Diplomatic mythology on Iraq
President still peddling Saddam disarmament
While reading through the President’s speech from Friday March 10, cited in the last post, I note that he is still promoting the obviously false notion that Saddam Hussein failed to “disarm” in late 2002 and early 2003.
PRESIDENT BUSH (Mar. 10, 2006): First choice of any president ought to be to deal with issues diplomatically. And we dealt with the issue of Iraq diplomatically: Security Council resolution after Security Council resolution after Security Council resolution, until 1441, when the world spoke with a united voice that said to Iraq, “Disarm, disclose or face serious consequences.”Saddam Hussein chose otherwise. He was removed from power. And there’s no doubt in my mind that the United States is more secure and the world is better off without Saddam Hussein in power.
But Saddam Hussein clearly told the truth in Iraq’s December 2002 declaration on weapons of mass destruction–Iraq had none. All subsequent pre-war hype on the subject from the president, Colin Powell, and other officials was hyperbolic pure crap. The president’s second hand-picked inspector threw in the towel in December 2004.
More recently, it has been reported that President Bush knew as early as January 2003 that Iraq was void of weapons of mass destruction. In fact, in a January 31, 2003 White House meeting with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Bush proposed flying US spy planes painted with UN colors over Iraq in order to provoke war. Bush reportedly told Blair that the “diplomatic strategy had to be arranged around the military planning”. The case for war over WMD was non-existent and other rationale were sought.
In the end, the British Parliament authorized military action in Iraq on a bizarre legal theory concerning the post-Gulf-War resolution from 1991, in the absence of genuine authority from the UN Security Council. Contrary to the word of President Bush, UNSCR 1441 did not confer automatic authority for war without further Security Council action. All members’ comments at the time on UNSCR 1441, save for some ludicrous unilateralism from then US Ambassador to the UN John Negroponte, “welcomed the lack of `automaticity’ in the final resolution.”
Of course, there is a good reason President Bush promulgates this mythology–it may one day become his post-office defense in a war crimes trial, against the charge of the supreme crime of Aggression.
March 13th, 2006 at 17:13
yeaheheh
via C&L: The only people who want us in Iraq is Iran, al-Qaeda, and China… Why? Because weÂ’re depleting our resources, our troop resources and our fiscal resources - CBS-2006-0305 - John Murtha
and also if you havn’t checked out some of the new impeachment activity, here’s a few resources:
http://www.bushcommission.org - Here’s a video introduction to the commission’s indictment forum
March 13th, 2006 at 17:16
Harpers - 2006-0302 - Forum on The Case For Impeachment (2 hours)
AlterNet: Impeaching George W. Bush - From discussion to action, Michael Ratner and his fellow lawyers have drafted a call to impeach President Bush
AlterNet: Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush - A new book lays out four clear legal arguments that point to impeachment of President Bush as a necessary remedy for the violation of our Constitution
March 13th, 2006 at 17:18
Congressman John Conyers has a new book; The Constitution In Crisis - The Downing Street Minutes and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution, and Coverups In The Iraq War (PDF / Mirror)
March 13th, 2006 at 17:19
He’s also set up a citizen cosponsor action center to “demand the creation of a congressional special committee to investigate impeachable offenses”
For added pessemistic humour, check out what recently slid out of house.gov
(PDF) America For Sale: The Cost of Republican Corruption - A congressional report on how america is being sold to the highest bidder
March 13th, 2006 at 18:32
We better do something about helping the Dems retake the US House (& Senate) if we want any of this to go forward.
March 14th, 2006 at 06:47
From Eric:
I poked my head in to procrastinate from a labor history essay on the place of the DP in the 1930s. This comment warrants a lot longer reply than I should give while avoiding my work, but it’s a topic I’m spending a lot of time on lately so look for more from me soon. My very, very brief response is: why would we devote our time and energy to helping Dems take the House and Senate if this thing we supposedly want to go forward is just the elimination of Bush (a self-fulfilling prophecy 2 years later)? More soon…
March 14th, 2006 at 14:17
I don’t disagree with the notion that the Dems are highly problematic. Whether or not it’s worth lifting a finger for any of them is worth a long conversation. BUT, I’ll say just two words why these days I personally ally with the Democratic Party: Feingold, Dirigo. There are other many other reasons too. Though it’s far from clear that anything would change if the Ds did, say, take the US House, no significant investigation of the current major world & domestic crimes can occur unless there exists some authority other than the Repubs in control of something.
March 16th, 2006 at 12:42
Even unlikely figures such as Chomsky and Zinn have supported the idea of toppling Bush through the Dem vote. It is merely tactical of course and I would wager that the politcal culture following a Rep defeat would be so radically different as to warrant some fundamental changes. A congrssional hearing and indictment of the Bush Administration should be a vote-rallying issue, I mean it is not as of there isn’t enough empirical data now…
March 17th, 2006 at 07:18
Hey, Wallsy, nice to see you back. I think you’re for-sure right about insistence upon serious investigation would really solidify that “national” campaign for the 2006 Congressional elections the Ds need to win. But judging from the last day and the pathetic response to Feingold, they’re running scared with Republican lassos labled “IRAN” hot on their tails.
March 21st, 2006 at 12:21
Good to be back, Eric. It’s springtime and I am full of the spriit of dissent again…