Ample justification for war in Iraq

By Carol Devine-Molin
web posted February 16, 2004

Is it just me, or is anyone else compelled to review the testimony
of long-time arms inspector David Kay, former head of the Iraq
Survey Group, who triggered a firestorm when he indicated in a
variety of venues, both official and media venues, that "we were
all wrong", no large stockpiles of WMDs were found in Iraq and
were unlikely to be found in Iraq. The liberal press is up to their
usual tricks of twisting the truth – in this case taking Kay's partial
statements and spinning them into the "big lie" that there was no
justification for war in Iraq. In fact, David Kay said quite the
opposite before the Senate Armed Services Committee on
January 28, 2004: "Senator Warner, I think the world is far safer
with the disappearance and the removal of Saddam Hussein. I
have said I actually think this may be one of those cases where it
(the Iraqi regime) was even more dangerous than we thought."

Kay further espoused before the Senate:" Well, it's not that they
(the Iraqis) don't have a weapons program – didn't have a
weapons program. It is that they had a weapons program but it
was a program activity designed to allow future production at
some time. And that the missile program was actually moving
ahead." Moreover, Kay described the vital Iraqi weapons-
infrastructure that was in effect: "So they kept the scientists and
they kept the technology, but they came to what I think is a fair
conclusion. Why keep the stockpiles of weapons that are
vulnerable to inspectors when you've lost your delivery
capability? Wait till you have your delivery capability, and then
it's a relatively short order." In other words, the Iraqis were
poised to promptly move forward in the development of WMDs
once they got rid of the inspectors and had their delivery systems
in play.

In this election year, clearly the Democrats have been biting-at-
the-bit to club President George W. Bush, and, unfortunately
some of David Kay's statements, albeit select statements
plucked from the larger context, provided Democrats with a
powerful political weapon. As a matter of expediency, the
Democrats supported the Iraq War, but in their little Left-leaning
hearts you have to believe that they resented Bush's war
proclivities from the get-go. Now, in the face of mounting
criticism from Democrats enraged that no significant stockpiles of
WMDs have been found, President Bush continues to defend his
decision to liberate Iraq by asserting that Saddam Hussein's
outlaw regime: Refused to abide by numerous UN resolutions,
perpetrated atrocious crimes against humanity including the
murder of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens, funded
terrorists and suicide bombers, destabilized the entire region with
its aggression toward neighboring countries, and possessed a
dangerous weapons program that had the capacity to produce
WMD's. The latter involving a "weapons program" has been
particularly difficult for the American public to sort out. What the
heck constitutes a "weapons program"?

Let's review a portion of David Kay's Interim Progress Report
on the activities of the Iraq Survey Group before Senate
committees on October 2, 2003, as Kay delineated aspects of
Iraq's weapons program:

"*A clandestine network of laboratories and safehouses within
the Iraqi Intelligence Service that contained equipment subject to
UN monitoring and suitable for continuing CBW research.
*A prison laboratory complex, possibly used in human testing of
BW agents that Iraqi officials, working to prepare for UN
inspections, were explicitly ordered not to declare to the UN.
*Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a
scientist's home, one of which can be used to produce biological
weapons.
*New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo
Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on
ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the UN.
*Plans and advanced design work for new long-range missiles
with ranges up to at least 1000 km - well beyond the 150 km
range limit imposed by the UN. Missiles of a 1000 km range
would have allowed Iraq to threaten targets throughout the
Middle East, including Ankara, Cairo, and Abu Dhabi.
*Clandestine attempts between late-1999 and 2002 to obtain
from North Korea technology related to 1,300 km range ballistic
missiles --probably the No Dong -- 300 km range anti-ship
cruise missiles, and other prohibited military equipment."

Mind you, this is just a sampling from David Kay's interim
report, which is quite informative as to what comprises a
weapons program. It's also notable that Kay and his Iraq Survey
Group were stymied in their search by "Ali Baba looting" and
intentional destruction of records.

Frankly, I'm tired of the Democratic Party and their elite media
cohorts falsely accusing the Republicans of having bamboozled
the nation regarding Iraq. If the Bush administration was corrupt,
it would have had a ready supply of "throw down" evidence to
back up a claim of WMDs in Iraq. In truth, the administration
consistently acted with integrity -- It sought honest, unvarnished
intel for the purpose of making sound decisions. Although
President Bush is loath to cast aspersions upon CIA Director
George Tenet, there must be some public accountability
regarding this current intelligence failure. In the opinion of many,
it's time for Tenet to fall on his sword so that the nation can move
forward with new and untainted CIA leadership at the helm.
Furthermore, President Bush's commission to investigate pre-
war intelligence problems will undoubtedly be cast by Democrats
as a delaying ploy, so that the issue can be placed on a
backburner until after the election. And we can all be assured
that Democratic candidate John Kerry will continue to excoriate
Bush on pre-war intelligence that ostensibly jettisoned us into
war under "false pretenses", positioning himself as the Vietnam
hero who truly grasps the horrors of combat. Oh my!

The Leftists find it convenient to fiercely disregard the pertinent
facts: Former President Clinton, the United Nations, and many
foreign intelligence agencies were singing from the same
hymnbook on the WMDs matter, which is certainly indicative of
lousy pre-war intel across the globe. Presently we are being told
that Saddam's own scientists were deceiving him, which is
actually understandable considering they were fearful of being
slapped with "war crimes" pursuant to WMDs production. These
scientists had every reason to want to destroy evidence of a
weapons program and to eschew active development and
deployment of WMDs. Did any CIA analysts take this into
account? And can someone please tell me whatever happened to
the "precursor elements" for WMDs, which were reportedly
obtained by Iraq from the likes of France, Germany, Russia and
China?

It appears that both human intelligence and analysis were
inadequate to the task in Iraq. Conservatives particularly should
have abided by the warnings of investigative journalist Bill Gertz
of the Washington Times who made it known that the intelligence
community had been rendered somewhat ineffective over the
past thirty years. In his book "Breakdown", Gertz espoused,
"(It's) a system hamstrung by bad politics, poor leadership, and
bureaucratic ineptitude. But the most important problem facing
US intelligence agencies today is the lack of accountability."

Moreover, it's vital to acknowledge that the Bush administration,
and the GOP for that matter, made a strategic blunder by hyping
the WMDs issue in making its case for the Iraq War. Simply put,
WMDs should not have been the centerpiece of the arguments
for military action. With the benefit of hindsight (yes, hindsight is
twenty-twenty as the old adage goes), we can see that equal
footing should have been afforded: a) the heinous "crimes against
humanity" being perpetrated by the madman Saddam Hussein
(including the systematic torture and mass killings of Iraqi citizens
with entire villages of men, women and children slaughtered, the
use of rape-rooms, and the incarceration of children), b) the
thorough enmeshment of Saddam Hussein with a variety of terror
groups, as he provided funding, safe harbor and training for
terrorists that actively planned to target the West, and, c) the
tremendous monies and efforts being expended by the US and
Great Britain to contain the lawless regime over a period of more
than a decade. The truth is that not only was Saddam Hussein
failing to abide by the agreements that halted the 1991 Gulf War
and the ongoing UN resolutions, but he was having his soldiers
regularly shoot at US and British aircraft. In fact, there was
ample legal and moral justification to invade Iraq and overthrow
Saddam Hussein.
 
Carol Devine-Molin is a regular contributor to several online
magazines.

Enter Stage Right -- http://www.enterstageright.com