Hussein Kamel told us that Iraq’s WMDs had all been destroyed.
How long can media keep printing lies about the Iraq War? Today’s Washington Post (3/22/13) provides one answer, since they printed an 0p-ed by former Bush national security adviser Stephen Hadley where he argued this:
After Hussein was deposed, we did not find the stockpiles of WMDs that all the world’s major intelligence services, the Clinton and Bush administrations and most members of Congress thought that he had. It was less an intelligence failure than a failure of imagination. Before the war, no one conceived what seems to have been the case: that Hussein had destroyed his WMD stocks but wanted to hide this from his enemy Iran. The U.S. team charged with searching for WMDs concluded that Hussein had the intention and the means to return to WMD production had he not been brought down. (With Iran pursuing nuclear weapons, it is a good bet that he would have.)
This is complete, utter nonsense; a serious newspaper would be ashamed to print it.
Long before the war, the government had intelligence from the most famous defector from Iraq, Saddam Hussein’s son-in-law Hussein Kamel. The government publicly claimed that what Kamel told them confirmed their threats about Iraq’s WMDs.
In fact, what Kamel actually told IAEA inspectors in 1995 was that the weapons stockpiles had been destroyed. This was reported right before the invasion by Newsweek magazine.
So it is 100 percent false to talk about “a failure of imagination.”
It is also false to talk about how “all the world’s major intelligence services” were in agreement on Iraq intelligence. Some remained quite skeptical about the analysis being promoted by the Bush administration. As a matter of fact, the Washington Post (3/18/03) printed an article to the effect right before the before the war started:
As the Bush administration prepares to attack Iraq this week, it is doing so on the basis of a number of allegations against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein that have been challenged—and in some cases disproved–by the United Nations, European governments and even U.S. intelligence reports.
So the Post is publishing something that flies in the face of what its own reporters documented at the time.
What about the idea that Iraq was hiding its absence of WMDs from Iran? If they were, they weren’t do a very good job of it. Before the war, Saddam Hussein went on CBS with Dan Rather (60 Minutes II, 2/26/03) and stated quite clearly that he had no such weapons: “I think America and the world also knows that Iraq no longer has the weapons,” he told Rather. You can watch the video here.
To top it all the off, the parenthetical at the end–which stands as a final justification for the war–is completely unsupported; there is no evidence to suggest that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon.
Does the Post factcheck op-eds? By the looks of it, they do not. But something tells me that if you submitted a column that made completely factual observations about Iraq–saying, for example, that there was clear evidence before the war that Iraq had destroyed its WMDs, and that Iraq had done its best to make clear that it didn’t possess any–you would have little chance of getting it published. And if, by some miracle, it did make through the early editing process, someone would demand that you substantiate these accurate claims.
No such burden would appear to have been placed on Stephen Hadley, who was part of the team that told the lies that took the country into war. Thanks to the Washington Post, he is still doing so.
Not to mention that the U.S. team could hardly conclude what Hussein “would have” done. They could have concluded what he “could have” done, not not what he “would have” done, lacking a time machine.
Disgusting. Pure propaganda.
I’m not so sure how smart Hadley is, but I do know that he’s simply covering his ass by repeating the same lying talking points that he and other criminals like himself have been putting forth, with the full faith and credit of the Major Media, for the past eight years or so. The destruction, mayhem and murder that these fools unleashed is staggering, yet not a single person has been held to account. It is, alas, highly unlikely anyone ever will be held to account, since we need to “look forward, and not backward.”
If we look backward we might learn from our mistake!
“How long can media keep printing lies about the Iraq War?” Well, if many history books are any indication, then for a very long time indeed.
Has anyone ever made the simple connection between the weapons inspectors’ pre-invasion failure to find WMD and Bush’s timetable for making war? Each daily inspection found nothing, thus weakening his case for war. Not wanting to risk further erosion, Bush ordered the weapons inspectors out and began bombing. If I were prosecuting Bush as a war criminal, that fact would stand as Exhibit 1.
Also never stated is the fact that no country has ever invaded another when the invaded one had already ceded so much of its sovreignty to the invader. We already controlled much of Iraqi airspace as well as many of their imports and exports. For years, we inspected Iraq territory, searching everywhere for weapons. If the Serbs had ceded such authority to the Austrians after the Austrian Archduke was assassinated on June 28, 1914, World War One would never have happened, since the Austrians would have been free to search Serbia over to find and arrest those in the South Serbian League who conspired to kill the Archduke Francis Ferdinand.
Iraq may of course pursue WMDs in the future, but at least democracies don’t use WMDs… Um, never mind.