http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentSe...FT/FullStory&c
=StoryFT&cid=1054966349031&p=1012571727126

Bush must not be allowed to rewrite history
Ivo Daalder and James Lindsay
Published: June 23 2003 19:32 | Last Updated: June 23 2003 19:32


d4 In recent days, George W. Bush has accused those asking awkward questions
about the whereabouts of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction of
rewriting history. "We made it clear to the dictator of Iraq that he must
disarm," Mr Bush said last week. "He chose not to do so, so we disarmed him.
And I know there's a lot of revisionist history now going on, but one thing
is certain. He is no longer a threat to the free world and the people of
Iraq are free."


But if anyone is revising history, it is the US president. Iraq's WMD
programme was the test case for Mr Bush's doctrine of pre-emption. The Iraqi
threat was "grave and growing", Mr Bush declared. "Intelligence gathered by
this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraqi regime continues
to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised," he
warned on the eve of war.

"We know where they are," said Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, as US
and British forces advanced into Iraq. But 90 days after the main fighting
ended, US forces have yet to find a single chemical artillery shell, litre
of anthrax or uranium enrichment facility. Lieutenant-General James Conway,
the senior US marine in the Iraq region, has explained the failure to find
any weapons by concluding that "we were simply wrong".

Yet rather than asking why US intelligence was wrong, Mr Bush now claims
that the war was about freeing the Iraqi people. No doubt Iraqis are better
off without Mr Hussein. But even a staunch supporter of the Iraq war such as
Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy defence secretary, has agreed that Mr Hussein's
misrule "by itself [was] not a reason to put American kids' lives at risk".

Mr Bush's impatience with those who want to know why his forces have not
found WMD is shortsighted. In a democracy, it matters whether the people can
believe what their leaders tell them. If the facts on the ground do not
match what leaders say, the consequences can be profound. The Vietnam war
showed how difficult it is to close the credibility gap once it has opened
up.

The American people believed what Mr Bush and his advisers told them about
the threat, especially after a forceful presentation by Colin Powell,
secretary of state, at the United Nations. But there are disturbing signs
that the administration may have exaggerated its case and hidden information
that would have weakened the urgency of going to war. Warnings of an
incipient nuclear threat - Richard Cheney, vice-president, spoke of Iraq
having "reconstituted its nuclear weapons" - appear to have been based on
disputed evidence and documents known to have been forged.

We have also recently learnt that the Defence Intelligence Agency concluded
in November that Mr Hussein would not resort to WMD unless his survival was
at stake - exactly what critics of a rush to war were arguing.

Getting to the bottom of this issue matters, finally, for the centrepiece of
Mr Bush's foreign policy - the doctrine of pre-emption. This doctrine rests
on knowing the intentions and capabilities of those the US might pre-empt.
But if it turns out that the intelligence on Iraq was flawed - or, worse,
deliberately exaggerated - America's ability to pre-empt future, and perhaps
graver, threats will be harmed. Given the political storm that has buffeted
Tony Blair, a future British prime minister will think twice about joining
the US in another pre-emptive strike. And once serious doubts about the
credibility of what America's leaders say about new threats are raised, the
American public may not want to go along either.

We must get to the bottom of why US intelligence was so far off the mark on
Iraq's WMD stocks. Congress may hold hearings but its work will inevitably
be compromised by partisan squabbling. The president would do himself and
the country a favour if he pre-empted Congress by appointing an independent
commission of people with unquestioned integrity to review the intelligence.
Modelled perhaps on the Tower commission that President Ronald Reagan
appointed after the Iran-Contra scandal, the commission would determine what
we knew and when we knew it. And it would recommend how to gather, analyse
and disseminate intelligence in ways that reassure rather than mislead.

What happened to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction - whether they were
hidden, given to others, or destroyed - is too important a question to be
left to the vagaries of partisan politics. It must be answered soon, by
those with the credibility to resolve the matter once and for all.




--
--
FAIR USE NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which
has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am
making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of
environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and
social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any
such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so
long as I'm the dictator." - GW Bush 12/18/2000.

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that
we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic
and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
---Theodore Roosevelt

"Feels Good!"
---George W. Bush on the Brink of Declaring War on Iraq.

"Charles Farley" <charles@farley.net> wrote the usual line of neocon
propaganda in message news:205ifvkuqoru8mmrf8cnc2474j3ubb9dql@4ax.com...

http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentSe...FT/FullStory&c
=StoryFT&cid=1054966349031&p=1012571727126

Bush must not be allowed to rewrite history
Ivo Daalder and James Lindsay
Published: June 23 2003 19:32 | Last Updated: June 23 2003 19:32


d4 In recent days, George W. Bush has accused those asking awkward questions
about the whereabouts of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction of
rewriting history. "We made it clear to the dictator of Iraq that he must
disarm," Mr Bush said last week. "He chose not to do so, so we disarmed him.
And I know there's a lot of revisionist history now going on, but one thing
is certain. He is no longer a threat to the free world and the people of
Iraq are free."


But if anyone is revising history, it is the US president. Iraq's WMD
programme was the test case for Mr Bush's doctrine of pre-emption. The Iraqi
threat was "grave and growing", Mr Bush declared. "Intelligence gathered by
this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraqi regime continues
to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised," he
warned on the eve of war.

"We know where they are," said Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, as US
and British forces advanced into Iraq. But 90 days after the main fighting
ended, US forces have yet to find a single chemical artillery shell, litre
of anthrax or uranium enrichment facility. Lieutenant-General James Conway,
the senior US marine in the Iraq region, has explained the failure to find
any weapons by concluding that "we were simply wrong".

Yet rather than asking why US intelligence was wrong, Mr Bush now claims
that the war was about freeing the Iraqi people. No doubt Iraqis are better
off without Mr Hussein. But even a staunch supporter of the Iraq war such as
Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy defence secretary, has agreed that Mr Hussein's
misrule "by itself [was] not a reason to put American kids' lives at risk".

Mr Bush's impatience with those who want to know why his forces have not
found WMD is shortsighted. In a democracy, it matters whether the people can
believe what their leaders tell them. If the facts on the ground do not
match what leaders say, the consequences can be profound. The Vietnam war
showed how difficult it is to close the credibility gap once it has opened
up.

The American people believed what Mr Bush and his advisers told them about
the threat, especially after a forceful presentation by Colin Powell,
secretary of state, at the United Nations. But there are disturbing signs
that the administration may have exaggerated its case and hidden information
that would have weakened the urgency of going to war. Warnings of an
incipient nuclear threat - Richard Cheney, vice-president, spoke of Iraq
having "reconstituted its nuclear weapons" - appear to have been based on
disputed evidence and documents known to have been forged.

We have also recently learnt that the Defence Intelligence Agency concluded
in November that Mr Hussein would not resort to WMD unless his survival was
at stake - exactly what critics of a rush to war were arguing.

Getting to the bottom of this issue matters, finally, for the centrepiece of
Mr Bush's foreign policy - the doctrine of pre-emption. This doctrine rests
on knowing the intentions and capabilities of those the US might pre-empt.
But if it turns out that the intelligence on Iraq was flawed - or, worse,
deliberately exaggerated - America's ability to pre-empt future, and perhaps
graver, threats will be harmed. Given the political storm that has buffeted
Tony Blair, a future British prime minister will think twice about joining
the US in another pre-emptive strike. And once serious doubts about the
credibility of what America's leaders say about new threats are raised, the
American public may not want to go along either.

We must get to the bottom of why US intelligence was so far off the mark on
Iraq's WMD stocks. Congress may hold hearings but its work will inevitably
be compromised by partisan squabbling. The president would do himself and
the country a favour if he pre-empted Congress by appointing an independent
commission of people with unquestioned integrity to review the intelligence.
Modelled perhaps on the Tower commission that President Ronald Reagan
appointed after the Iran-Contra scandal, the commission would determine what
we knew and when we knew it. And it would recommend how to gather, analyse
and disseminate intelligence in ways that reassure rather than mislead.

What happened to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction - whether they were
hidden, given to others, or destroyed - is too important a question to be
left to the vagaries of partisan politics. It must be answered soon, by
those with the credibility to resolve the matter once and for all.




--
--
FAIR USE NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which
has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am
making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of
environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and
social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any
such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so
long as I'm the dictator." - GW Bush 12/18/2000.

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that
we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic
and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
---Theodore Roosevelt

"Feels Good!"
---George W. Bush on the Brink of Declaring War on Iraq.