REPOSTING: If Bush “lied”, so did others

So, how should we have proceeded? Just two years later, after much Iraqi stonewalling in both administrations, President Bush, believing much the same as former President Clinton had during his administration that Iraq possessed the nuclear and biological weapons that were capable of posing a serious threat to peace, took his case about Iraq to the UN, imploring them to act in a timely manner.

Believing as former President Bill Clinton did back in 1998 about Saddam Hussein and how he was and remained a threat to international peace, President Bush urged the UN in Sept. 2002 to reaffirm its commitment to making sure Saddam Hussein had fully and unconditionally disarmed. Here’s some of what the President had to say:

“In 1991, Iraq promised U.N. inspectors immediate and unrestricted access to verify Iraq’s commitment to rid itself of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles. Iraq broke this promise, spending seven years deceiving, evading, and harassing U.N. inspectors before ceasing cooperation entirely. Just months after the 1991 cease-fire, the Security Council twice renewed its demand that the Iraqi regime cooperate fully with inspectors, condemning Iraq’s serious violations of its obligations. The Security Council again renewed that demand in 1994, and twice more in 1996, deploring Iraq’s clear violations of its obligations. The Security Council renewed its demand three more times in 1997, citing flagrant violations; and three more times in 1998, calling Iraq’s behavior totally unacceptable. And in 1999, the demand was renewed yet again.

As we meet today, it’s been almost four years since the last U.N. inspectors set foot in Iraq, four years for the Iraqi regime to plan, and to build, and to test behind the cloak of secrecy. We know that Saddam Hussein pursued weapons of mass murder even when inspectors were in his country. Are we to assume that he stopped when they left? The history, the logic, and the facts lead to one conclusion: Saddam Hussein’s regime is a grave and gathering danger. To suggest otherwise is to hope against the evidence. To assume this regime’s good faith is to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble. And this is a risk we must not take.”

The goals of President Bush:

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose, and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles, and all related material.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all support for terrorism and act to suppress it, as all states are required to do by U.N. Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shi’a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans, and others, again as required by Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown. It will return the remains of any who are deceased, return stolen property, accept liability for losses resulting from the invasion of Kuwait, and fully cooperate with international efforts to resolve these issues, as required by Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept U.N. administration of funds from that program, to ensure that the money is used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people.”

We all know what happened with the UN after President Bush’s speech (must I rehash that as well? Nah.). The President, after much push and shove, arguing, fussing, and fighting with the UN, decided that force was a necessary last resort in order to finally, ulimately get Saddam Hussein to disarm. He reached this decision after being advised by top officials in his cabinet, senior intelligence officials and by what he knew the UN had NOT been able to do: get Saddam to provide concrete proof that Iraq was at last free of WMD and any “nuKUlar” programs. Remember, even President Clinton believed force was sometimes the only answer:

“Now, let me say to all of you here as all of you know the weightiest decision any president ever has to make is to send our troops into harm’s way. And force can never be the first answer. But sometimes, it’s the only answer.”

A question I believe that should be asked in all this is: what’s is the reader’s measure of success for a military campaign? Based on what we know about Desert Fox, should we conclude that it was a success? We know what the goals were in Desert Fox. Were they achieved? If not, why? Was the prior administration justified in its attack against Iraq or where they pulling the wool over the eyes of the world? I have searched Google and has failed to uncover any evidence of a full scale investigation into the prior administration’s justifications for launching an attack on Iraq back in 1998. Perhaps the justifications were valid?

It would appear that Operation Iraqi Freedom could be called more of a “success story” than Operation Desert Fox, in light of some of the goals of President Bush which have now been achieved (regime change and as a result of doing so effectively ending Iraq’s official support and harboring of terrorists in Iraq, no more persecution of civilian population, the unturning of mass graves and thus returning the remains of the deceased to their families, stopped the insanity of the fraudulent oil-for food program, actively searching for the last remaining Gulf War I veteran who’s whereabouts are at the present time unknown, etc). Some of the goals of the current administration have been met and the goal of Iraqi self-reliance will be realized given a little time and patience – post war Iraq should not be considered a failure. Remember, post war Iraq 1999 was never considered a failure despite the belief by many that Operation Desert Fox didn’t quite achieve its goals.