Deep Blade Journal

She has always been viewed as moderate. But during the Cold War years of the 1980s, US Representative Olympia Snowe, Republican from Maine’s Second Congressional District, never was shy about promoting a hard-line foreign policy. Supposed intelligence information about Soviet expansionist intentions, communist infiltration of popular movements in the Americas—the usual array of they’re-coming-to-get-us stories that filled the airwaves of that era—were part and parcel of Ms. Snowe’s political toolbox. I remember well those scary years as her constituent, as she regularly ignored my calming advice while helping the Reagan administration dump a trillion taxpayer dollars into weapons of planetary destruction and devastating proxy wars.

Elected to the US Senate in 1994, Ms. Snowe’s orientation today is seen as even more moderate when compared with the big-business and reactionary Republican mindsets of her current colleagues. But again, her moderate image is belied by extreme hard-line positions on foreign policy and use of military force—especially in Iraq. As her pre-war statements reveal, she ranked in Congress as one of the most bellicose proponents of the US attack, conquest, and occupation of that weak, battered country. Considering that Congress was filled to the brim with war eagerness in late 2002 and early 2003, that speaks volumes about Senator Snowe’s attitudes about war and peace.

Last month from her perch on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, she finally saw a little light on pre-war falsehoods as the Committee issued its Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq. In a press release dated July 9, 2004, the senator says, “…we now know that key judgments relating to Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program were overstated or were not supported by underlying intelligence reporting.”

Though we do not yet have the second phase of the report, “detailing how policy makers used the intelligence and the prewar assessments about post-war Iraq,” we do know how the senator used this material herself—in a manner at least as hysterical as President Bush did in his fright-producing statements delivered throughout the pre-war period.

The senator’s press release continues, “The facts in this report not only form an inescapable indictment of the status quo, but also beg for a comprehensive structural overhaul of our entire Intelligence Community.”

Yes, and the senator must be held to account for her own failures. The facts beg for a deep examination of the senator herself. Given that throughout the pre-war period, knowledgeable constituents repeatedly attempted to demonstrate to her the highly dubious nature of purported Iraq weapons intelligence—efforts that she blithely dismissed—the senator must include herself in that inescapable indictment.

When it really counted, Senator Snowe willfully ignored a flood of protest against war. Right from the beginning—from the summer of 2002 all the way through to the day the attack on Iraq began on March 20, 2003, many of us begged her to back off from her hard-line position and consider the possibility that the real threat from Iraq was minimal to zero, while emphasizing that military overthrow and occupation of the country would be a project fraught with danger.

Like we did one week ago today, on August 6, 2002 (Hiroshima Day), our group of activists petitioned both Maine senators, Ms. Snowe and Ms. Collins, on the dangers of US nuclear weapons policy and expanding use of military force as we demonstrated in front of the Federal Building in Bangor, Maine. Talk of an attack on Iraq was already in the air. This was our plea in August 2002:

There is no doubt that Iraq’s Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator whose regime should be replaced with a democratic, peaceful government that respects the human rights of all Iraqi citizens. Yet, a US-led military overthrow is unlikely to achieve these ends. Most likely, it will simply result in the rise to power of another oppressive, violent regime and result in the needless deaths of thousands of Iraqis and Americans. The problems posed by Saddam Hussein cannot be resolved by unilateral U.S. military action.Will you insist that the US refer the Iraq problem to the UN Security Council for resolution and that the US take no action against Iraq without the explicit authorization of the UN Security Council and full cooperation with governments and peoples in the region? Will you call for representation of anti-war points of view in hearings (such as that of former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter) to examine U.S. policy toward Iraq?

But by October 2002, Senator Snowe had in no way shown any interest in our requests, even the UN part, because the US administration never was going to allow the Security Council to “resolve” anything diplomatically. She went ahead to justify war on Iraq with rhetoric so alarming and so impassioned that any listener should have been cowering in fear, plowing the way for congressional passage of The Iraq Resolution, H.J. 114, that became law with the president’s signature on October 16 of that year. It gave the president authority to use the “United States Armed Forces against Iraq”.

August 2002 “Die-in” demonstration in Bangor, Maine

A hungry tiger in Iraq

In her floor speech (See the Congressional Record: October 9, 2002; Page S10141-S10145), Ms. Snowe made with great flourish, even those President Bush did not make in his October 7 speech in Cincinnati, all the claims concerning Saddam’s weapons:

I have come to the conclusion—based on the facts—that Saddam Hussein’s continued, aggressive production of weapons of mass destruction presents a real and immediate global mess… they were unable to account for [laundry list of scary-sounding quantities]…As reported in the U.S. intelligence community document made public on October 4, 2002, [Hussein] has been seeking to revamp and accelerate his nuclear weapons program. The report concluded that if left unchecked, Iraq would “probably have a nuclear weapon during this decade”, and that if Hussein could acquire weapons-grade fissile material from abroad “it could make a nuclear weapon within a year”….

Hussein, following the departure of U.N. inspectors in 1998, is aggressively pursuing development of a nuclear capability, and is undeniably seeking items needed to enrich uranium, such as fissile material and gas centrifuge components like vacuum pumps and specialized aluminum tubes. Tellingly, the report also documents Iraq’s attempts to buy large quantities of uranium from Africa….

…the October 4 report states that Iraq is capable of “quickly producing and weaponizing” a variety of both chemical and biological agents, including anthrax, “for delivery by bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers, and covert operatives, including potentially against the U.S. homeland.” Both reports highlight that Hussein’s weapons are hidden in “highly survivable” facilities, some of them mobile,….

Today, we know from Secretary Rumsfeld that “al-Qaida is operating in Iraq”…that we have “accurate and not debatable” evidence of reportedly the presence of senior members of al-Qaida in Baghdad, and other associations….

And now the nexus between Hussein and terrorist groups and individuals is that we simply can’t afford the risk to humanity. Some say we should wait until the threat is imminent. But how will we know when the danger is clear, present and immediate? When people start checking into hospitals? When the toxin shows up in the water supply? When the dirty bomb goes off? Because, in the shadowy world of terrorism, as we have seen, that will already be too late….

In fact, Richard Butler, the former chief U.N. weapons inspector, was asked in an interview on October 8, 2002, “how easy it would be … for the Iraqis to arm a terrorist group, or an individual terrorist, with weapons of mass destruction.” It would be “extremely easy”, Ambassador Butler told the interviewer. “If they decided to do it, it would be a piece of cake“….

Dictators ride to and fro upon tigers which they dare not dismount. And the tigers are getting hungry.

The world can no longer ignore the tiger in Iraq.

And ignore Iraq the US wouldn’t. By early February 2003, UN weapons inspectors were back in the country under UNSCR 1441. Perhaps the worldwide outcry against impunity Senator Snowe and Congress gave the Bush forced the administration to allow the UN to become involved at all. This had to be marginalized.

Senator Snowe dismissed constituents concerns about Powell, then arrested them

Enter Secretary of State Colin Powell. His February 5, 2003 presentation before the UN Security Council is thoroughly discredited by the SSCI report, and has for months been dissected in Deep Blade Journal. So I won’t go over all these details again. Suffice it to say that not one iota of what Snowe said about the existing (”undeniable”) ability of Saddam Hussein to make a surprise attack with nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons—or support terrorists in such an attack—turned out to be true.

Readers can refer to Sy Hersh’s October 2003 article. This sums up the truth about the CIA “Stovepipe” process on which Powell’s talk depended (and fills in those details about “how the administration used the intelligence” that is missing from the SSCI report). Powell was used to discredit the null findings of the UNMOVIC inspection team, while substituting the falsehoods the Bush Administration required to sell its war. Hersh wrote,

the intelligence reports about Iraq provided by the United Nations inspection teams and the International Atomic Energy Agency, which monitored Iraq’s nuclear-weapons programs, were far more accurate than the C.I.A. estimates.”…” senior Administration people, soon after coming to power, had bypassed the government’s customary procedures for vetting intelligence.”

So how did Senator Snowe use the Powell presentation? To beat over the head those of us who were against the war, of course. Around mid-March 2003, Senator Snowe finally got around to answering mail from the previous fall. Here is her language, as it appeared in both the response letter, and in the text of a squirrely talk one of the Senator’s assistants delivered to a group of concerned constituents on March 16, 2003:

On February 5, 2003, Secretary of State Cohn Powell presented the United Nations Security Council with clear, convincing, specific and well-corroborated evidence that Iraq has failed to comply with UN resolutions, and has continued its efforts to develop and conceal its capability to produce and deploy biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons….

The Secretary’s testimony builds on the sobering reports of Chief Weapons Inspector Hans Blix which demonstrate that Iraq has consistently fallen short of the ‘unconditional, immediate, and active’ cooperation required under U.N. resolutions. U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 did not call for partial compliance, it called for full and open disarmament by Iraq. The world community must put the onus on Saddam Hussein where it belongs. He illegally possesses weapons of mass destruction and he must comply.

President Bush has sought support through the Security Council to enforce the requirements of Resolution 1441, and set a deadline for the disarmament of Iraq. I continue to hope that Saddam will take this last opportunity for peace, but while the U.S. has followed the course of diplomacy, Saddam continues to choose the course of deceit.

The blatant deceit belongs here to Snowe, and also to Powell and the administration.

At the time, Deep Blade posted Who Deceives?. Nearly everything discussed in this piece was totally confirmed in later disclosures. What Snowe says about Blix is a misrepresentation by omission. In what “fell short”, the inspectors were rapidly filling in the blanks, and the UN’s null findings were conveniently ignored by Snowe.

On the day the war began, March 20, 2003, a group sat in Snowe’s office with one simple request. According to Karen Saum, one of these brave protesters, “Our sole demand was that Snowe explain why she declared Secretary Colin Powell’s lies to the UN Security Council to be ‘well corroborated evidence’”.

Saum continued:

Senator Snowe does her constituents a grave disservice when she does not level with us about falsified information that has been used to prove a lie. Sen. Snowe, by her failure to stand against Bush, will be as guilty as he of war crimes. We hold her accountable. Through vigils, petitions, letters, emails, faxes, and phone calls, we called upon the Senator to oppose this war. All of our efforts were ignored or trivialized by form letter responses. We know of no other way to have the truth heard. Through our presence at her office we expressed our outrage.

Saum and five comrades were arrested, and later given suspended sentences.

We are asking her nicely again

With every supposed threat from Iraq discredited by the Intelligence Committee and the senator’s own admission, it is time to hold Olympia Snowe accountable for her bellicosity and refusal to respond. There is so much more she should do now to get us out of Iraq. The decision in favor of war that she so emphatically promoted has led to extraordinarily heartbreaking costs in lives and treasure. What now will she do to change policy so that these costs do not mount for the foreseeable future, as it appears they will on the current course? Our requests have been and will continue to be presented to her.

Last Friday, August 6, 2004, we returned to Senator Olympia Snowe’s office to again deliver our message:

On the matter of recent revelations about intelligence failures on weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq and given the history of our pre-war concerns in 2002 and 2003, we are … saddened that Senator Snowe refused to consider the strong doubts we clearly expressed to her at the time about the now-discredited Iraq intelligence briefing Secretary of State Colin Powell presented to the United Nations Security on February 5, 2003. Better communication and consideration of our concerns by our elected representatives may have helped avert war, a stated desire at that time… [we are] hopeful that one day these failures will be behind us and that we can support true efforts to eliminate WMD … Will you ask the administration to present a reasonable timetable for bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq? … Will you in the future give constituents with anti-war views and concerns about obviously shaky intelligence much more serious consideration? Will you declare your support for long-standing proposals and more recent United Nations efforts aimed at creating a non-nuclear weapons zone in the Middle East?

I do not hold my breath that the senator will respond to us in any positive way. Her assistant took our concerns and our petitions last Friday. But even after the litany of failures, it seems to me that she is comfortable hiding behind a highly politicized and absurd finding that intelligence agencies were not under “pressure” concerning Iraq and bureaucratic “reform” proposals that have followed the SSCI and 911 Commission reports.

She feels safe about her seat, which is up in 2006. Unfortunately those of us who understand the history, duplicity, and failure of skepticism Senator Snowe has displayed in the Iraq disaster are still just mice trying to roar. We will keep trying.

Jon Stewart and his people are really paying attention. Or maybe they read Kerry’s Thursday 8/12 rapid response posting and took off from there.

At any rate, the comedy timing of Stewart’s “sensitivity/sensitoughity” piece last night was impeccable. There were three quotes:

I believe I can fight a more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more proactive, more sensitive war on terror that reaches out to other nations and brings them to our side and lives up to American values in history.

–John Kerry at the Journalists of Color Unity Conference, August 5

A “sensitive war” will not destroy the evil men who killed 3,000 Americans and who seek the chemical, nuclear and biological weapons to kill hundreds of thousands more. The men who beheaded Daniel Pearl and Paul Johnson will not be impressed by our sensitivity.

–Vice President Dick Cheney, August 12

Then, after cutting to a Rob Cordry “report” on the US’s careful-not-to-upset-Muslims “kicking ass and taking names” operation in Najaf, Stewart points out that, “Using such language, like ’sensitivity’, suggests weakness, timidity, … Frenchness, quite frankly. Dick Cheney was 100% right to assail anybody who would use that word in relation to our War on Terror. And just by point of contrast, the day after Kerry made his comment, Bush took on the exact same subject in a speech in front of the exact same group:

Now, in terms of the balance between running down intelligence and bringing people to justice obviously is — we need to be very sensitive on that.

–President Bush at the Journalists of Color Unity Conference, August 6

Then Jon Stewart says something like, “Dude, I think the Vice President just called you a pussy”. ROFL

All Republicans should take to heart what the Vice President’s wife added, and just stay home in November, or vote for Ralph Nader:

Q Senator Kerry has made the statement that he would like to fight a more sensitive war on terror. What in the world he be thinking about there? What’s your thoughts?

MRS. CHENEY: I just kind of shook my head when I heard that. With all due respect to the Senator, it just sounded so foolish. I can’t imagine that al Qaeda is going to be impressed by sensitivity. (Laughter.)

But it did remind me of kind of this — we’ve heard for a long time from the extreme left in this country, whenever it comes to a matter of our national interest, that somehow the problem is not with the people who are attacking us, the problem is with us. You’ve heard that. And it struck me as a kind of expression of that idea — somehow the problem is not with the people who are attacking us, the problem is with us. If we’ll just adjust our attitude seems to be the idea. We just do a little mental adjustment here, things will go well. Well, I think it just fits with what Dick is saying. This is kind of left-wing foolishness that certainly isn’t appropriate for someone who would seek to be Commander-in-Chief. (Applause.)