The Redefined WMD Threat
Prior to going to war against Iraq, President Bush and other administration officials charged not only that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction but that the threat was immense.
“In one place — in one regime — we find all these dangers, in their most lethal and aggressive forms, exactly the kind of aggressive threat the United Nations was born to confront.”
— President George W. Bush, address to the UN General Assembly, September 12, 2002
“Saddam Hussein and his weapons are a direct threat to this country, to our people, and to all free people.... I will not leave the American people at the mercy of the Iraqi dictator and his weapons.”
— President George W. Bush, press conference, March 6, 2003
“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.”
— President George W. Bush, address to the nation, March 17, 2003
“The goals of our coalition are clear and limited. We will end a brutal regime, whose aggression and weapons of mass destruction make it a unique threat to the world.”
— President George W. Bush, message to the Iraqi people, April 10, 2003
When the weapons were not found, Bush began to refer to WMD programs as opposed to actual stockpiles of WMDs, without actually acknowledging a retreat from the administration’s previous position. He even went so far as to claim that there was no difference between programs to develop WMDs and actual WMDs.
Question: “Is U.S. credibility on the line over weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?”
Answer: “I’m not exactly sure what that means. I mean, Iraq had a weapons program. Intelligence throughout the decade showed they had a weapons program. I am absolutely convinced with time we’ll find out that they did have a weapons program.”
— President George W. Bush, remarks during a photo-op, June 9, 2003
Question: “But stated as a hard fact, that there were weapons of mass destruction as opposed to the possibility that he [Saddam] could move to acquire those weapons still —”
Answer: “So what’s the difference?”
Question: “Well —”
Answer: “The possibility that he could acquire weapons. If he were to acquire weapons, he would be the danger. That’s, that’s what I’m trying to explain to you.”
— President George W. Bush interview by Diane Sawyer, ABC News’ Primetime program, December 16, 2003
“Some in this chamber, and in our country, did not support the liberation of Iraq. Objections to war often come from principled motives. But let us be candid about the consequences of leaving Saddam Hussein in power. We’re seeking all the facts. Already, the Kay Report identified dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations. Had we failed to act, the dictator’s weapons of mass destruction programs would continue to this day.”
— President George W. Bush, State of the Union address, January 20, 2004
The Disappearing WMDs
Going into Iraq, the administration supposedly knew where the WMDs were. But not only were the WMDs not found, they didn’t exist when the war began, according to Dr. David Kay. Though something could still be found, it has become obvious that the reputed Iraqi threat was, at best, grossly exaggerated to justify the war.
“[T]he area ... that coalition forces control ... happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.”
— Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, on ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos, on March 30, 2003, when coalition forces had occupied much of, but not all of, Iraq
Question: “What happened to the stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons that everyone expected to be there?”
Answer: “I don’t think they existed.”
— former chief weapons inspector in Iraq David Kay, interview with Reuters, January 23, 2004
“[W]e were almost all wrong, and I certainly include myself here.”
— former chief weapons inspector in Iraq David Kay
testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee, about efforts to find WMDs in Iraq, January 28, 2004
The Meaning of “Imminent”
If David Kay is right in saying that there were no WMDs in Iraq last year, then the Iraqi threat could not have been imminent. Ah, but President Bush never claimed the threat was imminent, according to White House spokesman Scott McClellan!
Question: “You have not used the word ‘imminent threat.’ And the essence of Dr. Kay’s comments recently would suggest that there was no way for there to be an imminent threat. Does the President now believe that, in fact, while the threat was gathering, while the threat may have been grave, that, in fact, it was not imminent?”
Answer: “I think we’ve said all along that it was a grave and gathering threat. And that in a post-September 11th world, you must confront gathering threats before it’s too late. I think some in the media have chosen to use the word ‘imminent.’ Those were not words —”
Question: “The President himself never used that word?”
Answer: “Those were not words we used.”
— White House spokesman Scott McClellan, press briefing, January 27, 2004
Mr. McClellan’s contention that President Bush never used the word “imminent” is as silly as splitting hairs about the meaning of the word “is,” as President Clinton once did. The reality is that, even if Mr. Bush did not actually use the word “imminent,” he and others in the administration certainly described an imminent threat.
“[N]o terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people than the regime of Saddam Hussein and Iraq.”
— Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee,
September 19, 2002
Question: “[I]s he [Saddam] an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?”
Answer: “Well, of course he is.”
— White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett, CNN interview, January 26, 2003
“Leaving Saddam Hussein in possession of weapons of mass destruction for a few more months or years is not an option, not in a post-September 11th world.”
— Secretary of State Colin Powell, presentation to the UN Security Council, February 5, 2003
“[W]e cannot live under the threat of blackmail. The terrorist threat to America and the world will be diminished the moment that Saddam Hussein is disarmed.”
— President George W. Bush, address to the nation, March 17, 2003
Question: “[W]e went to war, didn’t we, to find these — because we said that these weapons were a direct and imminent threat to the United States? Isn’t that true?”
Answer: “Absolutely. One of the reasons that we went to war was because of their possession of weapons of mass destruction. And nothing has changed on that front at all.”
— White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, press briefing, May 7, 2003
The Implied 9-11–Iraq Connection
In their public statements, President Bush and other administration officials repeatedly juxtaposed references to the September 11 terrorist attacks to those of Saddam Hussein, thereby planting the idea of a September 11-Iraq link without actually saying it. But on September 17, 2003, Mr. Bush acknowledged that the administration had no evidence of Iraqi involvement in those attacks.
“[T]he strategic view of America changed after September the 11th. We must deal with threats before they hurt the American people again. And as I have said repeatedly, Saddam Hussein would like nothing more than to use a terrorist network to attack and to kill and leave no fingerprints behind.”
— President George W. Bush, answering a question, January 31, 2003
“If the world fails to confront the threat posed by the Iraqi regime, refusing to use force, even as a last resort, free nations would assume immense and unacceptable risks. The attacks of September the 11th, 2001 showed what the enemies of America did with four airplanes. We will not wait to see what terrorists or terrorist states could do with weapons of mass destruction.”
— President George W. Bush, press conference, March 6, 2003
“We’ve had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th [attacks].”
— President George W. Bush, answering a question, September 17, 2003
Many Americans have been led to believe that Saddam must have been involved in the 9-11 attacks because of repeated administration references to an al-Qaeda–Iraq connection. That connection was portrayed as a concrete fact. Yet this January Secretary of State Colin Powell acknowledged that such a connection was only a possibility.
“We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We’ve learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases.”
— President George W. Bush, speech in Cincinnati, Ohio, October 7, 2002
“Iraq officials deny accusations of ties with al-Qaeda. These denials are simply not credible.”
— Secretary of State Colin Powell, presentation to the UN Security Council, February 5, 2003
“There is not — you know, I have not seen smoking-gun, concrete evidence about the connection, but I think the possibility of such connections did exist and it was prudent to consider them at the time we did.”
— Secretary of State Colin Powell, answering a question about ties between al-Qaeda and Iraq, press conference, January 8, 2004
Powell’s Flip-flops on WMDs
Soon after becoming secretary of state, Colin Powell said that Iraq did not directly threaten the U.S. He later claimed Saddam’s arsenals were bulging with WMDs that threatened the U.S. Now, after Dr. David Kay’s recent disclosures, he has flip-flopped again, admitting that Iraq may not have had WMDs when we invaded that country.
“He [Saddam Hussein] threatens not the United States. He threatens this region. He threatens Arab people. He threatens the children of Egypt, the children of Saudi Arabia, the children of Kuwait with these weapons.”
— Secretary of State Colin Powell, remarks to the press in Cairo, Egypt, February 24, 2001
“My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we are giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence....
“Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough agent to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets. Even the low end of 100 tons of agent would enable Saddam Hussein to cause mass casualties across more than 100 square miles of territory, an area nearly five times the size of Manhattan.”
— Secretary of State Colin Powell, presentation to the UN Security Council, February 5, 2003
Question: “David Kay, after his departure was announced, said he told Reuters that he concluded that there were no Iraqi stockpiles — told Reuters that there were no Iraqi weapons stockpiles to be found. You said a year ago that you thought there was between one hundred and five hundred tons of chemical weapons. Who’s right?”
Answer: “I think the answer to the question is I don’t know yet. Last year when I made my [February 5, 2003 UN Security Council] presentation, it was based on the best intelligence that we had at the time.... I went into that briefing with a good, solid, comprehensive presentation on what our intelligence community believed was credible. In the presentation and all the other things they said about the Iraqi stockpiles, we were not only saying that we thought they had them, but we had questions that needed to be answered. What was it: one hundred tons, five hundred tons or zero tons?”
— Secretary of State Colin Powell, remarks to the press en route to Tbilisi, Georgia, January 24, 2004
Question: “If CIA Director George Tenet had said a year ago today, if U.S. weapons inspector David Kay had said, that there are no [WMD] stockpiles, would you still have recommended the invasion?”
Answer: “I don’t know. I don’t know, because it was the stockpile that presented the final little piece that made it more of a real and present danger and threat to the region and to the world.”
— Secretary of State Colin Powell, February 2, 2004 Washington Post interview
The Real Objective: Empowering the UN
President Bush sent American troops into Iraq for the stated purpose of enforcing UN Security Council resolutions to disarm Iraq of its reputed WMDs. His intent was to strengthen the UN by making sure its words had meaning.
“All the world now faces a test, and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment. Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?... We want the resolutions of the world’s most important multilateral body to be enforced.”
— President George W. Bush, address to the UN General Assembly, September 12, 2002
“I want the United Nations to be effective.... It makes sense for there to be an international body that has got the backbone and the capacity to help keep the peace.... The message to the world is that we want the U.N. to succeed.”
— President George W. Bush, speech in Aberdeen, South Dakota, October 31, 2002
“America will be making only one determination: is Iraq meeting the terms of the Security Council resolution [1441] or not?... If Iraq fails to fully comply, the United States and other nations will disarm Saddam Hussein.”
— President George W. Bush, November 8, 2002, the day the UN Security Council, passed Resolution 1441
“The decision is this for the United Nations: When you say something does it mean anything? You’ve got to decide, if you lay down a resolution, does it mean anything? The United Nations Security Council can now decide whether or not it has the resolve to enforce its resolutions.
“I’m optimistic that the U.N. Security Council will rise to its responsibilities, and this time ensure enforcement of what it told Saddam Hussein he must do. See, I believe when it’s all said and done, free nations will not allow the United Nations to fade into history as an ineffective, irrelevant debating society.”
— President George W. Bush, speech at Naval Station Mayport, Jacksonville, Florida, February 13, 2003
“Since we last met in this chamber, combat forces of the United States, Great Britain, Australia, Poland and other countries enforced the demands of the United Nations, ended the rule of Saddam Hussein, and the people of Iraq are free.”
— President George W. Bush, State of the Union address, January 20, 2004
delicious [1] | 
digg [2] | 
newsvine [3] | 
technorati [4]