john dean on bush

>Missing Weapons Of Mass Destruction:
>Is Lying About The Reason For War An Impeachable Offense?
>By JOHN W. DEAN
>----
>Friday, Jun. 06, 2003
>
>
>President George W. Bush has got a very serious problem. Before asking
>Congress for a Joint Resolution authorizing the use of American
military
>forces in Iraq, he made a number of unequivocal statements about the
reason
>the United States needed to pursue the most radical actions any nation
can
>undertake - acts of war against another nation.
>
>Now it is clear that many of his statements appear to be false. In the
>past,
>Bush's White House has been very good at sweeping ugly issues like this

>under the carpet, and out of sight. But it is not clear that they will
be
>able to make the question of what happened to Saddam Hussein's weapons
of
>mass destruction (WMDs) go away - unless, perhaps, they start another
war.
>
>That seems unlikely. Until the questions surrounding the Iraqi war are
>answered, Congress and the public may strongly resist more of President

>Bush's warmaking.
>
>Presidential statements, particularly on matters of national security,
are
>held to an expectation of the highest standard of truthfulness. A
president
>cannot stretch, twist or distort facts and get away with it. President
>Lyndon Johnson's distortions of the truth about Vietnam forced him to
stand
>down from reelection. President Richard Nixon's false statements about
>Watergate forced his resignation.
>
>Frankly, I hope the WMDs are found, for it will end the matter.
Clearly,
>the
>story of the missing WMDs is far from over. And it is too early, of
course,
>to draw conclusions. But it is not too early to explore the relevant
>issues.
>
>President Bush's Statements On Iraq's Weapons Of Mass Destruction
>
>Readers may not recall exactly what President Bush said about weapons
of
>mass destruction; I certainly didn't. Thus, I have compiled these
>statements
>below. In reviewing them, I saw that he had, indeed, been as explicit
and
>declarative as I had recalled.
>
>Bush's statements, in chronological order, were:
>
>"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used
for
>the production of biological weapons."
>
>United Nations Address
>September 12, 2002
>
>"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding
the
>facilities used to make more of those weapons."
>
>"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized
Iraqi
>field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the
dictator
>tells us he does not have."
>
>Radio Address
>October 5, 2002
>
>"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological
>weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."
>
>"We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical
agents,
>including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."
>
>"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing
fleet
>of
>manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse
chemical
>or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is
>exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United
>States."
>
>"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons

>program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear
>scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" - his nuclear
holy
>warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding
facilities
>at
>sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has
>attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment
>needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for
nuclear
>weapons."
>
>Cincinnati, Ohio Speech
>October 7, 2002
>
>"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the
materials
>to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."
>
>State of the Union Address
>January 28, 2003
>
>"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."
>
>Address to the Nation
>March 17, 2003
>
>Should The President Get The Benefit Of The Doubt?
>
>When these statements were made, Bush's let-me-mince-no-words posture
was
>convincing to many Americans. Yet much of the rest of the world, and
many
>other Americans, doubted them.
>
>As Bush's veracity was being debated at the United Nations, it was also

>being debated on campuses - including those where I happened to be
>lecturing
>at the time.
>
>On several occasions, students asked me the following question: Should
they
>believe the President of the United States? My answer was that they
should
>give the President the benefit of the doubt, for several reasons
deriving
>from the usual procedures that have operated in every modern White
House
>and
>that, I assumed, had to be operating in the Bush White House, too.
>
>First, I assured the students that these statements had all been
carefully
>considered and crafted. Presidential statements are the result of a
>process,
>not a moment's thought. White House speechwriters process raw
information,
>and their statements are passed on to senior aides who have both
>substantive
>knowledge and political insights. And this all occurs before the
statement
>ever reaches the President for his own review and possible revision.
>
>Second, I explained that - at least in every White House and
administration
>with which I was familiar, from Truman to Clinton - statements with
>national
>security implications were the most carefully considered of all. The
White
>House is aware that, in making these statements, the President is
speaking
>not only to the nation, but also to the world.
>
>Third, I pointed out to the students, these statements are typically
>corrected rapidly if they are later found to be false. And in this
case,
>far
>from backpedaling from the President's more extreme claims, Bush's
press
>secretary, Ari Fleischer had actually, at times, been even more
emphatic
>than the President had. For example, on January 9, 2003, Fleischer
stated,
>during his press briefing, "We know for a fact that there are weapons
>there."
>
>In addition, others in the Administration were similarly quick to back
the
>President up, in some cases with even more unequivocal statements.
>Secretary
>of Defense Donald Rumsfeld repeatedly claimed that Saddam had WMDs -
and
>even went so far as to claim he knew "where they are; they're in the
area
>around Tikrit and Baghdad."
>
>Finally, I explained to the students that the political risk was so
great
>that, to me, it was inconceivable that Bush would make these statements
if
>he didn't have damn solid intelligence to back him up. Presidents do
not
>stick their necks out only to have them chopped off by political
opponents
>on an issue as important as this, and if there was any doubt, I
suggested,
>Bush's political advisers would be telling him to hedge. Rather than
>stating
>a matter as fact, he would be say: "I have been advised," or "Our
>intelligence reports strongly suggest," or some such similar hedge. But

>Bush
>had not done so.
>
>So what are we now to conclude if Bush's statements are found, indeed,
to
>be
>as grossly inaccurate as they currently appear to have been?
>
>After all, no weapons of mass destruction have been found, and given
Bush's
>statements, they should not have been very hard to find - for they
existed
>in large quantities, "thousands of tons" of chemical weapons alone.
>Moreover, according to the statements, telltale facilities, groups of
>scientists who could testify, and production equipment also existed.
>
>So where is all that? And how can we reconcile the White House's
>unequivocal
>statements with the fact that they may not exist?
>
>There are two main possibilities. One that something is seriously wrong

>within the Bush White House's national security operations. That seems
>difficult to believe. The other is that the President has deliberately
>misled the nation, and the world.
>
>A Desperate Search For WMDs Has So Far Yielded Little, If Any, Fruit
>
>Even before formally declaring war against Saddam Hussein's Iraq, the
>President had dispatched American military special forces into Iraq to
>search for weapons of mass destruction, which he knew would provide the

>primary justification for Operation Freedom. None were found.
>
>Throughout Operation Freedom's penetration of Iraq and drive toward
>Baghdad,
>the search for WMDs continued. None were found.
>
>As the coalition forces gained control of Iraqi cities and countryside,

>special search teams were dispatched to look for WMDs. None were found.

>
>During the past two and a half months, according to reliable news
reports,
>military patrols have visited over 300 suspected WMD sites throughout
Iraq.
>None of the prohibited weapons were found there.
>
>British and American Press Reaction to the Missing WMDs
>
>British Prime Minister Tony Blair is also under serious attack in
England,
>which he dragged into the war unwillingly, based on the missing WMDs.
In
>Britain, the missing WMDs are being treated as scandalous; so far, the
>reaction in the U.S. has been milder.
>
>New York Times columnist, Paul Krugman, has taken Bush sharply to task,

>asserting that it is "long past time for this administration to be held

>accountable." "The public was told that Saddam posed an imminent
threat,"
>Krugman argued. "If that claim was fraudulent," he continued, "the
selling
>of the war is arguably the worst scandal in American political history
-
>worse than Watergate, worse than Iran-contra." But most media outlets
have
>reserved judgment as the search for WMDs in Iraq continues.
>
>Still, signs do not look good. Last week, the Pentagon announced it was

>shifting its search from looking for WMD sites, to looking for people
who
>can provide leads as to where the missing WMDs might be.
>
>Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security
John
>Bolton, while offering no new evidence, assured Congress that WMDs will

>indeed be found. And he advised that a new unit called the Iraq Survey
>Group, composed of some 1400 experts and technicians from around the
world,
>is being deployed to assist in the searching.
>
>But, as Time magazine reported, the leads are running out. According to

>Time, the Marine general in charge explained that "[w]e've been to
>virtually
>every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad,"
and
>remarked flatly, "They're simply not there."
>
>Perhaps most troubling, the President has failed to provide any
explanation
>of how he could have made his very specific statements, yet now be
unable
>to
>back them up with supporting evidence. Was there an Iraqi informant
thought
>to be reliable, who turned out not to be? Were satellite photos
innocently,
>if negligently misinterpreted? Or was his evidence not as solid as he
led
>the world to believe?
>
>The absence of any explanation for the gap between the statements and
>reality only increases the sense that the President's misstatements may

>actually have been intentional lies.
>
>Investigating The Iraqi War Intelligence Reports
>
>Even now, while the jury is still out as to whether intentional
misconduct
>occurred, the President has a serious credibility problem. Newsweek
>magazine
>posed the key questions: "If America has entered a new age of
pre-emption
>--when it must strike first because it cannot afford to find out later
if
>terrorists possess nuclear or biological weapons--exact intelligence is

>critical. How will the United States take out a mad despot or a nuclear

>bomb
>hidden in a cave if the CIA can't say for sure where they are? And how
will
>Bush be able to maintain support at home and abroad?"
>
>In an apparent attempt to bolster the President's credibility, and his
own,
>Secretary Rumsfeld himself has now called for a Defense Department
>investigation into what went wrong with the pre-war intelligence. New
York
>Times columnist Maureen Dowd finds this effort about on par with O.
J.'s
>looking for his wife's killer. But there may be a difference: Unless
the
>members of Administration can find someone else to blame - informants,
>surveillance technology, lower-level personnel, you name it - they may
not
>escape fault themselves.
>
>Congressional committees are also looking into the pre-war intelligence

>collection and evaluation. Senator John Warner (R-VA), chairman of the
>Senate Armed Services Committee, said his committee and the Senate
>Intelligence Committee would jointly investigate the situation. And the

>House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence plans an
investigation.
>
>These investigations are certainly appropriate, for there is potent
>evidence
>of either a colossal intelligence failure or misconduct - and either
would
>be a serious problem. When the best case scenario seems to be mere
>incompetence, investigations certainly need to be made.
>
>Senator Bob Graham - a former chairman of the Senate Intelligence
Committee
>- told CNN's Aaron Brown, that while he still hopes they find WMDs or
at
>least evidence thereof, he has also contemplated three other possible
>alternative scenarios:
>
>One is that [the WMDs] were spirited out of Iraq, which maybe is the
worst
>of all possibilities, because now the very thing that we were trying to

>avoid, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, could be in the
hands
>of dozens of groups. Second, that we had bad intelligence. Or third,
that
>the intelligence was satisfactory but that it was manipulated, so as
just
>to
>present to the American people and to the world those things that made
the
>case for the necessity of war against Iraq.
>
>
>Senator Graham seems to believe there is a serious chance that it is
the
>final scenario that reflects reality. Indeed, Graham told CNN "there's
been
>a pattern of manipulation by this administration."
>
>Graham has good reason to complain. According to the New York Times, he
was
>one of the few members of the Senate who saw the national intelligence
>estimate that was the basis for Bush's decisions. After reviewing it,
>Senator Graham requested that the Bush Administration declassify the
>information before the Senate voted on the Administration's resolution
>requesting use of the military in Iraq.
>
>But rather than do so, CIA Director Tenet merely sent Graham a letter
>discussing the findings. Graham then complained that Tenet's letter
only
>addressed "findings that supported the administration's position on
Iraq,"
>and ignored information that raised questions about intelligence. In
short,
>Graham suggested that the Administration, by cherrypicking only
evidence to
>its own liking, had manipulated the information to support its
conclusion.
>
>Recent statements by one of the high-level officials privy to the
>decisionmaking process that lead to the Iraqi war also strongly
suggests
>manipulation, if not misuse of the intelligence agencies. Deputy
Secretary
>of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, during an interview with Sam Tannenhaus of
>Vanity
>Fair magazine, said: "The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to
do
>with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that
>everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the
core
>reason." More recently, Wolfowitz added what most have believed all
along,
>that the reason we went after Iraq is that "[t]he country swims on a
sea of
>oil."
>
>Worse than Watergate? A Potential Huge Scandal If WMDs Are Still
Missing
>
>Krugman is right to suggest a possible comparison to Watergate. In the
>three
>decades since Watergate, this is the first potential scandal I have
seen
>that could make Watergate pale by comparison. If the Bush
Administration
>intentionally manipulated or misrepresented intelligence to get
Congress to
>authorize, and the public to support, military action to take control
of
>Iraq, then that would be a monstrous misdeed.
>
>As I remarked in an earlier column, this Administration may be due for
a
>scandal. While Bush narrowly escaped being dragged into Enron, it was
not,
>in any event, his doing. But the war in Iraq is all Bush's doing, and
it is
>appropriate that he be held accountable.
>
>To put it bluntly, if Bush has taken Congress and the nation into war
based
>on bogus information, he is cooked. Manipulation or deliberate misuse
of
>national security intelligence data, if proven, could be "a high crime"

>under the Constitution's impeachment clause. It would also be a
violation
>of
>federal criminal law, including the broad federal anti-conspiracy
statute,
>which renders it a felony "to defraud the United States, or any agency
>thereof in any manner or for any purpose."
>
>It's important to recall that when Richard Nixon resigned, he was about
to
>be impeached by the House of Representatives for misusing the CIA and
FBI.
>After Watergate, all presidents are on notice that manipulating or
misusing
>any agency of the executive branch improperly is a serious abuse of
>presidential power.
>
>Nixon claimed that his misuses of the federal agencies for his
political
>purposes were in the interest of national security. The same kind of
>thinking might lead a President to manipulate and misuse national
security
>agencies or their intelligence to create a phony reason to lead the
nation
>into a politically desirable war. Let us hope that is not the case.
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------

>
>John Dean, a FindLaw columnist, is a former Counsel to the President of
the
>United States.
-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST