Hillary Clinton and many other members of Congress
claim that their support of the invasion of Iraq was based
on faulty intelligence reports. How could they dispute the
research and analysis of all those experts, so well trained
and experienced in their fields?
Well, apart from the fact that American intelligence agencies
and their reports were by no means of one opinion (one well-publicized
CIA paper, for example, predicted all manner of devastating
consequences which could result from an invasion and occupation)
. . . [1]
Apart from the fact that there were several public statements,
including some on American TV, from Saddam Hussein's deputy
prime minister, and other statements made by Iraqi scientists
to American media and to American intelligence that Iraq no
longer had any weapons of mass destruction . . . [2]
Apart from the fact that UN nuclear inspectors had determined
before the war that Iraq did not have a nuclear weapons program
. . . [3]
(Article continues below)
Apart from the fact that Colin Powell, speaking in February
2001 of US sanctions on Iraq, said: "And frankly they
have worked. He [Saddam Hussein] has not developed any significant
capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He
is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors."[4]
Apart from all that, this question must be asked: What did
the millions of Americans who marched against the war before
it began know that all those members of Congress didn't know?
At a minimum, they knew that nothing the Bush administration
had told them came anywhere close to justifying dropping bombs
on the innocent people of Iraq. They also knew that nothing
the Bush administration had told them could be trusted. All
it took to reach this advanced stage of awareness was not
being born yesterday.
As I've written before, the same phenomenon attended the
Vietnam War. The anti-Vietnam War movement burst out of the
starting gate back in August 1964, with hundreds of people
demonstrating in New York. Many of these early dissenters
took apart and critically examined the administration's statements
about the war's origin, its current situation, and its rosy
picture of the future. They found continuous omission, contradiction,
and duplicity, became quickly and wholly cynical, and called
for immediate and unconditional withdrawal. This was a state
of intellect and principle it took members of Congress and
the media -- and then only a small minority -- until the 1970s
to reach. And even then -- even today -- our political and
media elite viewed Vietnam only as a "mistake";
i.e., it was "the wrong way" to fight communism,
not that the United States should not be traveling all over
the globe to spew violence against anything labeled "communism"
in the first place. Essentially, the only thing these "best
and brightest" have learned from Vietnam is that we should
not have fought in Vietnam. And I'm afraid that the present
generation of "leaders" will learn very little more
than that we shouldn't have invaded Iraq.
Notes
[1] Central Intelligence Agency, "The Perfect Storm:
Planning for Negative Consequences of Invading Iraq,"
August 13, 2002
[2] Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz in August 2002
told Dan Rather: "We do not possess any nuclear or biological
or chemical weapons."(CBS Evening News, August 20, 2002)
In December he stated to Ted Koppel: "The fact is that
we don't have weapons of mass destruction. We don't have chemical,
biological, or nuclear weaponry."(ABC Nightline, December
4, 2002)
Gen. Hussein Kamel, former head of Iraq's secret weapons
program, and a son-in-law of Saddam Hussein, told the UN in
1995, that Iraq had destroyed its banned missiles and chemical
and biological weapons soon after the Persian Gulf War.(Washington
Post, March 1, 2003, page 15)
[3] Washington Post, July 11, 2004
[4] State Department press release, February 24, 2001
