A closer look at ‘Bush lied, you lied’

Tue, 03/07/2006 - 5:47pm
By: The Citizen


Several weeks ago I wrote an article that addressed the allegation that George W. Bush lied about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. I noted that this charge doesn’t make sense, even when granting it for the sake of argument, and that underlying the charge is an obsessive hatred of Bush that muddles the thinking of otherwise sensible people.

The response to the article was generally positive, though I did receive some angry emails.

“I think there is something fundamentally dishonest about your article,” began one writer, who offered that his “most charitable interpretation” was that I couldn’t help myself from “distorting the truth” to defend the Republican president, even though my view on Iraqi WMDs was consistent under the previous president, a Democrat. The e-mail concluded: “Are you an educator and historian, or are you a propagandist?”

A number of e-mailers flat-out called me a liar. Bush had lied, and now I had lied to defend the liar. One e-mail did everything but shout, “Liar, liar, pants on fire!”

A few e-mails were less emotionally charged, and I felt a responsibility to respond, a correspondence which has carried on for weeks. One of these e-mailers was a Harvard professor of neuroscience. He made a good point, the answer to which should be shared more broadly.

“I think you misrepresent what people mean when they say, ‘Bush lied,’” wrote the professor. “They are not generally making references to his beliefs, but they are making reference to the simple fact that he made claims for which he has no evidence.... And given the seriousness of the issue at hand (war), the bar was raised and the evidence had to be pretty damned good.”

The professor is too charitable to the “Bush-Lied-Kids-Died” crowd, whose line of reasoning is not so thoughtful. (I know this because I correspond with them daily.) Nonetheless, he posed a valid question, which merits a response.

The professor is correct: Bush did not have absolute evidence of stockpiles of Iraqi WMDs. He had no pictures or first-hand accounts from, say, a Tony Blair or Kofi Annan returning from a remote corner of Iraq to report: “Saddam has a warehouse of chemical warheads. I saw them.”

Yet, such unequivocal evidence was not possible. It was unattainable because Saddam Hussein concealed his WMDs, as he had since 1991, when the United Nations first began doing inspections. All along, he claimed he did not have WMDs, and all along we continued to find them.

Our “evidence” for his WMDs in the 1990s was identical to George W. Bush’s “evidence” later: volumes of testimony from Iraqi scientists, citizens, soldiers, and foreign officials who comprised the “intelligence” that reported that Saddam had WMDs. Entire books laid out the details, such as the bestseller, “Saddam’s Bombmaker,” by Khidhir Hamza.

Here are merely a few facts about Saddam’s WMD inventory, which were uncovered by U.N. inspectors in the 1990s and became widespread public knowledge:

The Iraqi dictator acquired gallons of chemical and biological agents. He repeatedly used chemical arms and probably employed bio weapons in some form, likely on groups like the Marsh Arabs. His bio arsenal was staggering: anthrax, botulinum toxin, and dozens of others.

His regime remains the only in history to weaponize aflatoxin, a substance that slowly causes liver cancer and has no battlefield utility whatsoever. He loaded thousands of artillery shells and missiles with such substances.

The United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) needed several years to destroy these weapons, and was certain that countless more remained hidden.

Much more elusive were nuclear weapons. UNSCOM learned that Saddam had an enormous nuclear program that dated back to the 1970s. Spread among 25 facilities, it employed 15,000 technical people. Based on a Manhattan Project bomb design, Iraqi scientists pursued five different methods for separating uranium. Saddam pumped $10 billion into the program.

This information was made public in the mid-1990s by U.N. officials. UNSCOM chief scientist David Kay reported that Saddam had been only 12 to 18 months away from a workable nuclear bomb at the time we drove Iraqi troops from Kuwait in 1991.

This became a lingering fear once Saddam again barred weapons inspectors from suspect sites in the late 1990s; writers in the New York Times were vigilant in reminding us that Saddam must be perilously close to possessing that bomb.

A September 1998 article by Barton Gellman in the Washington Post reported “credible” evidence (from U.N. arms inspectors) that “Iraq has built and has maintained three or four ‘implosion devices’ that lack only cores of enriched uranium to make 20-kiloton nuclear weapons.”

An intriguing Feb. 25, 2001, London Times feature went further, reporting that Saddam had actually secretly tested a nuclear weapon.

The Clinton administration had enough, and in December 1998 unleashed a flurry of cruise missiles at Iraqi sites. Still, Saddam would not relent. And by 2003, not a single weapons inspector had entered an Iraqi building in five years, a risk the president of the United States found unacceptable in a post-9/11 world.

This brings us to George W. Bush, and to my answer to the professor’s question: Indeed, George W. Bush did not have unmistakable evidence of stockpiles of Iraqi WMDs, but neither did the U.N. in 1991 nor Bill Clinton in 1998. Bush knew what they knew: Saddam had a rich history of manufacturing and using these weapons, and then lying about and hiding their existence.

Yes, there’s a liar in this story, alright. His name is Saddam Hussein.

Paul Kengor is author of “God and George W. Bush.” He is also executive director of the Center for Vision & Values at Grove City (Penn.) College and a visiting fellow with the Hoover Institution.

login to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Submitted by Islewood on Sat, 04/01/2006 - 12:11pm.

With scant forethought beyond doing what his father had not, topple Saddam Hussein, George W. Bush launched his war into Iraq. Now mired in the fourth year of this misadventure, Bush's litany of justifications has him sounding like the perpetual delinquent that thinks he can talk his way out of anything.

As shortsighted now as before, Bush spins out his broken-record mantra: "The world is better off without Saddam Hussein." If Bush can find a silver lining in a manmade disaster of his doing, surely he might be able to detect great purpose in a catastrophe of Mother Nature's making.

To wit, if a tsunami had swept up the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers and had gotten Saddam Hussein, but in the bargain also took the lives of thousands of Iraqis, killed over 2,000 of our troops, permanently maimed untold more, seriously damaged our nation's hard-gained reputation, and cost our people billions upon billions of dollars, we might expect George W. Bush to place much value in the devastating wall of water and to take credit for its course.

He talks and talks and turns a deaf ear as he leaves unanswered the damning question; was war with Iraq our nation’s only course? The answer is no.

When presidents of past were faced with the threatening march of Communism from a USSR bristling with real weapons of mass destruction and with agents secreted throughout the world, these leaders opted for containment of this threat until it inevitably fell of its own weight. These courageous Commanders in Chief believed in the courage of our people and in the superiority of our free way of life.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.