Redstate

By Martin A. Knight Posted in Featured Stories | War — Comments (8) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Unlike many on the Right (including some folks in the White House) who believe that there is no utility in the President "relitigating" the case for war, I believe that the first step for the President to take in regaining the support and confidence of the American people President on his handling of Iraq is to explain to the American people exactly how he came to his decision to take out Saddam Hussein and how it tied into the war on terror.

Personally, I think that so long as it continues to be believed by so many (especially those in the "middle") that the President took the nation to war based on either a tissue of lies or through some irrational decision process, support for his handling of the war, no matter what new strategies he announces, would be far more difficult to garner than otherwise.

NOTE: The red text in the curly brackets i.e. {} is for what would be on a screen behind the President.

[announcement of new Iraq strategy i.e. troop surge, etc.]

... I freely admit that this Administration has made mistakes. But one of our biggest mistakes is that we have failed to effectively communicate to the American how and why the decision was made to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and how the success of freedom and democracy in Iraq, and the defeat of terrorists there, ties in to the War on Terror.

Read on ...

Today many pundits and commentators repeatedly tell the American people that we have no clear reason for being in Iraq. We in the Administration try to tell them each and every single time they ask and yet they come back and ask the very same question yet again. So let me tell you directly now so you can tell others who have only been getting their information from certain television news programs and newspapers. We didn't have just one reason for toppling Saddam Hussein, we had reasons. In the plural. This Administration asked for and received, as mandated by the Constitution, authorization from Congress to use military force against Saddam Hussein's Iraq. And, in that resolution, those reasons were listed, about 25 of them, detailing why the Congress was granting this Administration the authority to use force against Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

{show the Congressional Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002}

People on both sides voted for this resolution. Many of the same editorial pages that today tell us that they do not know the reason why the United States is in Iraq editorialized in favor of this resolution.

{show John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, Tom Daschle and Jay Rockefeller with their names and positions. show newspaper clippings}

I'd like to draw your attention to these particular clauses in the Iraq War resolution.

{show text of the following clauses while a voice [VO] reads them out}

VO: Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations;

VO:Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

But what about the weapons of mass destruction? That's the question, isn't it?

One of the most common questions those of us in public life get asked by journalists goes something like this: "If you knew then what you know now, would you have done anything different?" I must say it's an interesting question sometimes. But ultimately, it's useless. If you knew two weeks ago what the lottery numbers for last week would be, would you do anything different? You might. But maybe on principle you don't gamble. So you may not do anything different. But the key thing is that you didn't know then what you now know later. Hindsight is not available before hand so therefore you have to use the information you have at hand to make the decision you need to make today. As the President of the United States, I can tell you I have had to make decisions a countless number of times without the luxury of absolute and complete certainty. You have to go with the experts and what the people in charge of the many agencies of our government have to tell you are their best guesses and assumptions. You have to seek a consensus view and many things often fall through the cracks. It is one of the most difficult parts of the job.

So let's get back to what we knew about Iraq prior to the invasion to topple Saddam Hussein in March 2003. What were people saying then, and how does it compare to what they're saying now? As you can see from the Iraq War Resolution here, Congress, including at least more than 50% of the 2002 Senate Democratic Caucus believed that Saddam Hussein was a clear threat to the United States with a continuing weapons of mass destruction program, including quite a few of them who did not vote for the authorization.

But today we have people, especially people from the other side of the aisle, who make the incendiary claim that this Administration misled them on Iraq. This includes their last Presidential candidate, the junior Senator from the great Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

{show the following people and text of what they are saying. if video is available use video with captions. if only audio is available include captions a picture of the person. if only text is available, show text, have VO read the text, include picture of person. show dates said, name and party of person prominently}

Madeleine Albright: Iraq is a long way from Ohio, but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face. [February 18, 1998]

Sandy Berger: Imagine the consequences if Saddam fails to comply and we fail to act. Saddam will be emboldened, believing the international community has lost its will. He will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. And some day, some way, I am certain, he will use that arsenal again, as he has ten times since 1983. [February 18, 1998]

Madeleine Albright: No one has done what Saddam Hussein has done, or is thinking of doing. He is producing weapons of mass destruction, and he is qualitatively and quantitatively different from other dictators. [February 18, 1998]

VO: Dear Mr. President: ... We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraq sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs. Letter to President Clinton signed by Senators Carl Levin, Joe Lieberman, Frank R. Lautenberg, Chris Dodd, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Mikulski, Thomas Daschle, John Breaux, Tim Johnson, Daniel K. Inouye, Mary L. Landrieu, Wendell Ford and John Kerry. [October 9, 1998]

Nancy Pelosi: As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process. [December 16, 1998]

Robert Byrd: The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability. [October 3, 2002]

Jay Rockefeller: The President has rightly called Saddam Hussein's efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction a grave and gathering threat to Americans. The global community has tried but failed to address that threat over the past decade. I have come to the inescapable conclusion that the threat posed to America by Saddam's weapons of mass destruction is so serious that despite the risks -- and we should not minimize the risks -- we must authorize the President to take the necessary steps to deal with that threat. [October 10, 2002]

John Edwards: As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I firmly believe that the issue of Iraq is not about politics. It's about national security. We know that for at least 20 years, Saddam Hussein has obsessively sought weapons of mass destruction through every means available. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today. He has used them in the past, and he is doing everything he can to build more. Each day he inches closer to his longtime goal of nuclear capability - a capability that could be less than a year away. [September 12, 2002]

{keep text on screen with dates and pictures of the people - excluding the too many signers of the letter}

Now there some today who say that they said all these things because my Administration "misled" them on Iraq. But many of these statements were made before I became President. Many in 1998 when I was still in the Texas Governor's mansion.

{text of letter expands forward and pictures of Senators are lined up beneath text}

The statements by Senator Jay Rockefeller and former Senator John Edwards were made after I took the oath of office but let's note two things about these two gentlemen. They were both members of the Senate Intelligence committee. They were members long before I was elected President of the United States. Members of the Congressional Intelligence Committees and the Congressional Leadership, which include the minority leaders of both Houses, by law, have unrestricted access to our nation's Intelligence community to fulfill their oversight role.

As the co-Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Senator Rockefeller of West Virginia has the same security clearance level as the President of the United States. It would be against the law for the President to refuse or order the Intelligence community to refuse Jay Rockefeller any information he so wishes. This means that Senator Rockefeller has access to every single product of our Intelligence community no matter how far back it goes. And he has had it for a long time. So for Senator Rockefeller to claim that I misled him on Iraq must mean that he has solid evidence that I have broken the law.

But he cannot say that. Because he knows that there is nothing this Administration has said about Iraq in 2002 and 2003, that he himself had not said before on the floor of the Senate and that my Democratic predecessor had not said before me.

{show video/audio/text of President Clinton [BC] with dates and location. include captioning and voice-over as necessary}

BC: Together, we must confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons and the outlaw states, terrorists, and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade and much of his nation's wealth not on providing for the Iraqi people but on developing nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. [State of the Union address - January 27, 1998]

BC: In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now -- a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed. [Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff - February 17, 1998]

BC: Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again ... Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors; he will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them. [National Address from the Oval Office - December 16, 1998]

And even more recently after the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom ...

{show video of Bill Clinton speaking to Larry King on Larry King Live, July 22nd 2003 with captions as neccessary}

BC: ... it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons. We might have destroyed them in 98. We tried to, but we sure as heck didn't know it because we never got to go back there. [Larry King Live (CNN) - July 22, 2003]

I understand that it is politics, but I still believe that it is wrong to say something today and then say the exact opposite tomorrow without acknowledging the changed circumstances that enabled us to find out we were wrong.

Clearly the state of knowledge about Iraq before the removal of Saddam Hussein from power is different from that of today. But for the past three years, this Administration has been accused of misleading the American people about Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction programs in the run-up to the war. One of those of critics is the New York Times editorial board;

{show collage of the following New York Times stories with these headlines. make dates prominent. include captioning and voice-over as necessary}

U.S. Says Iraq Aided Production of Chemical Weapons in Sudan - New York Times [August 1998]

Iraq Has Network of Outside Help on Arms, Experts Say - New York Times [November 1998]

Iraq Suspected of Secret Germ War Effort - New York Times [February 2000]

Signs of Iraqi Arms Buildup Bedevil U.S. Administration - New York Times [February 2000]

Flight Tests Show Iraq Has Resumed a Missile Program - New York Times [July 2000]

The New York Times also says that this Administration uniquely gave credence to the idea that Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden could indeed have come to an agreement with each other to attack their mutual enemy; the United States. They say that Saddam and Osama were so far apart ideologically that they could not have ever put aside their differences to join resources against an America that they hated far more than they hated each other.

Well, this is another New York Times headline:

{show the New York Times story with the following headline. make date prominent. include captioning and voice-over as necessary}

US Government - Bin Laden and Iraq Agreed to Cooperate on Weapons Development - New York Times [November 1998]

The article was about the indictment of Osama Bin Laden presented by the Department of Justice to a Federal Court in November, 1998.

{show cited text of 1998 Bin Laden indictment shown below. include captioning and voice-over as necessary}

In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq. - [Indictment of Osama Bin Laden (paragraph 4 - page 3) - November, 1998]

This is a story filed by CNN in February 1999.

{show headline and cited text of story from CNN 1999 webpage shown below. include captioning and voice-over as necessary}

Saddam Hussein offered asylum
Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden, who openly supports Iraq against the Western powers. - [CNN - February 13, 1999]

This is from the Guardian newspaper in the United Kingdom, also from February 1999.

{show headline/cited text of story from the UK's Guardian webpage shown below. include captioning and voice-over as necessary}

The Western nightmare: Saddam and Bin Laden versus the world
Iraq's half-built chemical arsenal, and the planet's most prolific terrorist - [The Guardian Unlimited - February 6, 1999]

This Administration was not sworn in until January 2001.

Now let's go to the 9/11 Commission's Report.

{show cited text of 9/11 Commission report shown below. include captioning and voice-over as necessary}

There is also evidence that in 1997, bin Laden sent out a number of feelers to the Iraqi regime, offering some cooperation. None are reported to have received a significant response. According to one report, Saddam Hussein's efforts at this time to rebuild relations with the Saudis and other Middle Eastern regimes led him to stay clear of bin Laden.

In mid-1998, the situation reversed, with Iraq reportedly taking the initiative. In March 1998, after bin Laden's public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with bin Laden. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through bin Laden's Egyptian deputy, [Ayman al] Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis.

This is what we, both my Administration and that of my Democratic predecessor and both parties in Congress, knew prior to the start of the War in Iraq in March 2003. That Saddam Hussein had unaccounted for stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. And that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were fully capable of coming to some sort of agreement and joining forces with each other in order to attack a mutual enemy despite their profound differences. They were not sending delegations back and forth for the sight-seeing. That was the information this Administration had to work with and it was in light of the totality of what we knew then that I made the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. And I submit that the world today is safer with Saddam Hussein having faced the justice of the people he had abused for so long.

Some today say that Saddam Hussein was safely contained and therefore removing him from power was a mistake. To them I cite Democratic Congressman Henry Waxman of California.

{show video/audio/text of Henry Waxman with date and location. include picture, captioning and voice-over as necessary}

Henry Waxman: He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts. [October 10, 2002]

11 years. In October 2002, this Administration had only been in office for less than 2 years. I can also cite the former Democratic chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, former Senator Bob Graham of Florida;

{show text of letter to the President with date and location. include captioning and voice-over as necessary}

VO: The threat from Iraq is real, and it cannot be permanently contained. For as long as Saddam Hussein is in power in Baghdad, he will seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them. We have no doubt that these deadly weapons are intended for use against the United States and its allies. Consequently, we believe we must directly confront Saddam, sooner rather than later ... Mr. President, all indications are that in the interest of our own national security, Saddam Hussein must be removed from power. Letter to President Bush signed by Senator Bob Graham. [December 5, 2001]

There are others who say that Saddam Hussein was a rational actor. And therefore we could have let him continue in power confident that he would never consort with terrorists. To them I point to this.

{show video clip of President Bush's [GB] 2003 State of the Union address}

GB: Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.

*UNANIMOUS APPLAUSE*

[State of the Union address - January 28, 2003]

That wasn't that long ago. It was just two months before the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Let's be clear here. Any fair minded person can see that what we, both Republicans, Democrats and the Press knew back then is substantially different from what we know right now. We all thought the same thing. So the real issue here is about leadership and making decisions based on the available information.

Remember that the world gave Saddam Hussein one last chance to come clean with UN resolution 1441. And Saddam Hussein continued to refuse to co-operate.

{show picture of unanimous UN Security Souncil vote on Resolution 1441}

Here are the facts; Saddam Hussein was a man who provided funding, training and shelter to terrorists from Ramzi Yousef to Abu Nidal to suicide bombers in Israel. He was a man who has used chemical weapons repeatedly against his own people and he was a man who had refused to come clean about them after 12 years of sanctions and 17 United Nations resolutions, including 1441. This is a man whose regime ran rape rooms and prisons for the children of his political enemies. This is a man who regularly filled mass graves throughout his entire reign.

{show video clip of Halabja}

The 9/11 Commission reported;

{show cited text of 9/11 Commission report shown below. include captioning and voice-over as necessary}

According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered bin Laden a safe haven in Iraq ... The reports describe friendly contacts and indicated some common themes in both sides' hatred of the United States.

Friendly contacts. Common themes.

This is from Intelligence information from before my entering the White House. The New York Times even wrote a story about it in 1999. I submit that after 9/11, any hint of any kind of "friendly contact" between Al Qaeda and the government of Saddam Hussein's Iraq would have alarmed any serious President. Unless he completely came clean about his WMD programs, banking on Saddam Hussein's rationality would never be an option. But he did not clean. I further submit that after 9/11, no responsible President of the United States, Republican or Democrat, would wait for the ink to go dry on a formal document between Al Qaeda and Iraq agreeing to a "collaborative relationship" before moving to make sure those "friendly contacts" don't bear any fruit.

That was why I decided that Saddam Hussein must be removed from power in Iraq. Given what we knew then, it was the right decision, and it continues to remain the right decision today. The success of freedom and democracy in Iraq will reverberate throughout the Middle East and help ensure that future generations in America as well as out side, will never have to suffer through another attack like the one that struck our nation on September the 11th, 2001.