w***@harley.com
2004-02-01 18:59:00 UTC
WMD: Dennis Kucinich Was Right
Summary:
George W. Bush's hand-picked weapons inspector,
Dr. David Kay, testified before the Senate on
Wednesday January 28, stating there are no weapons
of mass destruction in Iraq. He used his time
before the Senate to place blame for the fact that
Iraq had no WMDs on the American intelligence
community. Further, he defended the Bush
administration by stating that the White House
itself never put forth exaggerated claims of the
threat posed by Iraq, and that White House
officials never pressured intelligence analysts to
inflate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's
regime.
Facts clearly on the record fly in the face of
these claims. Since August 2002, the Bush
administration stated time and again that Saddam
Hussein posed an immediate threat to the security
of the United States. Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld created a group within the Pentagon,
called the Office of Special Plans, to exaggerate
the threat posed by Iraq. Vice President Dick
Cheney, along with several individuals within and
without the administration, personally pressured
intelligence analysts to overstate the threat
posed by Iraq. Before this administration took
office, plans were being laid by future
administration officials to invade Iraq.
The official tally, to date, stands at 519
American soldiers killed in Iraq, thousands of
medical evacuations of American soldiers from
Iraq, and nearly $200 billion spent on Iraq.
There is no accurate count of the number of Iraqi
civilians who have been killed and wounded in the
invasion, but every estimate runs into the
thousands. No weapons promised by the
administration, weapons which were the premise for
this invasion, have been found.
Dennis Kucinich, in word and deed, has since
September of 2002 stood against the claims made by
the Bush administration about the threat posed by
Iraq. He is the only candidate in this race to
vote against the Iraq War Resolution. He has
stated clearly, time and again, that the rhetoric
of fear from the Bush administration about the
threat posed by Iraq was baseless.
Dennis Kucinich was right.
Report: A Detailed History of the WMD Issue
The news has been dominated by missing weapons of
mass destruction in Iraq. Bush's hand-picked
weapons inspector, Dr. David Kay, testified in the
Senate on Wednesday that, "It turns out we were
all wrong" about the status of Saddam Hussein's
weapons capabilities.
Link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/29/politics/29WEAP.html
The official tally, to date, stands at 519
American soldiers killed in Iraq, thousands of
medical evacuations of American soldiers from
Iraq, and nearly $200 billion spent on Iraq.
There is no accurate count of the number of Iraqi
civilians who have been killed and wounded in the
invasion, but every estimate runs into the
thousands. No weapons promised by the
administration, weapons which were the premise for
this invasion, have been found.
Links:
http://lunaville.org/warcasualties/Summary.aspx
http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=Hacks%20Target.db&command=viewone&op=t&id=49&rnd=240.29326015816156
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,976392,00.html
Dr. Kay said we were all wrong. This is
incorrect. Dennis Kucinich was right.
On September 4, 2002, Dennis Kucinich said, "Well,
frankly we haven't seen evidence
or proof of that, and furthermore we haven't seen
evidence or proof that he has the ability to
deliver such weapons if he has them, and finally,
whether or not he has the intent. I think that
what we need to be doing is to review this passion
for war, that drumbeat for war, that's coming out
of the White House, and to slow down and to let
calmer heads prevail."
On September 12, 2002, Dennis Kucinich said,
"Prior to 1998, the United Nations made much
progress in weapons inspections and assured Iraq
had no usable capacity for the manufacture of
weapons of mass destruction or the ability to
deliver such weapons. Since 1998 no credible
intelligence has been brought forward which
suggests that Iraq is manufacturing weapons of
mass destruction or has developed capabilities for
delivery of such weapons."
On September 21, 2002, Dennis Kucinich said, "This
attempt to foment a war is really against the best
interests of America, it is against the spirit of
the country, it is against the economic interests
of the people."
On September 25, 2002, Dennis Kucinich said,
"Since when do we equate patriotism with going to
war? Since when do we equate patriotism with
preemptive strikes and with unilateralism?
America's always been a nation that's worked with
other nations. And after September 11 of last
year, we had the entire world community working
with us. Now we're separating ourselves, isolating
ourselves from the world community because we want
to go it alone."
On September 29, 2002, Dennis Kucinich said, "At
this point, frankly, the evidence does not suggest
that Iraq was connected to 9/11, that there's any
connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda,
that there's any connection between Iraq and the
anthrax attacks on this country. We don't hear
from the CIA that Iraq has any usable weapons of
mass destruction that they could deliver to the
United States. There's no imminent threat. If I
thought there was an imminent threat to this
country, I wouldn't hesitate to vote for action.
But I have to tell you, there is no imminent
threat."
On October 3, 2002, Dennis Kucinich made a
statement before the House of Representatives
announcing his intention to vote against the
pending Iraq War Resolution. In that statement,
he said, "The American people need to know there
is no credible evidence that connects Iraq to the
events of 9-11 or to participation in those events
by assisting al Qaeda. The key issue here is that
there is no credible evidence that Iraq possesses
weapons of mass destruction. If Iraq had
successfully concealed the production of such
weapons since 1998, and let us assume that
somebody has information they have never told
Congress, they have never been able to back up,
but they have this information and it is secret,
and they secretly know Iraq has such weapons,
there is no credible evidence that Iraq has the
capability to reach the United States with such
weapons, if they have them, and many of us believe
no evidence has been presented that they do."
When the day came to vote on the Iraq War
Resolution, Dennis Kucinich led 126 House members
to join him in voting 'No.'
On March 20, 2003, after the invasion had begun,
Dennis Kucinich said, "This is a sad day for
America, the world community and the people of
Iraq. These are offensive, not defensive attacks,
and they are in violation of international law."
On January 19, 2003, Dennis Kucinich said, "On
September 12, 2001, a little more than 24 hours
after the planes hit the World Trade Center, the
Secretary of Defense, in a meeting at the White
House, called for immediate strikes against Iraq.
In sixteen months since America was attacked, no
credible evidence has been presented that Iraq
perpetrated 9-11, or conspired in 9-11. Iraq was
not responsible for the anthrax attack on our
country. Nor does Iraq have missile strike
capability against the U.S., usable weapons of
mass destruction nor the intention to use them
against us."
On March 11, 2003, Dennis Kucinich said, "Contrary
to Administration assertions, a war against Iraq
will not be in self-defense: Iraq does not pose an
imminent threat to the United States. It doesn't
have the ability, nor has it ever had the ability,
to shoot a missile or send a bomber to harm
America. Iraq does not possess nuclear weapons.
Furthermore, there is no credible evidence that
Iraq had anything to do with the terrorist attacks
of 9/11. No credible link between Saddam Hussein
and al Qaeda has been made."
On June 4, 2003, Dennis Kucinich said, "This
Administration made many assertions, for which
they have yet to produce any evidence, about
Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. The President
led the nation to war, and spent at least $63
billion on that war, on the basis of these
unfounded assertions. Let me repeat, the
President led the nation to war on the basis of
unfounded assertions. It is long past time that
the Administration shows its evidence, and today,
we are announcing the intention to introduce a
resolution of inquiry tomorrow, to compel the
White House to justify its claims."
On June 7, 2003, Dennis Kucinich introduced the
resolution to force the Bush administration to
turn over any and all evidence to back its
assertions that Iraq possessed weapons of mass
destruction. He was backed by 30 fellow House
members. Upon introducing this resolution, Dennis
Kucinich said, "This administration owes an
explanation to this Congress and to the American
people. Now is the time for truth telling."
On August 25, 2003, Dennis Kucinich said, "It is
clear now that the United States is bogged down in
an ongoing guerrilla war with almost daily
casualties. The situation is one that the
Administration did not plan for and is not
adequately prepared to handle. Assertions by the
President, and his Administration, that the war is
over and that our mission was accomplished, like
their claims about Iraq's 'vast stockpiles' of
WMD's, are false and misleading. While this
Administration was quick to send troops into
harm's way, it has no exit strategy for removing
US troops from the country."
On December 5, 2003, Dennis Kucinich released a
letter he wrote to Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld, in which he said, "Your testimony to
Congress was influential in shaping the debate
about going to war against Iraq and persuaded many
Members to vote in favor of the use of military
force. Yet your testimony contained information
that you should have known to be false at the time
you asserted it."
On January 11, 2004, Dennis Kucinich said, "The
Bush Administration is still with us. They
manufactured justifications for the war, and they
are now manufacturing justifications for
continuing this occupation. The war is not over,
and the invention of justifications for it is not
over."
Link: http://www.kucinich.us
519 dead American soldiers in Iraq. Thousands of
medical evacuations of American soldiers from
Iraq, many for grievous and permanently
debilitating wounds. Nearly $200 billion spent on
Iraq. Tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians killed
and maimed. No weapons of mass destruction.
Dennis Kucinich was right. How did he know?
He knew because the information was there for all
to see. Between 1991 and 1998 the UNSCOM weapons
inspectors dismantled every facet of weapons
manufacturing infrastructure in Iraq, along with
all weapons themselves. He knew because Scott
Ritter, who headed the UNSCOM weapons inspections
on the ground in Iraq from 1991 to 1998, made it
clear that Iraq's weapons capabilities had been
dismantled, and that Iraq posed no threat to the
United States or its neighbors. He knew because
former intelligence insiders like Greg Thielmann
and Joseph Wilson stated clearly to the world that
the threat posed by Iraq, reported ad nauseam by
the Bush administration, was based upon profoundly
questionable data.
Links:
http://www.truthout.com/docs_02/07.25A.wrp.iraq.htm
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/14/60II/main577975.shtml
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0706-02.htm
He knew because the Secretary of State said so.
"He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any
significant capability with respect to weapons of
mass destruction," said Colin Powell in Cairo on
February 24, 2001. "He is unable to project
conventional power against his neighbors."
http://pilger.carlton.com/print/133099
Dr. David Kay, in his testimony before the Senate
on Wednesday, attempted to place the blame for the
failure to find weapons of mass destruction in
Iraq on the American intelligence services. He
rejected the premise that the Bush administration
was personally responsible for foisting
exaggerated claims of the Iraqi threat upon the
American people, and rejected the premise that
administration officials pressured the
intelligence services to overstate the threat
posed by Iraq.
The facts say different. The words of senior
administration officials, and George W. Bush
himself, say different.
"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam
Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction," said
Dick Cheney on August 26, 2002.
Link: http://electroniciraq.net/news/1063.shtml
"We know for a fact that there are weapons there,"
said Ari Fleischer on January 9, 2003.
Link: http://www.abc.net.au/am/s760815.htm
"We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep
his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to
make more," said Colin Powell before the United
Nations on February 5, 2003. In that same
statement, Powell warned of the "sinister nexus
between Iraq and al Qaeda."
Link:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/05/sprj.irq.powell.transcript.10/
"We know where they are," said Donald Rumsfeld
about these weapons on March 30, 2003. "They are
in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad."
Link:
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Mar2003/t03302003_t0330sdabcsteph.html
"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein
recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use
chemical weapons," said George W. Bush on February
8, 2003.
Link:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030208.html
"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," said George W. Bush
on March 17, 2003.
Link:
http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2004/01/27/bush3/print.html
The invasion of Iraq commenced over 300 days ago.
In all that time, not one of the dire threats
described by the Bush administration have been
validated by evidence. Yet there is a page on the
White House website titled 'Disarm Saddam
Hussein.' This page holds the administration's
description of the threat posed by Iraq.
According to the administration's official
website, Iraq is purported to possess 26,000
liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum
toxin, and 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve
agent. 500 tons amounts to 1,000,000 pounds.
The page further describes Iraq's possession of
almost 30,000 munitions to deliver these agents,
mobile biological weapons labs, and al Qaeda
connections. Finally, the page claims that Iraq
was seeking uranium from the nation of Niger for
use in a nuclear weapons program. Although this
last claim was thoroughly debunked, somehow it
found its way into George W. Bush's January 2003
State of the Union address.
That page, and those false uranium claims, remain
on the official White House website as of January
30, 2004.
Link:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/response/disarm.html
Dr. Kay denied that pressure was put on
intelligence analysts by White House officials to
overstate the threat posed by Iraq. The facts say
different. Before the Iraq invasion, Secretary of
Defense Donald Rumsfeld cobbled together a group
of ideologically like-minded allies to form the
Office of Special Plans. Intelligence reports
coming out of this office seemed to be at a
striking variance from intelligence reports that
went into the office. The Office of Special Plans
operated out of the Pentagon, and beyond any
Congressional oversight. The Office of Special
Plans was run primarily by Undersecretary of
Defense for Policy Douglas Feith, and by William
Luti, a former navy officer and former aide to
Vice President Dick Cheney.
In order to make sure the Office of Special Plans
received and forwarded intelligence reports
symmetrical to preconceived notions, this group,
according to news reports, used senior
administration officials to browbeat intelligence
analysts. Vice President Cheney made several
unprecedented trips to CIA headquarters to demand
"forward-leaning" interpretations of the threat
posed by Iraq. When he was unable to do this, he
sent his senior aide, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, to
perform this task in his stead. On several
occasions, former Representative Newt Gingrich
appeared before the analysts to demand that they
toughen up their assessments of the threat posed
by Iraq. He did so as an emissary of the Office
of Special Plans.
Links:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,999737,00.html
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030512fa_fact
Air Force Lieutenant Colonel and career Pentagon
official Karen Kwiatkowski worked under Douglas
Feith, and worked often with the Office of Special
Plans, until her retirement in April of 2003.
"What I saw was aberrant, pervasive and contrary
to good order and discipline," said Kwiatkowski in
August of 2003. "If one is seeking the answers to
why peculiar bits of 'intelligence' found sanctity
in a presidential speech, or why the post-Saddam
occupation has been distinguished by confusion and
false steps, one need look no further than the
process inside the Office of the Secretary of
Defense."
Kwiatkowski went on to charge that the operations
she witnessed during her time in Feith's office,
and particularly those of the Office of Special
Plans, constituted, "a subversion of
constitutional limits on executive power and a
co-optation through deceit of a large segment of
the Congress." Most importantly, Kwiatkowski
stated, "What these people are doing now makes
Iran-Contra look like amateur hour. . . it's worse
than Iran-Contra, worse than what happened in
Vietnam."
Links:
http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=19542
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1030-08.htm
During the debate in South Carolina on Thursday
January 29, Dennis Kucinich mentioned a think tank
called the Project for a New American Century in
the context of the Iraq invasion. The existence
of this group is vital to understanding the
all-important question: Why did the Bush
administration push so hard to invade Iraq? Why
did they manufacture a case for war? Why did
they distort the tragedy of September 11, using
Iraq as a foil?
The Project for a New American Century provides an
answer. Founded in 1997, its principals have been
agitating for a war with Iraq. PNAC was the
driving force behind the drafting and passage of
the Iraqi Liberation Act. The names of every
prominent PNAC member were on a letter delivered
to President Clinton in 1998 which castigated him
for not implementing the Act by sending troops
into Baghdad. In the months before the invasion,
PNAC created a new sub-group called The Committee
for the Liberation of Iraq. Staffed entirely by
PNAC members, The Committee set out to "educate"
Americans about the need for war in Iraq. This
group met in February 2003 with National Security
Advisor Condoleezza Rice regarding the ways and
means of this education.
Why is PNAC an important piece of the Iraq puzzle?
It is important because individuals, soon to
become high-ranking members of the Bush
administration, signed on to their goals, their
policies, and their ideology:
· Vice President Dick Cheney;
· Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld;
· Assistant Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz;
· National Security Council member Eliot Abrams;
· Undersecretary for Arms Control and
International Security John Bolton;
· Vice President Cheney's top national security
assistant Lewis Libby;
· President of the Committee for the Liberation of
Iraq Randy Scheunemann, who was Trent Lott's
national security aide and who served as an
advisor to Rumsfeld on Iraq in 2001;
· Chairman of PNAC Bruce Jackson, a position he
took after serving for years as vice president for
Lockheed-Martin, and who headed the Republican
Party Platform subcommittee for National Security
and Foreign Policy during the 2000 campaign.
Jackson's section of the 2000 GOP Platform
explicitly called for the removal of Saddam
Hussein, and was inked before George W. Bush
became the nominee.
In short, members of the Project for a New
American Century control, from top to bottom, the
national security and military apparatus of the
United States. Their motives and ultimate goals,
therefore, deserve close scrutiny. The flagship
document put forth by PNAC was produced in 2000,
and is titled 'Rebuilding America's Defenses.' In
it, PNAC made their case for an invasion of Iraq
is made more than a year before the September 11
terrorist attacks. Page 26 of the report carries
the following lines: "The United States has for
decades sought to play a more permanent role in
Gulf regional security. While the unresolved
conflict with Iraq provides the immediate
justification, the need for a substantial American
force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of
the regime of Saddam Hussein."
In short, and according to PNAC, the purported
threat posed by Saddam Hussein is far less
important that the need to get an American
military force presence into Iraq by any means
necessary. Along with this admission, 'Rebuilding
America's Defenses' outlines a plan for American
unilateralism and military expansionism. The
Project for the New American Century seeks to
establish what they call 'Pax Americana' across
the globe. Essentially, their goal is to transform
America, the sole remaining superpower, into a
planetary empire by force of arms. 'Rebuilding
America's Defenses' codifies this plan, which
requires a massive increase in defense spending
and the willingness to fight several major theater
wars in order to establish American dominance.
Specifically for the Middle East, PNAC sought to
invade and occupy Iraq to establish a permanent
military presence, which would subsequently become
a launching point for the invasion and overthrow
of governments all across the region.
Another PNAC signatory, author Norman Podhoretz,
quantified this central aspect of the plan in the
September 2002 issue of his journal, 'Commentary'.
In it, Podhoretz notes that the regimes, "that
richly deserve to be overthrown and replaced, are
not confined to the three singled-out members of
the axis of evil. At a minimum, the axis should
extend to Syria and Lebanon and Libya, as well as
'friends' of America like the Saudi royal family
and Egypt's Hosni Mubarak, along with the
Palestinian Authority, whether headed by Arafat or
one of his henchmen." At bottom, for Podhoretz and
PNAC, this action is about "the long-overdue
internal reform and modernization of Islam."
Links:
http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=1&num=53
http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
Evidence to support the fact that the invasion of
Iraq had nothing to do with weapons of mass
destruction or September 11 goes beyond the pages
of PNAC reports. Former Treasury Secretary Paul
O'Neill recently stated that attacking Iraq was in
the works from the very first day George W. Bush
took office in January 2001. Pulitzer
prizewinning journalist Ron Suskind captured
O'Neill's views in a new book titled 'The Price of
Loyalty.'
"From the very first instance, it was about Iraq,"
says Suskind about his interviews with O'Neill and
his review of 19,000 pages of documentary evidence
provided by O'Neill. "It was about what we can do
to change this regime. Day one, these things were
laid and sealed." Suskind got his hands on one
Pentagon document, dated March 5, 2001. The
document was titled 'Foreign Suitors for Iraqi
Oilfield Contracts,' and included a map of
potential areas for exploration. "It talks about
contractors around the world from, you know, 30-40
countries," says Suskind, "and which ones have
what intentions on oil in Iraq."
Paul O'Neill was afforded a position on the
National Security Council because of his job as
Treasury Secretary, and sat in on the Iraq
invasion planning sessions. "It was all about
finding a way to do it," says O'Neill. "That was
the tone of it. The president saying 'Go find me a
way to do this.'" Further buttressing these
claims, CBS News reported on September 4, 2002
that notes taken by an aide to Defense Secretary
Don Rumsfeld clearly state that the final process
towards war on Iraq was begun five hours after the
attacks of September 11 unfolded. George W. Bush
said, "Find me a way to do this." Don Rumsfeld,
surveying the hole blasted into the Pentagon, had
found that way.
Links:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/011204A.shtml
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/04/september11/main520830.shtml
Finally, the scandals surrounding Halliburton
Corporation's involvement in the rebuilding of
Iraq offers further evidence to support the fact
that this war was planned long before September
11, and had little to do with Hussein's purported
threat to American security. The New York Times
carried a story on January 23 titled, 'Halliburton
Turns Over $6.3 million to Government.' Admitting
that at least one employee had participated in a
$6.3 million kickback deal with a Kuwaiti company
to provide support services to American troops,
Halliburton said it had repaid the money to the
government. This came on the heels of accusations
that Halliburton, and its subsidiary Kellog Brown
& Root, got the contracts in Iraq to begin with
because Vice President Cheney served as
Halliburton's chief executive before becoming
Bush's Vice President.
The fourth paragraph of this New York Times story
continues, "The contract was awarded two years ago
by the Army Field Support Command. It called for
the subsidiary to provide a number of logistical
services for troops in Iraq, including housing,
transportation, food, laundry and recreation.
Kellogg Brown & Root, in turn, contracted with the
Kuwaiti company to handle some of the work." The
contract for troop support was given to
Halliburton two years ago, more than a year before
the invasion was undertaken, and more than a year
before any national discussion of whether the
invasion was just or necessary was undertaken.
Link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/24/politics/24HALL.html?8bl
Dr. Kay's claims that the Bush administration had
nothing to do with the spreading of disinformation
and lies about the threat posed by Iraq do not
stand up to scrutiny. The words of senior White
House officials, the statements on the White
House's own website, the facts surrounding the
Office of Special Plans, the plans laid by the
Project for a New American Century before Bush
ever took office, the contracts handed out to
corporations with ties to the administration
before any discussion of war was broached with the
American people, the documented pressure placed on
intelligence analysts by Dick Cheney and others,
the eyewitness reports of insiders like Karen
Kwiatkowski and Paul O'Neill, and the words of
George W. Bush himself, expose Kay's testimony.
The facts are clear. This administration arrived
in Washington determined to invade Iraq by any
means. They set out, before and after September
11, to build a case to support a decision for
invasion that had already been made - That Iraq
should be invaded. Even the tragedy of September
11 was not so grave a matter that it could not be
manipulated towards the administration's goal of
attacking Iraq. It was never about weapons of
mass destruction, or even about Saddam Hussein.
It was about regional control of petroleum in the
Middle East. It was about wholesale regime change
in the Middle East. It was about the rise of
American unilateralism across the globe.
It would have been difficult, if not impossible,
for George W. Bush and his administration to give
the American people false information about Iraq
without help. The information was used to create a
war. It was picked up, uncritically disseminated
and even embellished by members of Congress, some
of whom went on to become Presidential candidates.
Their own statements tell the story:
John Kerry: "Why is Saddam Hussein attempting to
develop nuclear weapons when most nations don't
even try? According to intelligence, Iraq has
chemical and biological weapons. . .Iraq is
developing unmanned aerial vehicles capable of
delivering chemical and biological warfare
agents The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons
of mass destruction is real, but it is not new.
It has been with us since the end of the Persian
Gulf War. It has been with us for the last four
years It is clear that in the four years since
the UNSCOM inspectors were forced out, Saddam
Hussein has continued his quest for weapons of
mass destruction." - October 9, 2002
Howard Dean: "[I and others] have never been in
doubt about the evil of Saddam Hussein or the
necessity of removing his weapons of mass
destruction." - March 17, 2003
From the CBS News program Face The Nation,
September 29 2002:
GLORIA BORGER, U.S. News & World Report: Governor,
what exactly does the
president then have to prove to you?
DEAN: I don't think he really has to prove
anything. I think that most Americans, including
myself, will take the president's word for it. But
the president has never said that Saddam has the
capability of striking the United States with
atomic or biological weapons any time in the
immediate future.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, does he have to have the
means to deliver them to us? Or what if he had the
means to give them to another terrorist group who
could bring them into this country in a suitcase?
DEAN: Well, that's correct, that would certainly
be grounds for us to intervene, and if we had so
[sic] unilaterally, we could do that.
John Edwards: "We know that he [Hussein] has
chemical and biological weapons... We know that he
is doing everything he can to build nuclear
weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer
to achieving that goal." -October 10, 2002
Wesley Clark: "He [Hussein] does have weapons of
mass destruction." Questioner: "And you could say
that categorically?" Clark: "Absolutely . . . I
think they will be found. There's so much
intelligence on this." - January 18, 2003
"Many Gulf states will hustle to praise their
liberation from a sense of insecurity they were
previously loath even to express. Egypt and Saudi
Arabia will move slightly but perceptibly towards
Western standards of human rights." (George W.
Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair)
"should be proud of their resolve in the face of
so much doubt. Their opponents, those who
questioned the necessity or wisdom of the
operation, are temporarily silent, but probably
unconvinced." - April 10, 2003
Joe Lieberman: "Every day Saddam remains in power
with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the
development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger
for the United States I think it ought to happen
before this session of Congress recesses, ought to
be a congressional debate on whether or not to
authorize the president as commander in chief to
take military action to remove Saddam Hussein. I
will support that resolution. I will do anything I
can to convince my colleagues to adopt it, because
I feel it is so critical to our security. " -
August 4, 2002
Links: http://slate.msn.com/id/2092376/
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0404/mondo2.php
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/30/ftn/printable523726.shtml
http://www.fair.org/press-releases/clark-antiwar.html
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2002_1009.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,59538,00.html
http://www.senate.gov/%7Eedwards/statements/20021010_iraq.html
On this all-important matter, Dennis Kucinich
stands alone. He is the only Democratic candidate
who voted against the Iraq War Resolution. He is
the only Democratic candidate whose public
statements on the issue have remained consistent
and unambiguous since the idea of invasion was
first introduced by the Bush administration. He
is the only Democratic candidate who consistently
rejected the rhetoric and fear used by the
administration to manufacture a cause for war. He
is the only Democratic candidate who will ensure
that American soldiers are brought home within 90
days of U.N approval of his exit strategy.
http://www.kucinich.us/bringourtroopshome.php
As Dennis Kucinich said on June 7, 2003, now is
the time for truth telling. Iraq had nothing to
do with September 11. There are no weapons of
mass destruction in Iraq. There was no
justification for this war. It was wrong to go
in. It is wrong to stay in.
Dennis Kucinich was right in September of 2002,
and he is right today.
Summary:
George W. Bush's hand-picked weapons inspector,
Dr. David Kay, testified before the Senate on
Wednesday January 28, stating there are no weapons
of mass destruction in Iraq. He used his time
before the Senate to place blame for the fact that
Iraq had no WMDs on the American intelligence
community. Further, he defended the Bush
administration by stating that the White House
itself never put forth exaggerated claims of the
threat posed by Iraq, and that White House
officials never pressured intelligence analysts to
inflate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's
regime.
Facts clearly on the record fly in the face of
these claims. Since August 2002, the Bush
administration stated time and again that Saddam
Hussein posed an immediate threat to the security
of the United States. Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld created a group within the Pentagon,
called the Office of Special Plans, to exaggerate
the threat posed by Iraq. Vice President Dick
Cheney, along with several individuals within and
without the administration, personally pressured
intelligence analysts to overstate the threat
posed by Iraq. Before this administration took
office, plans were being laid by future
administration officials to invade Iraq.
The official tally, to date, stands at 519
American soldiers killed in Iraq, thousands of
medical evacuations of American soldiers from
Iraq, and nearly $200 billion spent on Iraq.
There is no accurate count of the number of Iraqi
civilians who have been killed and wounded in the
invasion, but every estimate runs into the
thousands. No weapons promised by the
administration, weapons which were the premise for
this invasion, have been found.
Dennis Kucinich, in word and deed, has since
September of 2002 stood against the claims made by
the Bush administration about the threat posed by
Iraq. He is the only candidate in this race to
vote against the Iraq War Resolution. He has
stated clearly, time and again, that the rhetoric
of fear from the Bush administration about the
threat posed by Iraq was baseless.
Dennis Kucinich was right.
Report: A Detailed History of the WMD Issue
The news has been dominated by missing weapons of
mass destruction in Iraq. Bush's hand-picked
weapons inspector, Dr. David Kay, testified in the
Senate on Wednesday that, "It turns out we were
all wrong" about the status of Saddam Hussein's
weapons capabilities.
Link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/29/politics/29WEAP.html
The official tally, to date, stands at 519
American soldiers killed in Iraq, thousands of
medical evacuations of American soldiers from
Iraq, and nearly $200 billion spent on Iraq.
There is no accurate count of the number of Iraqi
civilians who have been killed and wounded in the
invasion, but every estimate runs into the
thousands. No weapons promised by the
administration, weapons which were the premise for
this invasion, have been found.
Links:
http://lunaville.org/warcasualties/Summary.aspx
http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=Hacks%20Target.db&command=viewone&op=t&id=49&rnd=240.29326015816156
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,976392,00.html
Dr. Kay said we were all wrong. This is
incorrect. Dennis Kucinich was right.
On September 4, 2002, Dennis Kucinich said, "Well,
frankly we haven't seen evidence
or proof of that, and furthermore we haven't seen
evidence or proof that he has the ability to
deliver such weapons if he has them, and finally,
whether or not he has the intent. I think that
what we need to be doing is to review this passion
for war, that drumbeat for war, that's coming out
of the White House, and to slow down and to let
calmer heads prevail."
On September 12, 2002, Dennis Kucinich said,
"Prior to 1998, the United Nations made much
progress in weapons inspections and assured Iraq
had no usable capacity for the manufacture of
weapons of mass destruction or the ability to
deliver such weapons. Since 1998 no credible
intelligence has been brought forward which
suggests that Iraq is manufacturing weapons of
mass destruction or has developed capabilities for
delivery of such weapons."
On September 21, 2002, Dennis Kucinich said, "This
attempt to foment a war is really against the best
interests of America, it is against the spirit of
the country, it is against the economic interests
of the people."
On September 25, 2002, Dennis Kucinich said,
"Since when do we equate patriotism with going to
war? Since when do we equate patriotism with
preemptive strikes and with unilateralism?
America's always been a nation that's worked with
other nations. And after September 11 of last
year, we had the entire world community working
with us. Now we're separating ourselves, isolating
ourselves from the world community because we want
to go it alone."
On September 29, 2002, Dennis Kucinich said, "At
this point, frankly, the evidence does not suggest
that Iraq was connected to 9/11, that there's any
connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda,
that there's any connection between Iraq and the
anthrax attacks on this country. We don't hear
from the CIA that Iraq has any usable weapons of
mass destruction that they could deliver to the
United States. There's no imminent threat. If I
thought there was an imminent threat to this
country, I wouldn't hesitate to vote for action.
But I have to tell you, there is no imminent
threat."
On October 3, 2002, Dennis Kucinich made a
statement before the House of Representatives
announcing his intention to vote against the
pending Iraq War Resolution. In that statement,
he said, "The American people need to know there
is no credible evidence that connects Iraq to the
events of 9-11 or to participation in those events
by assisting al Qaeda. The key issue here is that
there is no credible evidence that Iraq possesses
weapons of mass destruction. If Iraq had
successfully concealed the production of such
weapons since 1998, and let us assume that
somebody has information they have never told
Congress, they have never been able to back up,
but they have this information and it is secret,
and they secretly know Iraq has such weapons,
there is no credible evidence that Iraq has the
capability to reach the United States with such
weapons, if they have them, and many of us believe
no evidence has been presented that they do."
When the day came to vote on the Iraq War
Resolution, Dennis Kucinich led 126 House members
to join him in voting 'No.'
On March 20, 2003, after the invasion had begun,
Dennis Kucinich said, "This is a sad day for
America, the world community and the people of
Iraq. These are offensive, not defensive attacks,
and they are in violation of international law."
On January 19, 2003, Dennis Kucinich said, "On
September 12, 2001, a little more than 24 hours
after the planes hit the World Trade Center, the
Secretary of Defense, in a meeting at the White
House, called for immediate strikes against Iraq.
In sixteen months since America was attacked, no
credible evidence has been presented that Iraq
perpetrated 9-11, or conspired in 9-11. Iraq was
not responsible for the anthrax attack on our
country. Nor does Iraq have missile strike
capability against the U.S., usable weapons of
mass destruction nor the intention to use them
against us."
On March 11, 2003, Dennis Kucinich said, "Contrary
to Administration assertions, a war against Iraq
will not be in self-defense: Iraq does not pose an
imminent threat to the United States. It doesn't
have the ability, nor has it ever had the ability,
to shoot a missile or send a bomber to harm
America. Iraq does not possess nuclear weapons.
Furthermore, there is no credible evidence that
Iraq had anything to do with the terrorist attacks
of 9/11. No credible link between Saddam Hussein
and al Qaeda has been made."
On June 4, 2003, Dennis Kucinich said, "This
Administration made many assertions, for which
they have yet to produce any evidence, about
Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. The President
led the nation to war, and spent at least $63
billion on that war, on the basis of these
unfounded assertions. Let me repeat, the
President led the nation to war on the basis of
unfounded assertions. It is long past time that
the Administration shows its evidence, and today,
we are announcing the intention to introduce a
resolution of inquiry tomorrow, to compel the
White House to justify its claims."
On June 7, 2003, Dennis Kucinich introduced the
resolution to force the Bush administration to
turn over any and all evidence to back its
assertions that Iraq possessed weapons of mass
destruction. He was backed by 30 fellow House
members. Upon introducing this resolution, Dennis
Kucinich said, "This administration owes an
explanation to this Congress and to the American
people. Now is the time for truth telling."
On August 25, 2003, Dennis Kucinich said, "It is
clear now that the United States is bogged down in
an ongoing guerrilla war with almost daily
casualties. The situation is one that the
Administration did not plan for and is not
adequately prepared to handle. Assertions by the
President, and his Administration, that the war is
over and that our mission was accomplished, like
their claims about Iraq's 'vast stockpiles' of
WMD's, are false and misleading. While this
Administration was quick to send troops into
harm's way, it has no exit strategy for removing
US troops from the country."
On December 5, 2003, Dennis Kucinich released a
letter he wrote to Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld, in which he said, "Your testimony to
Congress was influential in shaping the debate
about going to war against Iraq and persuaded many
Members to vote in favor of the use of military
force. Yet your testimony contained information
that you should have known to be false at the time
you asserted it."
On January 11, 2004, Dennis Kucinich said, "The
Bush Administration is still with us. They
manufactured justifications for the war, and they
are now manufacturing justifications for
continuing this occupation. The war is not over,
and the invention of justifications for it is not
over."
Link: http://www.kucinich.us
519 dead American soldiers in Iraq. Thousands of
medical evacuations of American soldiers from
Iraq, many for grievous and permanently
debilitating wounds. Nearly $200 billion spent on
Iraq. Tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians killed
and maimed. No weapons of mass destruction.
Dennis Kucinich was right. How did he know?
He knew because the information was there for all
to see. Between 1991 and 1998 the UNSCOM weapons
inspectors dismantled every facet of weapons
manufacturing infrastructure in Iraq, along with
all weapons themselves. He knew because Scott
Ritter, who headed the UNSCOM weapons inspections
on the ground in Iraq from 1991 to 1998, made it
clear that Iraq's weapons capabilities had been
dismantled, and that Iraq posed no threat to the
United States or its neighbors. He knew because
former intelligence insiders like Greg Thielmann
and Joseph Wilson stated clearly to the world that
the threat posed by Iraq, reported ad nauseam by
the Bush administration, was based upon profoundly
questionable data.
Links:
http://www.truthout.com/docs_02/07.25A.wrp.iraq.htm
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/14/60II/main577975.shtml
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0706-02.htm
He knew because the Secretary of State said so.
"He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any
significant capability with respect to weapons of
mass destruction," said Colin Powell in Cairo on
February 24, 2001. "He is unable to project
conventional power against his neighbors."
http://pilger.carlton.com/print/133099
Dr. David Kay, in his testimony before the Senate
on Wednesday, attempted to place the blame for the
failure to find weapons of mass destruction in
Iraq on the American intelligence services. He
rejected the premise that the Bush administration
was personally responsible for foisting
exaggerated claims of the Iraqi threat upon the
American people, and rejected the premise that
administration officials pressured the
intelligence services to overstate the threat
posed by Iraq.
The facts say different. The words of senior
administration officials, and George W. Bush
himself, say different.
"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam
Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction," said
Dick Cheney on August 26, 2002.
Link: http://electroniciraq.net/news/1063.shtml
"We know for a fact that there are weapons there,"
said Ari Fleischer on January 9, 2003.
Link: http://www.abc.net.au/am/s760815.htm
"We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep
his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to
make more," said Colin Powell before the United
Nations on February 5, 2003. In that same
statement, Powell warned of the "sinister nexus
between Iraq and al Qaeda."
Link:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/05/sprj.irq.powell.transcript.10/
"We know where they are," said Donald Rumsfeld
about these weapons on March 30, 2003. "They are
in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad."
Link:
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Mar2003/t03302003_t0330sdabcsteph.html
"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein
recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use
chemical weapons," said George W. Bush on February
8, 2003.
Link:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030208.html
"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," said George W. Bush
on March 17, 2003.
Link:
http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2004/01/27/bush3/print.html
The invasion of Iraq commenced over 300 days ago.
In all that time, not one of the dire threats
described by the Bush administration have been
validated by evidence. Yet there is a page on the
White House website titled 'Disarm Saddam
Hussein.' This page holds the administration's
description of the threat posed by Iraq.
According to the administration's official
website, Iraq is purported to possess 26,000
liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum
toxin, and 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve
agent. 500 tons amounts to 1,000,000 pounds.
The page further describes Iraq's possession of
almost 30,000 munitions to deliver these agents,
mobile biological weapons labs, and al Qaeda
connections. Finally, the page claims that Iraq
was seeking uranium from the nation of Niger for
use in a nuclear weapons program. Although this
last claim was thoroughly debunked, somehow it
found its way into George W. Bush's January 2003
State of the Union address.
That page, and those false uranium claims, remain
on the official White House website as of January
30, 2004.
Link:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/response/disarm.html
Dr. Kay denied that pressure was put on
intelligence analysts by White House officials to
overstate the threat posed by Iraq. The facts say
different. Before the Iraq invasion, Secretary of
Defense Donald Rumsfeld cobbled together a group
of ideologically like-minded allies to form the
Office of Special Plans. Intelligence reports
coming out of this office seemed to be at a
striking variance from intelligence reports that
went into the office. The Office of Special Plans
operated out of the Pentagon, and beyond any
Congressional oversight. The Office of Special
Plans was run primarily by Undersecretary of
Defense for Policy Douglas Feith, and by William
Luti, a former navy officer and former aide to
Vice President Dick Cheney.
In order to make sure the Office of Special Plans
received and forwarded intelligence reports
symmetrical to preconceived notions, this group,
according to news reports, used senior
administration officials to browbeat intelligence
analysts. Vice President Cheney made several
unprecedented trips to CIA headquarters to demand
"forward-leaning" interpretations of the threat
posed by Iraq. When he was unable to do this, he
sent his senior aide, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, to
perform this task in his stead. On several
occasions, former Representative Newt Gingrich
appeared before the analysts to demand that they
toughen up their assessments of the threat posed
by Iraq. He did so as an emissary of the Office
of Special Plans.
Links:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,999737,00.html
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030512fa_fact
Air Force Lieutenant Colonel and career Pentagon
official Karen Kwiatkowski worked under Douglas
Feith, and worked often with the Office of Special
Plans, until her retirement in April of 2003.
"What I saw was aberrant, pervasive and contrary
to good order and discipline," said Kwiatkowski in
August of 2003. "If one is seeking the answers to
why peculiar bits of 'intelligence' found sanctity
in a presidential speech, or why the post-Saddam
occupation has been distinguished by confusion and
false steps, one need look no further than the
process inside the Office of the Secretary of
Defense."
Kwiatkowski went on to charge that the operations
she witnessed during her time in Feith's office,
and particularly those of the Office of Special
Plans, constituted, "a subversion of
constitutional limits on executive power and a
co-optation through deceit of a large segment of
the Congress." Most importantly, Kwiatkowski
stated, "What these people are doing now makes
Iran-Contra look like amateur hour. . . it's worse
than Iran-Contra, worse than what happened in
Vietnam."
Links:
http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=19542
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1030-08.htm
During the debate in South Carolina on Thursday
January 29, Dennis Kucinich mentioned a think tank
called the Project for a New American Century in
the context of the Iraq invasion. The existence
of this group is vital to understanding the
all-important question: Why did the Bush
administration push so hard to invade Iraq? Why
did they manufacture a case for war? Why did
they distort the tragedy of September 11, using
Iraq as a foil?
The Project for a New American Century provides an
answer. Founded in 1997, its principals have been
agitating for a war with Iraq. PNAC was the
driving force behind the drafting and passage of
the Iraqi Liberation Act. The names of every
prominent PNAC member were on a letter delivered
to President Clinton in 1998 which castigated him
for not implementing the Act by sending troops
into Baghdad. In the months before the invasion,
PNAC created a new sub-group called The Committee
for the Liberation of Iraq. Staffed entirely by
PNAC members, The Committee set out to "educate"
Americans about the need for war in Iraq. This
group met in February 2003 with National Security
Advisor Condoleezza Rice regarding the ways and
means of this education.
Why is PNAC an important piece of the Iraq puzzle?
It is important because individuals, soon to
become high-ranking members of the Bush
administration, signed on to their goals, their
policies, and their ideology:
· Vice President Dick Cheney;
· Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld;
· Assistant Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz;
· National Security Council member Eliot Abrams;
· Undersecretary for Arms Control and
International Security John Bolton;
· Vice President Cheney's top national security
assistant Lewis Libby;
· President of the Committee for the Liberation of
Iraq Randy Scheunemann, who was Trent Lott's
national security aide and who served as an
advisor to Rumsfeld on Iraq in 2001;
· Chairman of PNAC Bruce Jackson, a position he
took after serving for years as vice president for
Lockheed-Martin, and who headed the Republican
Party Platform subcommittee for National Security
and Foreign Policy during the 2000 campaign.
Jackson's section of the 2000 GOP Platform
explicitly called for the removal of Saddam
Hussein, and was inked before George W. Bush
became the nominee.
In short, members of the Project for a New
American Century control, from top to bottom, the
national security and military apparatus of the
United States. Their motives and ultimate goals,
therefore, deserve close scrutiny. The flagship
document put forth by PNAC was produced in 2000,
and is titled 'Rebuilding America's Defenses.' In
it, PNAC made their case for an invasion of Iraq
is made more than a year before the September 11
terrorist attacks. Page 26 of the report carries
the following lines: "The United States has for
decades sought to play a more permanent role in
Gulf regional security. While the unresolved
conflict with Iraq provides the immediate
justification, the need for a substantial American
force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of
the regime of Saddam Hussein."
In short, and according to PNAC, the purported
threat posed by Saddam Hussein is far less
important that the need to get an American
military force presence into Iraq by any means
necessary. Along with this admission, 'Rebuilding
America's Defenses' outlines a plan for American
unilateralism and military expansionism. The
Project for the New American Century seeks to
establish what they call 'Pax Americana' across
the globe. Essentially, their goal is to transform
America, the sole remaining superpower, into a
planetary empire by force of arms. 'Rebuilding
America's Defenses' codifies this plan, which
requires a massive increase in defense spending
and the willingness to fight several major theater
wars in order to establish American dominance.
Specifically for the Middle East, PNAC sought to
invade and occupy Iraq to establish a permanent
military presence, which would subsequently become
a launching point for the invasion and overthrow
of governments all across the region.
Another PNAC signatory, author Norman Podhoretz,
quantified this central aspect of the plan in the
September 2002 issue of his journal, 'Commentary'.
In it, Podhoretz notes that the regimes, "that
richly deserve to be overthrown and replaced, are
not confined to the three singled-out members of
the axis of evil. At a minimum, the axis should
extend to Syria and Lebanon and Libya, as well as
'friends' of America like the Saudi royal family
and Egypt's Hosni Mubarak, along with the
Palestinian Authority, whether headed by Arafat or
one of his henchmen." At bottom, for Podhoretz and
PNAC, this action is about "the long-overdue
internal reform and modernization of Islam."
Links:
http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=1&num=53
http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
Evidence to support the fact that the invasion of
Iraq had nothing to do with weapons of mass
destruction or September 11 goes beyond the pages
of PNAC reports. Former Treasury Secretary Paul
O'Neill recently stated that attacking Iraq was in
the works from the very first day George W. Bush
took office in January 2001. Pulitzer
prizewinning journalist Ron Suskind captured
O'Neill's views in a new book titled 'The Price of
Loyalty.'
"From the very first instance, it was about Iraq,"
says Suskind about his interviews with O'Neill and
his review of 19,000 pages of documentary evidence
provided by O'Neill. "It was about what we can do
to change this regime. Day one, these things were
laid and sealed." Suskind got his hands on one
Pentagon document, dated March 5, 2001. The
document was titled 'Foreign Suitors for Iraqi
Oilfield Contracts,' and included a map of
potential areas for exploration. "It talks about
contractors around the world from, you know, 30-40
countries," says Suskind, "and which ones have
what intentions on oil in Iraq."
Paul O'Neill was afforded a position on the
National Security Council because of his job as
Treasury Secretary, and sat in on the Iraq
invasion planning sessions. "It was all about
finding a way to do it," says O'Neill. "That was
the tone of it. The president saying 'Go find me a
way to do this.'" Further buttressing these
claims, CBS News reported on September 4, 2002
that notes taken by an aide to Defense Secretary
Don Rumsfeld clearly state that the final process
towards war on Iraq was begun five hours after the
attacks of September 11 unfolded. George W. Bush
said, "Find me a way to do this." Don Rumsfeld,
surveying the hole blasted into the Pentagon, had
found that way.
Links:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/011204A.shtml
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/04/september11/main520830.shtml
Finally, the scandals surrounding Halliburton
Corporation's involvement in the rebuilding of
Iraq offers further evidence to support the fact
that this war was planned long before September
11, and had little to do with Hussein's purported
threat to American security. The New York Times
carried a story on January 23 titled, 'Halliburton
Turns Over $6.3 million to Government.' Admitting
that at least one employee had participated in a
$6.3 million kickback deal with a Kuwaiti company
to provide support services to American troops,
Halliburton said it had repaid the money to the
government. This came on the heels of accusations
that Halliburton, and its subsidiary Kellog Brown
& Root, got the contracts in Iraq to begin with
because Vice President Cheney served as
Halliburton's chief executive before becoming
Bush's Vice President.
The fourth paragraph of this New York Times story
continues, "The contract was awarded two years ago
by the Army Field Support Command. It called for
the subsidiary to provide a number of logistical
services for troops in Iraq, including housing,
transportation, food, laundry and recreation.
Kellogg Brown & Root, in turn, contracted with the
Kuwaiti company to handle some of the work." The
contract for troop support was given to
Halliburton two years ago, more than a year before
the invasion was undertaken, and more than a year
before any national discussion of whether the
invasion was just or necessary was undertaken.
Link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/24/politics/24HALL.html?8bl
Dr. Kay's claims that the Bush administration had
nothing to do with the spreading of disinformation
and lies about the threat posed by Iraq do not
stand up to scrutiny. The words of senior White
House officials, the statements on the White
House's own website, the facts surrounding the
Office of Special Plans, the plans laid by the
Project for a New American Century before Bush
ever took office, the contracts handed out to
corporations with ties to the administration
before any discussion of war was broached with the
American people, the documented pressure placed on
intelligence analysts by Dick Cheney and others,
the eyewitness reports of insiders like Karen
Kwiatkowski and Paul O'Neill, and the words of
George W. Bush himself, expose Kay's testimony.
The facts are clear. This administration arrived
in Washington determined to invade Iraq by any
means. They set out, before and after September
11, to build a case to support a decision for
invasion that had already been made - That Iraq
should be invaded. Even the tragedy of September
11 was not so grave a matter that it could not be
manipulated towards the administration's goal of
attacking Iraq. It was never about weapons of
mass destruction, or even about Saddam Hussein.
It was about regional control of petroleum in the
Middle East. It was about wholesale regime change
in the Middle East. It was about the rise of
American unilateralism across the globe.
It would have been difficult, if not impossible,
for George W. Bush and his administration to give
the American people false information about Iraq
without help. The information was used to create a
war. It was picked up, uncritically disseminated
and even embellished by members of Congress, some
of whom went on to become Presidential candidates.
Their own statements tell the story:
John Kerry: "Why is Saddam Hussein attempting to
develop nuclear weapons when most nations don't
even try? According to intelligence, Iraq has
chemical and biological weapons. . .Iraq is
developing unmanned aerial vehicles capable of
delivering chemical and biological warfare
agents The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons
of mass destruction is real, but it is not new.
It has been with us since the end of the Persian
Gulf War. It has been with us for the last four
years It is clear that in the four years since
the UNSCOM inspectors were forced out, Saddam
Hussein has continued his quest for weapons of
mass destruction." - October 9, 2002
Howard Dean: "[I and others] have never been in
doubt about the evil of Saddam Hussein or the
necessity of removing his weapons of mass
destruction." - March 17, 2003
From the CBS News program Face The Nation,
September 29 2002:
GLORIA BORGER, U.S. News & World Report: Governor,
what exactly does the
president then have to prove to you?
DEAN: I don't think he really has to prove
anything. I think that most Americans, including
myself, will take the president's word for it. But
the president has never said that Saddam has the
capability of striking the United States with
atomic or biological weapons any time in the
immediate future.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, does he have to have the
means to deliver them to us? Or what if he had the
means to give them to another terrorist group who
could bring them into this country in a suitcase?
DEAN: Well, that's correct, that would certainly
be grounds for us to intervene, and if we had so
[sic] unilaterally, we could do that.
John Edwards: "We know that he [Hussein] has
chemical and biological weapons... We know that he
is doing everything he can to build nuclear
weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer
to achieving that goal." -October 10, 2002
Wesley Clark: "He [Hussein] does have weapons of
mass destruction." Questioner: "And you could say
that categorically?" Clark: "Absolutely . . . I
think they will be found. There's so much
intelligence on this." - January 18, 2003
"Many Gulf states will hustle to praise their
liberation from a sense of insecurity they were
previously loath even to express. Egypt and Saudi
Arabia will move slightly but perceptibly towards
Western standards of human rights." (George W.
Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair)
"should be proud of their resolve in the face of
so much doubt. Their opponents, those who
questioned the necessity or wisdom of the
operation, are temporarily silent, but probably
unconvinced." - April 10, 2003
Joe Lieberman: "Every day Saddam remains in power
with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the
development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger
for the United States I think it ought to happen
before this session of Congress recesses, ought to
be a congressional debate on whether or not to
authorize the president as commander in chief to
take military action to remove Saddam Hussein. I
will support that resolution. I will do anything I
can to convince my colleagues to adopt it, because
I feel it is so critical to our security. " -
August 4, 2002
Links: http://slate.msn.com/id/2092376/
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0404/mondo2.php
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/30/ftn/printable523726.shtml
http://www.fair.org/press-releases/clark-antiwar.html
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2002_1009.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,59538,00.html
http://www.senate.gov/%7Eedwards/statements/20021010_iraq.html
On this all-important matter, Dennis Kucinich
stands alone. He is the only Democratic candidate
who voted against the Iraq War Resolution. He is
the only Democratic candidate whose public
statements on the issue have remained consistent
and unambiguous since the idea of invasion was
first introduced by the Bush administration. He
is the only Democratic candidate who consistently
rejected the rhetoric and fear used by the
administration to manufacture a cause for war. He
is the only Democratic candidate who will ensure
that American soldiers are brought home within 90
days of U.N approval of his exit strategy.
http://www.kucinich.us/bringourtroopshome.php
As Dennis Kucinich said on June 7, 2003, now is
the time for truth telling. Iraq had nothing to
do with September 11. There are no weapons of
mass destruction in Iraq. There was no
justification for this war. It was wrong to go
in. It is wrong to stay in.
Dennis Kucinich was right in September of 2002,
and he is right today.