Not only did the Administration warn about more hijackers carrying 
deadly chemicals, the White House even went so far as to suggest that 
the time it would take for U.N. inspectors to find solid, 'smoking gun' 
evidence of Saddam's illegal weapons would put the U.S. at greater risk 
of a nuclear attack from Iraq.  National Security Advisor Condoleeza 
Rice was quoted as saying on September 9, 2002, by the Los Angeles 
Times , "We don't want the 'smoking gun' to be a mushroom cloud."  [ 
Los Angeles Times , "Threat by Iraq Grows, U.S. Says," 9/9/02] Talk 
about hype!  Mushroom clouds?  Where is the evidence for this?  There 
isn't any.

On September 26, 2002, just two weeks before Congress voted on a 
resolution to allow the President to invade Iraq, and six weeks before 
the mid-term elections, President Bush himself built the case that Iraq 
was plotting to attack the United States. After meeting with members of 
Congress on that date, the President said: "The danger to our country 
is grave.  The danger to our country is growing.  The Iraqi regime 
possesses biological and chemical weapons.... The regime is seeking a 
nuclear bomb, and with fissile material, could build one within a year."

These are the President's words.  He said that Saddam Hussein is 
"seeking a nuclear bomb."  Have we found any evidence to date of this 
chilling allegation? No. 

But, President Bush continued on that autumn day:  "The dangers we face 
will only worsen from month to month and from year to year.  To ignore 
these threats is to encourage them.  And when they have fully 
materialized it may be too late to protect ourselves and our friends 
and our allies.  By then the Iraqi dictator would have the means to 
terrorize and dominate the region.  Each passing day could be the one 
on which the Iraqi regime gives anthrax or VX – nerve gas – or some day 
a nuclear weapon to a terrorist ally." [Rose Garden Remarks, 9/26/02]

And yet, seven weeks after declaring victory in the war against Iraq, 
we have seen nary a shred of evidence to support his claims of grave 
dangers, chemical weapons, links to al Qaeda, or nuclear weapons.

Just days before a vote on a resolution that handed the President 
unprecedented war powers, President Bush stepped up the scare tactics.  
On October 7, just four days before the October 11 vote in the Senate 
on the war resolution, the President stated: "We know that Iraq and the 
al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy – the United States of 
America.  We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts 
that go back a decade."  President Bush continued: "We've learned that 
Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly 
gasses.... Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to 
attack America without leaving any fingerprints."

President Bush also elaborated on claims of Iraq's nuclear program when 
he said: "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.... 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." [Cincinnati Museum Center, 
10/7/02, pg. 3-4]

This is the kind of pumped up intelligence and outrageous rhetoric that 
were given to the American people to justify war with Iraq.  This is 
the same kind of hyped evidence that was given to Congress to sway its 
vote for war on October 11, 2002. 

We hear some voices say, but why should we care?  After all, the United 
States won the                              war, didn't it?  Saddam 
Hussein is no more; he is either dead or on the run.  What does it 
matter if reality does not reveal the same grim picture that was so 
carefully painted before the war?  So what if the menacing 
characterizations that conjured up visions of mushroom clouds and 
American cities threatened with deadly germs and chemicals were 
overdone? So what?

Mr. President, our sons and daughters who serve in uniform answered a 
call to duty.  They were sent to the hot sands of the Middle East to 
fight in a war that has already cost the lives of 194 Americans, 
thousands of innocent civilians, and unknown numbers of Iraqi 
soldiers.  Our troops are still at risk.  Hardly a day goes by that 
there is not another attack on the troops who are trying to restore 
order to a country teetering on the brink of anarchy.  When are they 
coming home?

The President told the American people that we were compelled to go to 
war to secure our country from a grave threat.  Are we any safer today 
than we were on March 18, 2003?                               Our 
nation has been committed to rebuilding a country ravaged by war and 
tyranny, and the cost of that task is being paid in blood and treasure 
every day. 

It is in the compelling national interest to examine what we were told 
about the threat from Iraq.  It is in the compelling national interest 
to know if the intelligence was faulty.  It is in the compelling 
national interest to know if the intelligence was distorted. 

Mr. President, Congress must face this issue squarely.  Congress should 
begin immediately an investigation into the intelligence that was 
presented to the American people about                              the 
pre-war estimates of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and the way 
in which that intelligence might have been misused.  This is no time 
for a timid Congress. We have a responsibility to act in the national 
interest and protect the American people.  We must get to the bottom of 
this matter.

Although some timorous steps have been taken in the past few days to 
begin a review of this intelligence – I must watch my terms carefully, 
for I may be tempted to use the words "investigation" or "inquiry" to 
describe this review, and those are terms which I am told are not 
supposed to be used – the proposed measures appear to fall short of 
what the situation requires.  We are already shading our terms about 
how to describe the proposed review of intelligence: cherry-picking 
words to give the American people the impression that the government is 
fully in control of the situation, and that there is no reason to ask 
tough questions.  This is the same problem that got us into this 
controversy about slanted intelligence reports.  Word games.  Lots and 
lots of word games.

Well, Mr. President, this is no game.  For the first time in our 
history, the United States has gone to war because of intelligence 
reports claiming that a country posed a threat to our nation.  Congress 
should not be content to use standard operating procedures to look into 
this extraordinary matter.  We should accept no substitute for a full, 
bipartisan investigation by Congress into the issue of our pre-war 
intelligence on the threat from Iraq and its use.

The purpose of such an investigation is not to play pre-election year 
politics, nor is it                              to engage in what some 
might call "revisionist history."  Rather it is to get at the truth.  
The longer questions are allowed to fester about what our intelligence 
knew about Iraq, and when they knew it, the greater the risk that the 
people – the American people whom we are elected to serve – will lose 
confidence in our government. 

This looming crisis of trust is not limited to the public.  Many of my 
colleagues were willing to trust the Administration and vote to 
authorize war against Iraq.  Many members of this body trusted so much 
that they gave the President sweeping authority to commence war.  As    
                           President Reagan famously said, "Trust, but 
verify."  Despite my opposition, the Senate voted to blindly trust the 
President with unprecedented power to declare war.  While the 
reconstruction continues, so do the questions, and it is time to verify.

I have served the people of West Virginia in Congress for half a 
century.  I have witnessed deceit and scandal, cover up and aftermath.  
I have seen Presidents of both parties who once enjoyed great 
popularity among the people leave office in disgrace because they 
misled the American people.   I say to this Administration: do not 
circle the wagons.  Do not discourage the seeking of truth in these 
matters.

Mr. President, the American people have questions that need to be 
answered about why we went to war with Iraq.  To attempt to deny the 
relevance of these questions is to trivialize the people's trust.   

The business of intelligence is secretive by necessity, but our 
government is open by design.  We must be straight with the American 
people.  Congress has the obligation to investigate the use of 
intelligence information by the Administration, in the open, so that 
the American people can see that those who exercise power, especially 
the awesome power of preemptive war, must be held accountable.  We must 
not go down the road of cover-up.  That is the road to ruin. 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 16728 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20030624/c393c2c4/attachment.bin