Posted on 03/03/2006 5:31:17 AM PST by SJackson
Several weeks ago I wrote an article ("Insanity of the ‘Bush Lied’ Hypothesis," Jan. 27) that addressed the allegation that George W. Bush lied about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. I noted that this charge doesn’t make sense, even when granting it for the sake of argument, and that underlying the charge is an obsessive hatred of Bush that muddles the thinking of otherwise sensible people.
The response to the article was generally positive, though I did receive some angry e-mails.
"I think there is something fundamentally dishonest about your article," began one writer, who offered that his "most charitable interpretation" was that I couldn’t help myself from "distorting the truth" to defend the Republican president – even though my view on Iraqi WMDs was consistent with that of the previous president, a Democrat. The e-mail concluded: "Are you an educator and historian, or are you a propagandist?"
A number of e-mailers flat-out called me a liar. Bush had lied, and now I had lied to defend the liar. One e-mail did everything but shout, "Liar, liar, pants on fire!"
A few e-mails were less emotionally charged, and I felt a responsibility to respond – a correspondence which has carried on for weeks. One of these e-mailers was a Harvard professor of neuroscience. He made a good point, the answer to which should be shared more broadly.
"I think you misrepresent what people mean when they say, ‘Bush lied,’" wrote the professor. "They are not generally making references to his beliefs, but they are making reference to the simple fact that he made claims for which he has no evidence…. And given the seriousness of the issue at hand (war), the bar was raised and the evidence had to be pretty damned good."
The professor is too charitable to the "Bush-Lied-Kids-Died" crowd, whose line of reasoning is not so thoughtful. (I know this because I correspond with them daily.) Nonetheless, he posed a valid question, which merits a response.
The professor is correct: Bush did not have absolute evidence of stockpiles of Iraqi WMD. He had no pictures or first-hand accounts from, say, a Tony Blair or Kofi Annan returning from a remote corner of Iraq to report: "Saddam has a warehouse of chemical warheads. I saw them."
Yet, such unequivocal evidence was not possible. It was unattainable because Saddam Hussein concealed his WMD, as he had since 1991, when the United Nations first began doing inspections. All along, he claimed he did not have WMD, and all along we continued to find them.
Our "evidence" for his WMD in the 1990’s was identical to George W. Bush’s "evidence" later: volumes of testimony from Iraqi scientists, citizens, soldiers, and foreign officials who comprised the "intelligence" that reported that Saddam had WMD. Entire books laid out the details, such as the bestseller Saddam’s Bombmaker by Khidhir Hamza.
Here are merely a few facts about Saddam’s WMD inventory, which were uncovered by UN inspectors in the 1990’s and became widespread public knowledge:
The Iraqi dictator acquired gallons of chemical and biological agents. He repeatedly used chemical arms and probably employed bio weapons in some form, likely on groups like the Marsh Arabs. His bio arsenal was staggering – anthrax, botulinum toxin, and dozens of others. His regime remains the only in history to weaponize aflatoxin, a substance that slowly causes liver cancer and has no battlefield utility whatsoever. He loaded thousands of artillery shells and missiles with such substances.
The United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) needed several years to destroy these weapons, and was certain that countless more remained hidden.
Much more elusive were nuclear weapons. UNSCOM learned that Saddam had an enormous nuclear program that dated back to the 1970’s. Spread among 25 facilities, it employed 15,000 technical people. Based on a Manhattan Project bomb design, Iraqi scientists pursued five different methods for separating uranium. Saddam pumped $10 billion into the program.
This information was made public in the mid-1990’s by UN officials. UNSCOM chief scientist David Kay reported that Saddam had been only 12 to 18 months away from a workable nuclear bomb at the time we drove Iraqi troops from Kuwait in 1991. This became a lingering fear once Saddam again barred weapons inspectors from suspect sites in the late 1990’s; writers in The New York Times were vigilant in reminding us that Saddam must be perilously close to possessing that bomb.
A September 1998 article by Barton Gellman in the Washington Post reported "credible" evidence (from UN arms inspectors) that "Iraq has built and has maintained three or four ‘implosion devices’ that lack only cores of enriched uranium to make 20-kiloton nuclear weapons."
An intriguing February 25, 2001 London Times feature went further, reporting that Saddam had actually secretly tested a nuclear weapon.
The Clinton administration had enough, and in December 1998 unleashed a flurry of cruise missiles at Iraqi sites. Still, Saddam would not relent. And by 2003, not a single weapons inspector had entered an Iraqi building in five years – a risk the president of the United States found unacceptable in a post-9/11 world.
This brings us to George W. Bush, and to my answer to the professor’s question: Indeed, George W. Bush did not have unmistakable evidence of stockpiles of Iraqi WMD, but neither did the UN in 1991 nor Bill Clinton in 1998. Bush knew what they knew: Saddam had a rich history of manufacturing and using these weapons, and then lying about and hiding their existence.
Yes, there’s a liar in this story, all right. His name is Saddam Hussein.
Dr. Paul Kengor is author of "God and George W. Bush." He is also executive director of the Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College and a visiting fellow with the Hoover Institution.
Yep. No contradictions there!
"Having participated in the DESERT FOX airstrikes it cracks me up when the libs claim Bush dreamt this up from his ranch in Texas."
Just how does the most stupid President do this, never mind getting elected to the highest office in the world twice? ;)
This one enlistment Sea Bee thanks for your service.
I'm not so sure there's a commection. When I was living in Boston in 1975, I met a couple of Iranian students from MIT that were part a cohort of 100 promising young individuals that had been sent by the Shah to study Nuclear Engineering. The program was not a secret. A search would turn up articles from that period about the concerns that this would lead to an Iranian bomb.
The kool aid left isn't interested in the truth, so one wonders why he spent so much time actually corresponding with what is not a serious search for truth but simply an ignorant mob akin to the torch wielding one from Frankenstein.
This is a wise observation. "I'm not seeking truth, I'm seeking advantage."
Then there is the whole sanctions regime thing throughout the 90's. Estimates are that 500,000 to 1 Million Iraqi's starved to death from sanctions put in place due to WMD issue. Clinton lied no one died my AXX!!!
Then why are Iraq and Libya no longer consider threat (or rogue) nations?
ping
HA! HA! I think you are right, in that this rhyme does seem to be the gist of the arguement.
1975. Interesting. I'm sure
there were other students at MIT
who were from the mid-East as well
and studying up on the same topic.
NTL, as I recall,m the Shah was a
bit too cozy with the West; and
it cost him dearly.
bump
The left would rather have you dead than find that the deceased thug only had a carrot in his pocket. If a leftist looney wants to sacrifice HIS life in such a manner go ahead, but ME--I'll shoot first and ask questions of any survivors later. Just like The President did after 9/11.
Iraq was considered a threat because they had or may of had WMD.
Iraq is no longer the threat as we know occupy Iraq.
But where is the WMD, they are not in our custody.
They are still out there and therefore still a threat. Therefore where WMD is concerned we failed in our mission
You just contradicted yourself.
Bump to find later
No I didn't either debate or don't. I noticed you mention 1 and 2 while conveniently ignoring 3 and 4
1) Iraq was considered a threat because they had or may of had WMD.
2) Iraq is no longer the threat as we now occupy Iraq.
3)But where is the WMD, they are not in our custody.
4)They are still out there and therefore still a threat. Therefore where WMD is concerned we failed in our mission and I will add a 5.
5)Before we moved into Iraq a major reason for removing WMD from this theater was the fact that Saddam may hand them over to a terrorist organisation to use against us.
Since we do not know who now controls them, and if all of them are controlled by the same organistion we have not removed the threat of them falling into terrorist hands and may have increased the chances of that possibility.
Our forces did not in any way, shape or form increase the possibility of WMD falling into terrorist hands. That's wishful thinking (yes, that's exactly what I mean) on your part. The WMD threat was there before, and to a lesser extent still remains. But its supporting infrastructure is further eradicated, and a vicious, soulless tyrant has been removed from power and is no longer in charge of them.
Oh thats ok then.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.