This may seem a bit outdated; but, since we are still involved in the same war, it may be valuable to remember how we got in. Its possible there is a clue as to how we may get out. In any case, its stands as a monument to stupidity; not just of George Bush, the teller of these lies; but of the American People who fell for them:

                    17 March '03

 I call it a “declaration of war” because I believe that was W’s intention.

How one views the address by George W. Bush to the nation on St. Patrick’s Day depends entirely on how one felt about the man to begin with. There was no new information, nor did he pretend to offer any.  It was intended only to deliver the ominous statement that America would invade Iraq within 48 hours. One is left with the choice: Do you trust his judgment or not. I do not. To me, he is the meat-puppet whose handlers, among them Cheney and Wolfowitz, have plundered the economy, savaged the Constitution and have and will continue to wage war and squander American lives for their own ends, which include, but are not limited to controlling economic resources worldwide. And yes, on that list is “oil”.

 In his address I detected half-truths, propaganda, exaggerations and bald-faced lies. I have followed each example with my own comment.

Not in chronological order, these prevarications are:

 1. “(Iraq) has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of Al Qaeda…” and “Saddam Hussein and his terrorist allies” There is some evidence that Saddam Hussein financed some training camps in Pakistan. The time-frame is important here. If he financed camps at all, did he do it in the 80’s when Ronald Reagan was financing the same camps? Terminology is also important. Were the camps filled with “terrorists” (Al Qaeda, Taliban) or “freedom fighters” (Mujaheddin)? They are the same people, of course. The altered terminology reflects a different relationship to U.S. policy. The Bush Administration was still shoveling money to the Taliban as late as March of 2001.

One of the perpetrators of the Achille Loro incident was known to have found asylum in Iraq. This was not a secret. It was overlooked because Saddam was a U.S. ally at the time.

2. “The United States and other nations have done nothing to deserve or invite this threat.” That depends on who you are and where you live. The U.S. has been practicing a “foreign policy” that has supported dictators (Saddam Hussein among them), destroyed Democracies, ruined economies and caused horrendous suffering and death for people around the World. Some people resent that. Oddly, the majority of Americans are blissfully unaware of these practices; but the people who suffer under them are acutely aware. It is not a “conspiracy theory” to them.

3. “…the danger is clear: Using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country or any other.” Aye, there’s the rub. The danger is not at all clear. If any terrorists obtain chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, will they have obtained them from Iraq? Might they have obtained them from the Former Soviet Union? The Iraq-terrorist connection has yet to be established. CIA sources see that connection as unlikely. Still, it is a supposition based upon a possibility based upon an unestablished premise; not a sound reason to start a war.

4. “Peaceful efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime have failed, again and again.” and “For more than a decade, the United States and other nations have pursued patient and honorable efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime without war.” and “the world has engaged in 12 years of diplomacy.” America has enforced sanctions against Iraq that have caused the deaths of over a million Iraqi civilians; as many as 5,000 children a month, due to lack of medical supplies, lack of safe water (treatment plants destroyed in 1991) and adequate nutrition. This and the bombing of both civilian and military sites on almost a weekly basis for the last twelve years can hardly be considered “peaceful efforts”.

5. “The United States has the sovereign authority to use force in assuring its own national security.” “Sovereign” means “independent” of “self-governing”; but I think Bush uses the word here to mean “superior” or “dominant”. Of course, any nation has the right to defend itself. Other nations besides America, have the right to defend themselves; including Iraq. Apparently, America has the authority to use force against a “perceived threat” or, worse, a threat to our “interests”, while other countries need to evidence an actual affront to their security or even tolerate an occupation, such as in Chechnya or Palestine. Also, “The Iraqi regime has used diplomacy as a ploy to gain time and advantage.” Is he considering a nation’s sovereign authority when he asserts that?

6. “That duty falls to me as Commander in Chief, by the oath I have sworn and the oath I will keep.” Bush swore the same oath I did when I joined the Air Force: “To protect and defend the Constitution…”. Our Constitution has never been threaten by foreign forces and it isn’t now. The greatest threat to our Constitution has come from the Bush administration itself. Furthermore, this statement stands on the belief that George W. Bush is the president and therefore, the Commander in Chief.

7. “Over the years, U.N. weapons inspectors have been threatened by Iraqi officials, electronically bugged and systematically deceived. Peaceful efforts to disarm the Iraq regime have failed again and again because we are not dealing with peaceful men.” Does Mr. Bush recall that, from the beginning, the UN inspection team was salted with CIA spies?

8. “Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. Intelligence gather by this government has cast serious doubt on the testimony of some defectors (Chalabi, for one) and heard testimony from others (Kamel Hussein) that all WMDs had been destroyed in 1991.

9. “This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people.” Yes, he did and it was despicable. Much of the technology for the chemical weapons came from the U.S. and her allies. Furthermore, after the use of gas at Khaladja, Reagan and Bush administrations continued to supply Saddam with money and weapons, calling the Kurds “rebels”. They are now called, “freedom fighters”, and “his own people”. As the U.S. government was supplying both sides in the Iran/Iraq War, it didn’t have much to say about Saddam using chemical weapons. Perhaps he could have used the excuse, “It shortened the war.” as America now asserts was a good reason to use nuclear weapons against the Japanese.

10. “The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East.” No such thing. The invasion of Kuwait was provoked and only “reckless” in retrospect. Saddam was informed be the U.S. Department that the U.S. would not intervene in his dispute with Kuwait. Kuwait, actually Iraq’s 19^th province, was stealing Iraqi oil and undercutting OPEC prices, bankrupting Iraq. Maybe he should have tried “diplomacy”.

11. “Before the day of horror can come, before it is too late to act, this danger will be removed.” Gosh, are we fighting a “war against horrorism” now? That’s worse than “terrorism” right? Pure hyperbolae!

12. “Recognizing the threat to our country, the United States Congress voted…..” I don’t think the congress recognized a threat to the country. I think that, just like everyone else, they were caught up in the fear of post 9/11. Bush took advantage of it to push through the USA Patriot Act and other legislation dangerous to our Democracy.

13. “America tried to work with the United Nations to address this threat because we wanted to resolve the issue peacefully. We believe in the mission of the United Nations.” Bush has tried to bully and bribe the United Nations from the start. He clearly believes in the mission of the UN, only when it serves American interests. Witness, “The United Nations Security Council has not lived up to its responsibilities, so we will rise to ours.”

14.  “…the Security Council did act in the early 1990s. Under Resolutions 678 and 687, …the United States and our allies are authorized to use force in ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction.” Again, Bush uses the UN as a foil only when it suits him. Hardly mentioned are the more than 70 UN sanctions against Israel and the 20 some more vetoed by the U.S. delegation. My point here is that defying a UN resolution is not, in itself, a causus bellum.

15. “One reason the U.N. was founded after the Second World War was to confront aggressive dictators actively and early, before they can attack the innocent and destroy the peace.” Just a reminder: Stalin was still in the Kremlin when the UN was founded. I think the key word here is “confront”. Massive bombing and invasion goes a little bit beyond what was intended. The UN has been shy of invasion as a method for peace-making since being “used” by the U.S. as a front in Korea seriously damage its image as a mediator.

16. “…some permanent members of the Security Council have publicly announced that they will veto any resolution that compels the disarmament of Iraq. These governments share our assessment of the danger, but not our resolve to meet it.” When has Germany, France, Russia or China ever said they share the American assessment of the danger posed by Saddam Hussein? Using the word “resolve” here is a low blow. He means they don’t have the guts. I think it takes more guts to stand up to bush than to stand up to Saddam. Furthermore, he states, “Many nations, however, do have the resolve and fortitude to act against this threat to peace, and a broad coalition is now gathering to enforce the just demands of the world.” There it is; “guts” again. The coalition is pretty narrow, too, and even then most were bought or bullied. Asking a country under the gun to disarm, may or may not be wise, but it is hardly just. These are nowhere near the “demands of the World”. These are mainly the demands of the United States.

17.  “…the decades of deceit and cruelty have now reached an end.” Three out of the last four decades Saddam has had the collaboration of American presidents in his deceit. Actually, he was quite up-front about his deeds. Remember, all the films of executions, etc. were supplied by Saddam himself. One cruelty will certainly come to an end; the cruelty of the UN sanctions.

18.   “The cause of peace requires all free nations to recognize new and undeniable realities. In the 20th century, some chose to appease murderous dictators whose threats were allowed to grow into genocide and global war.” Ah yes, the old Hitler reference rears its ugly head. I think a proper analogy for Saddam would be Galtieri or Pinochet. There is no indication that Saddam shares the expansionist tendencies of Hitler. His suppression of the Kurdish uprising within his own borders, while harsh should not be compared to genocide, a much-overused word. His treatment of the Kurds was no less terrible than the suppression taking place at the same time in Turkey, our ally, just across the border. Then Bush resurrects the old “appeasement” myth, “a policy of appeasement could bring destruction of a kind never before seen on this earth.” which, somehow, blames the peace movement for World War II. Twelve years of murderous sanctions can hardly be considered “appeasement” anyway. Plus, the CIA has warned us that an invasion is much more likely to trigger “global war” than anything else.

19. “Terrorists and terrorist states do not reveal these threats with fair notice in formal declarations.” Right! Where do we get the Formal Declaration forms? At the State Department? Actually, we receive lots of warnings. Remember Osama’s video tapes?

20. “Unlike Saddam Hussein, we believe the Iraqi people are deserving and capable of human liberty,…” Our sanctions have killed dozens of times more innocent people than Saddam could even dream of. “…we will deliver the food and medicine you need.” Great, but we should have started 12 years ago if we expected to have any credibility.

21. “…responding to such enemies only after they have struck first is not self-defense. It is suicide.” There it is; the rationale for preemptive war. All wars may be justified in this way. Preemptive violence is lawless, immoral and, in the end, stupid because our enemies are now free to wage preemptive war on us.

21. “As we enforce the just demands of the world, we will also honor the deepest commitments of our country.” Who did we make these commitments to? And apparently, The U.S., England, Spain, Italy, The Czech Republic and Bulgaria are “The World” now.

22. “The security of the world requires disarming Saddam Hussein now.” There are a lot of very smart people who warn us that invading Iraq will likely destabilize the Mid-East and possible the World and increase acts of terrorism against us. Conversely, there is no indication that Saddam intended or even now intends, to attack anyone.

23. “The United States with other countries will work to advance liberty and peace in that region.” If “liberty” means “oil” and “peace” means “war”.

24. “In free Iraq there will be no more wars of aggression against your neighbors, no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms.” All of the above will be moved to Guantanamo.

There are many arguments and details left out of this essay; the cost of the war – both human and monetary, who pays, who profits from both the war and reconstruction. I have not gone far into discussion about the mechanics of the First Gulf War; the mistakes, the motives and, again, who profited. I have avoided the history of “our” relationship with Saddam Hussein and the Baath Party. I didn’t take apart, as I could have, Colin Powell’s address to the UN.

All of these things are important and relevant to the coming invasion, but I wanted to stick to comments about the address. I welcome any comments or rebuttals.

–Rico Vicino – A Veteran for Peace.