I'd like someone to explain something to me. The claim is being made that President Bush lied to the American people about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs.
Ok, let's examine what he said, and compare it with the interpretations of everybody else who'd seen some or all of the same intelligence.
The President, during his January, 2003 State of the Union Address:
"The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.
The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hadn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.
Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.
U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.
From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them."
Regarding nuclear weapons, he said:
"The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide."
Now let's look at what the Democrats have had to say on the subject: Bill Clinton, in a speech at the Pentagon on February 17, 1998, said:
"Iraq repeatedly made false declarations about the weapons that it had left in its possession after the Gulf War. When UNSCOM would then uncover evidence that gave lie to those declarations, Iraq would simply amend the reports.
For example, Iraq revised its nuclear declarations four times within just 14 months and it has submitted six different biological warfare declarations, each of which has been rejected by UNSCOM.
In 1995, Hussein Kamal, Saddam's son-in-law, and the chief organizer of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, defected to Jordan. He revealed that Iraq was continuing to conceal weapons and missiles and the capacity to build many more.
Then and only then did Iraq admit to developing numbers of weapons in significant quantities and weapon stocks. Previously, it had vehemently denied the very thing it just simply admitted once Saddam Hussein's son-in-law defected to Jordan and told the truth. Now listen to this, what did it admit?
It admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs.
And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production."
later in the same speech:
"Over the past few months, as they have come closer and closer to rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions.
By imposing debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have still not been inspected off limits, including, I might add, one palace in Baghdad more than 2,600 acres large by comparison, when you hear all this business about presidential sites reflect our sovereignty, why do you want to come into a residence, the White House complex is 18 acres. So you'll have some feel for this.
One of these presidential sites is about the size of Washington, D.C. That's about how many acres did you tell me it was? 40,000 acres. We're not talking about a few rooms here with delicate personal matters involved.
It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them.
The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons."
Clearly, he not only believed they had WMD based on the intelligence, but told the American people that they did.
And he even believed it as late as October, 2003, when Saddam was already deposed and many of the Dems were already gumbling about not finding anything:
"Former US president Bill Clinton said in October during a visit to Portugal that he was convinced Iraq had weapons of mass destruction up until the fall of Saddam Hussein, Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Manuel Durao Barroso said.
"When Clinton was here recently he told me he was absolutely convinced, given his years in the White House and the access to privileged information which he had, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction until the end of the Saddam regime," he said in an interview with Portuguese cable news channel SIC Noticias."
Mind you, this is after people began saying President Bush lied.
Here's what Al Gore has had to say on the subject. In September of 2002, he said this at the Commonwealth Club:
"If we quickly succeed in a war against the weakened and depleted fourth-rate military of Iraq and then quickly abandon that nation, as President Bush has quickly abandoned almost all of Afghanistan after quickly defeating a fifth-rate military power there, then the resulting chaos in the aftermath of a military victory in Iraq could easily pose a far greater danger to the United States than we presently face from Saddam. Here's why I say that; we know that he has stored away secret supplies of biological weapons and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Now let's look at the people running for President. I'll skip the ones without a snowball's chance in hell of winning, and just concentrate on the legitimate candidates.
Current front-runner John Kerry, in an October 2002 speech on the floor of the US Senate, said:
"With respect to Saddam Hussein and the threat he presents, we must ask ourselves a simple question: Why? Why is Saddam Hussein pursuing weapons that most nations have agreed to limit or give up? Why is Saddam Hussein guilty of breaking his own cease-fire agreement with the international community? Why is Saddam Hussein attempting to develop nuclear weapons when most nations don't even try and responsible nations that have them attempt to limit their potential for disaster? Why does Saddam Hussein threaten and provoke? Why does he develop missiles that exceed allowable limits? Why did Saddam Hussein lie and deceive the inspection team previously? Why did Saddam Hussein not account for all the weapons of mass destruction which UNSCOM (U.N. Special Commission) identified? Why is he seeking to develop unmanned airborne vehicles for delivery of biological agents? Does he do all those things and more because he wants to live by international standards of behavior? Because he respects international law? Because he is a nice guy the world should trust?
It would be naive to the point of grave danger not to believe that left to his own devices, Saddam Hussein will provoke, misjudge, or stumble into a future, more dangerous confrontation with the civilized world. He has as much as promised it."
Note the use of the term "grave danger". That's the term the President used, which has been called a lie or, in Kerry's case, "misleading".
Kerry's not a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, so maybe he can be forgiven for not having had better information.
However, John Edwards is a member of that committee, and gets a look at almost everything. Here is what he had to say on the subject just before voting to invade Iraq:
"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal."
Note his use of the phrase "we know". Not "we think" or even "we have reason to believe", but "we know". Contrast this with President Bush's statements, in which he nearly always gave the sources, whether that was US intelligence, British Intelligence, or UN intelligence. Note also that he uses the similar term "grave threat". To his credit, he's focussed his ire in the correct direction, at investigating why the intelligence community got it wrong, not at why the President interpreted it the same way as both he and nearly every prominent Democrat in the government, present or recent past.
Let's examine Wesley Clark, who as a former NATO commanding general would certainly have seen the same intelligence as the President. In a January 2003 interview on CNN, General Clark had this to say:
"CLARK: It is. It is. But this is more of the evidence that everybody's known for a long time. He does have weapons of mass destruction.
O'BRIEN: And you could say that categorically?
CLARK: Absolutely."
Absolutely categorically. Again, contrast this with the President's citation of sources.
Even Howard Dean, who has been the darling of the anti-war wing of the Democratic Party, even while speaking against the war, acknowledged the undeniable:
"Those of us who, over the past 6 months, have expressed deep concerns about this President's management of the crisis, mistreatment of our allies and misconstruction of international law, have never been in doubt about the evil of Saddam Hussein or the necessity of removing his weapons of mass destruction."
Let's travel outside the realm of Presidential politics, then, and see what other leading critics of the President have had to say on the subject.
Senator Dianne Feinstein, another member of the Intelligence Committee who has been in a position to see information to which you and I will likely never be privy, voted for the war. Here is what she had to say about the subject:
"But as a member of the Intelligence Committee, as someone who has read and discussed and studied the history of Iraq, the record of obfuscation and the terror Saddam Hussein has sown, one comes to the conclusion that he remains a consequential threat."
And later:
"While the distance between the United States and Iraq is great, Saddam Hussein's ability to use his chemical and biological weapons against us is not constrained by geography - it can be accomplished in a number of different ways - which is what makes this threat so real and persuasive."
A consequential, real, and persuasive threat. Seems rather similar to "grave danger" to me.
As for the question of going into Iraq without a clear UN mandate, she said:
"If one believes Iraq is a real threat, and I do, and if the United Nations fails to act, then the only alternative is military action led by the United States."
The only alternative. Not just one of the alternatives, or even the best alternative, but the only alternative to maintain the security of the people of the United States, based on the same intelligence the President was seeing.
Now, this is not a woman who is given to hawkish behavior. She is on record as believing that increasing United States nuclear capability is a danger to the world. For her to believe war is not only justified, but necessary, implies that she saw rather clear evidence.
So, the question I'd like for somebody to answer for me is:
If it was a lie when Bush said it, why wasn't it a lie when Kerry, Edwards, Dean, Lieberman, Clark, Feinstein, Kennedy, Graham, Clinton, or Gore said it?
Or, to put it in terms the liberal media has used, what did John Kerry know, and when did he know it?