by Alan Colmes
So should we be surprised that General Rove would politicize a war? "We can go to the country confidently on this issue because Americans trust the Republican Party to do a better job of keeping our communities and families safe. We can also go to the country on this issue because they trust the Republican Party to do a better job of protecting and strengthening America's military might and thereby protecting America," he said in early 2002 to the party faithful.
It's unseemly at best and detestable at worst that this administration would conflate the push for votes with a policy that could result in a tremendous loss of American life. This is not proceeding with "moral clarity" as the Bushies love to claim; it's an amoral and crass exercise in retaining power.
This is the same Republican Party that sold pictures of Bush 43 aboard Air Force One as a remembrance of September 11 for $150 dollars. I'm not sure this is illegal, although the use of White House photographers for this kind of thing is questionable, but it certainly is tasteless. It's unseemly to use even the hint of anything having to do with an attack on Americans as a political tool; using it for both political and monetary gain is revolting.
And then there was The Great American Duct Tape Fiasco of 2003. When the terror alert was raised to Code Orange, America's fire administrator, David Paulison, listed duct tape as an essential product to help keep homes safe in the event of an attack. Even after that particular alert subsided, Homeland Security czar Tom Ridge told Jim Lehrer on PBS that "You may want to have a safe shelter for four or six hours," and "you may need that duct tape." As it happens, 46 percent of the duct tape sold in America is manufactured in Avon, Ohio, by Henkel Consumer Adhesives, whose CEO, John Kahl, gave $100,000 to Republicans in the 2000 election cycle. Far be it for me to take a cynical view of this, but I'd be comforted by the belief that our government gave equal promotion to left-wing companies if, during the next heat wave, someone high up in the Bush 43 administration urges Americans to go out and buy Ben and Jerry's New York Super Fudge Chunk.
In Bush At War, Bob Woodward quoted Bush 43 trying to explain why he could only handle one conflict at a time: "If we tried to do too many things—two things, for example, or three things—militarily, then . . . the lack of focus would have been a huge risk." And Paul Wolfowitz is quoted as saying "war against Iraq might be easier than war against Afghanistan." Was that yet another rationale for war with Iraq, because it was "easier"?
I'm so glad that George "You're either with us or again us" Bush came out against the evildoers. As former Libertarian presidential candidate Harry Browne has pointed out, does "You're either with us or agin us" mean we have to bomb neutral Switzerland?
Capitalism at Its Finest
Just who or what enabled Iraq to be a fighting power in the first place? The answer: us. We supplied Iraq with some of the ingredients to concoct weapons of mass destruction. The mere mention of the desire to understand what we did and why we did it is enough to send conservatives rushing to their keyboards. Here's an e-mail I received after I suggested we look at what we have wrought in Iraq:
From: BrainGuy
Sent: Friday, September 20,2002 9:20 PM
To: Colmes
Subject: no mo
clones,
u disgust me to the point I am bout to puke, we dont need traitorous anti American liberals like you in this country, we are at war. if you spoke like this during WWII you would have been jailed or at least humiliated beyond reproach. I hope you die in an airplane crash. If you do i will laugh.
BrainGuy
Montpelier.VT
As for that self-examination, it isn't pretty.
In 1994, then Michigan senator Donald Riegle acknowledged that we exported dangerous bacteria, such as E. coli, to Iraq between 1985 and 1989: "I am deeply troubled that the United States permitted the sale of deadly biological agents to a country with a known biological warfare program." Back then, we disliked Iran more than we disliked Iraq and our goal was to help fight the country that took American hostages. What a shame that we conveniently ignored that a pendulum can come right back and whack you in the solar plexus.
Michael Dobbs, writing in the Washington Post on December 30, 2002, focused on the key role the United States played in the building of Iraq's nuclear arsenal. A key player in this enterprise was Donald Rumsfeld. Dobbs wrote: "Among the people instrumental in tilting U.S. policy toward Baghdad during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war was Donald H. Rumsfeld, now Defense Secretary, whose December 1983 meeting with Hussein paved the way for normalization of U.S.-Iraqi relations. . . . Declassified documents show that Rumsfeld traveled to Baghdad at a time when Iraq was using chemical weapons on an 'almost daily' basis in defiance of international conventions."
The fog of time has changed the spin on this trip, it seems. Dobbs reports, "In a September interview with CNN, Rumsfeld said he 'cautioned' Hussein about the use of chemical weapons, a claim at odds with declassified State Department notes of his 90-minute meeting with the Iraqi leader. A Pentagon spokesman, Bryan Whitman, now says that Rumsfeld raised the issue not with Hussein, but with Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz. The State Department notes show that he mentioned it largely in passing as one of several matters that 'inhibited' U.S. efforts to assist Iraq." But those silly "inhibitions," like chemical and biological weapons, didn't actually "inhibit" our relationship with Iraq.
On February 25, 2003, the National Security Archive and George Washington University published previously declassified information about the U.S. embrace of Saddam Hussein in the 1980s and the specific role played by Donald Rumsfeld. During the time we reached out to Saddam he had invaded Iran, had long-range nuclear aspirations, harbored known terrorists in Baghdad, was guilty of human rights violations against his own citizens, and possessed and used chemical weapons on Iranians and his own people. Our response was to renew ties with Iraq, provide high level intelligence and aid, and to send a high-level presidential envoy named Donald Rumsfeld to shake hands with Saddam, which he did on December 20, 1983.
These documents also suggested something many conservatives have tried to deny: the administration's real objectives for war in Iraq. They mentioned two Rumsfeld trips to Baghdad, reports on Iraq's use of chemical weapons while the Reagan administration supported Iraq, and directives signed by President Reagan that reveal that our specific priorities for the region included preserving access to oil, expanding our ability to project military power in there, and ensuring the security of our allies. One telling document from senior State Department official Jonathan T. Howe to Secretary of State George Shultz, dated November 1, 1983, states "We have recently received additional information confirming Iraqi use of chemical weapons. We also know that Iraq has received CW production capability, primarily from Western firms, including possibly a U.S. foreign subsidiary." While this memo acknowledged our desire to get Iraq to halt its use of chemical weapons and our policy of Stopping their use wherever they appear, it went on to state: "As you are aware, presently Iraq is at a disadvantage in its war of attrition with Iran. After a recent SIG meeting on the war, a discussion paper was sent to the White House for an NSC meeting ... a section of which outlines a number of measures we might take to assist Iraq." So in spite of this desire to persuade Iraq to stop using chemical weapons, the fact remains that the State Department proceeded with plans to help a country they knew to be using chemical weapons "almost daily."
60 Minutes and the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported in 1998 that we sold cell cultures and equipment for biological warfare to Iraq in die late 1980s. The Baltimore Sun reported on February 13, 1998, that Britain's Channel 4 discovered U.S. intelligence documents that showed "14 consignments of biological materials were exported from the United States to Iraq between 1985 and 1989. These included 19 batches of anthrax bacteria and 15 batches of botulinum, the organism that causes botulism." These shipments were licensed by the Commerce Department and backed by the State Department. Furthermore, the report stated, "At least 29 batches of material were sent after Iraq
had used gas in an attack on the Kurdish town of Halabja in 1988, killing 5,000 people." One of the reasons given for attacking Iraq in 2003 was that Saddam had attacked his own people in the past. This argument seems disingenuous since we continued to help him build weapons of mass destruction even after these attacks.
In 1986, the Commerce Department overrode an objection to the grant of an export license to a New Jersey computer manufacturer. The Pentagon was concerned that the equipment would be used for secret military research, but the deal went through. In fact, the Commerce Department allowed $1.5 billion worth of goods to go to Iraq between 1985 and 1990. According to the Los Angeles Times of February 13, 1991, among the items we sent to Iraq were "advanced computers, electronic instruments and high-grade graphics terminals for rocket testing and analysis; flight simulators and test equipment; microwave communications gear; radar maintenance equipment, and computer mapping systems."
Iraq also bought sixty Hughes helicopters, ten Bell Huey helicopters, and twenty-four Bell 214ST helicopters. Even though Congressman Howard Berman of California begged Secretary of State Shultz to reconsider these sales and pointed out how ludicrous it was to sell this equipment to Iraq, the Reagan administration's argument that it was good business prevailed. W. Tapley Bennett Jr., then assistant secretary of state for legislative affairs, replied to Berman: "We believe that increased American penetration of the extremely competitive civilian aircraft market would serve the United States' interests by improving our balance of trade and lessen unemployment in the aircraft industry." Nice of the Republicans to think about the low-wage laborer for once.
A February 13, 1991, Los Angeles Times piece reported: "In 1988, Kurdish civilians were attacked with poisonous gas from Iraqi helicopters and planes. U.S. intelligence sources say they believe that the American-built helicopters were among those dropping the deadly bombs." Newsweek, on September 23, 2002, reported similar findings: "The (American) helicopters, some American officials later surmised, were used to spray poison gas on the Kurds."
And let's not forget some long-standing personal and corporate ties to Iraq. Vice President Dick Cheney's former company, Halliburton, held major stakes in Dresser-Rand and Ingersoll-Dresser, two companies that helped rebuild Iraq's oil industry. Dick Cheney's responses to questions about his company's involvement with Iraq were not consistent. The Washington Post reported on June 23, 2001: "During last year's presidential campaign, Richard B. Cheney acknowledged that the oil-field supply corporation he headed, Halliburton Co., did business with Libya and Iran through foreign subsidiaries. But he insinuated that he had imposed a 'firm policy' against trading with Iraq."
On the July 30, 2000, edition of This Week, Cheney denied that his company or any of its subsidiaries did business with Iraq and repeated the "firm policy" line. When Sam Donaldson asked if Halliburton, through subsidiaries, was trying to do business with Iraq, Cheney said, "No, no, I had a firm policy that we wouldn't do anything in Iraq, even—even arrangements that were supposedly legal. . . we've not done any business in Iraq, since the sanctions are imposed, and I had a standing policy that I wouldn't do that."
But a few weeks later, on August 27, 2000, this statement was played back to the Republican vice presidential nominee by Donaldson, who added that Halliburton's spokesman, Guy Marcus, had confirmed that the two Halliburton subsidiaries, Dresser-Rand and Ingersoll-Dresser, did business with Iraq. Donaldson reminded Cheney that he knew Halliburton had those subsidiaries three weeks earlier when the "firm policy" statement was made. Cheney replied, "No. No. I made the statement, Sam. I made the statement, and— and I meant the statement. I was, from time to time, while I was at Halliburton, importuned to go do business with Iraq, in some cases in perfectly legal and proper fashion, in the oil-for-food program, and I said we would not do that." Cheney said he didn't know that at the time Halliburton took over those companies, they were doing business with Iraq. Furthermore, he said, Halliburton sold off those divisions of the company. But the June 23, 2001, Washington Post reported that Halliburton's two subsidiary firms "signed contracts to sell more than $73 million in oil production equipment and spare parts to Iraq while Cheney was chairman and chief executive officer of the Dallas-based company." The Post went on to report, "The divestiture, however, was not immediate. The firms traded with Baghdad for more than a year under Cheney, signing nearly $30 million in contracts before he sold Halliburton's 49 percent stake in Ingersoll Dresser Pump Co. in December 1999 and its 51 percent interest in Dresser Rand to Ingersoll-Rand in February 2000, according to U.N. records."
At the time, reporters who called Cheney's spokesperson were referred to Halliburton. Halliburton referred all calls to Cheney's office. Bouts of dizziness broke out among the fifth estate.
Partisanship Uber Alles
The democratization of Iraq is going to take awhile. In the meantime, "The 'War' on Terror" and its subsidiary, "Gulf War II," can be used to justify a host of Bush 43 initiatives. When convenient, Bush 43 gets to be a "wartime president," since that gives greater heft and push to his agenda. During a daily press briefing in late March 2003, White House press secretary Ari Fleischer justified tax cuts at a time of huge war expenditures as a way of creating jobs for returning troops:
FLEISCHER: Let me cite to you some of the reasons that guide the President when he seeks to make sure that the economy can grow and that jobs can be created, so that when our men and women in the military return home, they'll have jobs to come home to.
You mean all these troops were unemployed until March 20, 2003?
Throughout "The 'War' on Terror," various interest groups played laughable games of connect-the-dots to advance their own agendas. The gun lobby claimed that gun control would make citizens less safe from terrorists; the religious right argued that we needed to get back to our roots as a Christian nation. I could even imagine the antichoicers saying that abortion would reduce the population at a time when we're going to need young men to fight the decades-long " 'War' on Terror." Next thing you know, the antienvi-ronmentalists will argue that "The 'War' on Terror" requires that we just have to drill at the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve.
Wait a minute . . . that ANWR argument was used. Interior Secretary Ann Norton said in April 2002 that we had to increase our level of oil production because Iraq was threatening an embargo. And coincidentally, ANWR had just the right amount of oil to make up such a shortfall. This is a decidedly short-range view. The United States consumes a quarter of the world's oil but possesses less than 4 percent of global reserves. Instead of fighting for a questionable amount of oil to be gleaned from the Alaskan wilderness, a better way would be to finance research into fuel efficiency and renewable clean energy resources. Ninety-five percent of Alaska's north slope is open to oil and gas exploration, but the big oil companies must have that extra 5 percent. Hey, if Alaskan oil is so important to us, why do we sell sixty thousand barrels a day of it to Asia? But it sounded good to proclaim we need that oil because Iraq was making threats. And why was Iraq making threats? Because we were making threats against Iraq.
Bush 41 versus Bush 43
It was the height of irony that something called the Bush administration was using tortured logic to accomplish something that was so rationally rejected by something called—albeit at an earlier time— the Bush administration. There was a reason we never did go all the way to Baghdad in 1991, when the troops and the international coalition were already assembled during the first Persian Gulf War. And no one explained it better than Bush 41 and his national security advisor, Brent Scowcroft:
Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible.
Why would this option be any more appealing or realistic during the Bush 43 administration? Could it be that it helped the Bushies push the rest of the
ir agenda to have the backdrop of a war?
Here's something else Bush 41 said: "We should not march into Baghdad. ... To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab world against us, and make a broken tyrant into a latter-day Arab hero."
And see if you can guess the author of these words: "The Gulf War was a limited-objective war. If it had not been, we would be ruling Baghdad today—at unpardonable expense in terms of money, lives lost and ruined regional relationships."
Was it some left-wing liberal? An antiwar protester? A Democratic presidential candidate? No, it was Bush 43's secretary of state and get-Saddam advocate, Colin Powell.
Another definition of "mission creep" involves being attacked by one group of terrorists and retaliating against another. The obsession with Saddam Hussein for more than a year after the September 11 attacks took our eyes off the ball.
But was it on the ball in the first place?
On January 31, 2001, "The U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century" issued a report that should have been heeded by our government. This fourteen-member bipartisan panel, created by Congress and headed by former Colorado senator Gary Hart and former New Hampshire senator Warren Rudman, had no political axe to grind. Among its findings:
America will become increasingly vulnerable to hostile attack on our homeland, and our military superiority will not entirely protect us. . . . The combination of unconventional weapons proliferation with the persistence of international terrorism will end the relative invulnerability of the U.S. homeland to catastrophic attack. A direct attack against American citizens on American soil is likely over the next quarter century.... We therefore recommend the creation of an independent National Homeland Security Agency (NHSA) with responsibility for planning, coordinating, and integrating various U.S. government activities involved in homeland security. States, terrorists, and other disaffected groups will acquire weapons of mass destruction and mass disruption, and some of them will use them. Americans will likely die on American soil, possibly in large numbers.
