Bush Misleads American Public on Iraq Threat

[Follow Ups] [Post Followup] [Our Discussion Forum]

Posted by Tony from dsc04-lai-ca-3-167.rasserver.net ( on Wednesday, October 09, 2002 at 4:31PM :

Bush Misleads American Public on Iraq Threat
As predicted, President Bush’s speech Monday night failed to substantially answer the concerns of many Americans. Bush continually made claims of Iraq’s threat, but failed to offer concrete evidence to verify his assertions.

The CIA released a letter yesterday (10/8/02) which stated the probability that Saddam Hussein would initiate an attack on the U.S. in the near future without provocation was “very low.” (Reuters 10/9/02)

The letter further stated, "Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or CBW (chemical and biological weapons) against the United States. Should Saddam conclude that a U.S.-led attack could no longer be deterred, he probably would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist actions."

This assertion by the CIA contradicts the tone of Bush's speech two days ago which painted Iraq as an immediate threat requiring immediate preemptive action.

"Basically, cooked information is working its way into high-level pronouncements and there's a lot of unhappiness about it in intelligence, especially among analysts at the CIA," said Vincent Cannistraro, the CIA's former head of counter-intelligence. (Guardian 10/8/02)

See below for an excellent analysis of the President's 10/7/02 address by Stephen Zunes, our newest speaker with the Iraq Speakers Bureau.

White House "Exaggerating Iraqi Threat" by The Guardian (UK)

President Bush Fails to Make His Case by Stephen Zunes
Given what is at stake, one would think the administration would make a stronger case for going to war than President George W. Bush did on Monday evening.

The weakness of the administration’s position is apparent in its insistence of repeating stories of Iraqi atrocities from more than ten to twenty years ago, such as its support for international terrorist groups like Abu Nidal and its use of chemical weapons. It was during this period when the United States was quietly supporting the Iraqi regime, covering up reports of its use of chemical weapons and even providing intelligence for Iraqi forces that used such weapons against Iranian troops. Though the 1980s marked the peak of Iraq’s support for terrorist groups, the U.S. government actually dropped Iraq from its list of states sponsoring terrorism.

By contrast, the State Department’s own annual report Patterns of Global Terrorism 2001 presented no evidence of any current Iraqi support for active terrorist groups, only the granting of sanctuary to some aging leaders of dormant groups.

The president’s speech again presented no evidence that the decidedly secular Baath regime and the Islamist Al-Qaeda had overcome their longstanding hostility toward one another. The only charge that appears to have any credibility is that of Al-Qaeda operatives from Afghanistan being seen inside Iraq, yet all of these sightings have taken place in Kurdish areas in the north that are beyond Baghdad’s control.

Accusations of Iraqi possession of ballistic missiles are similarly outdated: According to UNSCOM, 817 or Iraq’s 819 Soviet-build ballistic missiles have been accounted for and destroyed. They may possess up to a couple of dozen home-made versions, but none of these have been tested and it is questionable whether they have any functional launchers.

One of the few new threats mentioned in the president’s speech is the alleged development by Iraq of unmanned aerial vehicles capable of distributing chemical or biological agents over a wide area. However, given that virtually all of Iraq’s neighbors have sophisticated anti-aircraft defenses and the U.S. air force rules the skies in that part of the world, such slow-moving UAVS would likely be shot down before they even left Iraqi air space.

President Bush’s demands for a new Security Council resolution on Iraqi disarmament is a classic case of moving the goalposts. The U.S. had supported the terms that were spelled out in previous resolutions, but as soon as Iraq accepted them, the administration suddenly demanded this new resolution that would usurp them. There are provisions in the U.S. proposal such as insisting on the right for U.S. officials to accompany the UN inspectors (who Iraq presumes would be spying), allowing the use of force for alleged non-compliance without first seeking UNSC approval, scrapping previously-agreed upon protocols, and demanding that simple reporting errors from the Iraqi side are legitimate grounds for war -- seem designed to simply give a legal cover for a U.S. invasion.

Claiming that the United Nations’ credibility is at stake if it does not back up its resolutions requiring Iraqi disarmament is similarly disingenuous. There are well over 90 UN Security Council resolutions that are currently being violated by countries other than Iraq. The vast majority of these resolutions are being violated by U.S. that receive U.S. military, economic and diplomatic support. Indeed, the U.S. has effectively blocked the UN Security Council from enforcing many of these resolutions.

Perhaps the most misleading statement in the president’s address was that the United States “has never permitted the brutal and lawless to set history’s course.” Had this been the case, successive Republican and Democratic administrations would have never supported the Indonesian dictator Suharto for over three decades, as he oversaw the massacre of over a half million of his own people and invaded the tiny nation or East Timor, resulting in the deaths of an additional 200,000 civilians. Nor would the United States have supported governments like Turkey, Israel, and Morocco that have also invaded neighboring countries at the cost of thousands of civilian lives and continue to defy a series of UN Security Council resolutions.

Despite President Bush’s assertion to the contrary, nobody believes that Saddam should be trusted. Yet UNMOVIC inspections and the likelihood of UN-authorized military attacks if Saddam does not cooperate, combined with satellite and aerial surveillance, ongoing military sanctions and more, makes it very unlikely he could get away with much.

Claims that the threat from Iraq is “far more clearly defined” than Al-Qaeda prior to last September 11 is totally false. Al Qaeda was quite explicit that they were targeting the United States. The reality of that threat was clear, such as the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania and the attack on the USS Cole. Iraq has never claimed it was targeting the United States. Indeed, outside of the Gulf War in 1991 and the attack on the USS Stark over 15 years ago (which the U.S. claimed was accidental), Iraq has never directly attacked American assets at home or abroad.

There are any number of regimes in the world today -- China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran, among others -- that one can think of worst-case scenarios similar to or worse than those being brought forward regarding Iraq. Yet no country has the right to invade another based upon such worst-case scenarios. Otherwise, there would be scores of new wars breaking out all over the world.

Stephen Zunes is Middle East editor for Foreign Policy in Focus and author of Tinderbox: U.S. Middle East Policy and the Roots of Terrorism. He is an associate professor of Politics and chair of the Peace and Justice Studies Program at the University of San Francisco.

Click here to read the Institute for Public Accuracy's analysis of Bush’s speech

-- Tony
-- signature .

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup

E-Mail: ( default )
Optional Link ( default )
Optional Image Link ( default )

This board is powered by the Mr. Fong Device from Cyberarmy.com