The Hidden History of the Iraq War Critics

April 14th, 2006

 

“The plan has been through the combatant commanders, it has been through the National Security Council process. General Myers and General Pace (chairman and vice-chairman, Joint Chiefs) and others, including this individual, have seen it in a variety of iterations. When asked by the president or by me, the military officers who’ve reviewed it have all said they thought it was an excellent plan. I stand by the plan…I think it’s a brilliant plan.”

 

Donald Rumsfeld on the plan for Operation Iraq Freedom, March 30, 2003 NewsHour.

 

We are in the midst of a spring offensive by Iraq war plan critics such as COBRA II authors Michael Gordon & retired Lt. Gen.Bernard Trainor, retired Gen. Anthony Zinni, and now retired Lt. Gen. Greg Newbold. As calls for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s resignation echo throughout the drive-by media, here is a little pop quiz.

 

Who said this?

 

What if Saddam fails to comply (with UN sanctions), or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more time to develop this (WMD) program? He will conclude that the international community has lost its will… [that] he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, I guarantee you, he’ll use this arsenal.

 

Answer: President Bill Clinton in February 1998.

 

Okay then, who said this?

 

The United Nations believes that Saddam Hussein may have produced as much as 200 tons of VX (nerve gas)… we face a clear and present danger… terrorists who bombed the World Trade Center in New York City had in mind the destruction and deaths of 250,000 people….

 

Answer: Clinton Defense Secretary William Cohen on November 15, 1997.

 

Who said this?

 

The world hasn’t seen, except maybe since Hitler, somebody quite as evil as Saddam Hussein. If you don’t stop a horrific dictator before he gets started too far, he can do untold damage….

 

Answer Clinton Secretary of State Madeline Albright on February 20, 1998.

 

Just one more now. Who expressed the view that the containment of Saddam Hussein could not succeed over the long run; that “even a contained Saddam was harmful to stability and positive change in the region”? Hint: the same person who said

 

“For the last eight years, American policy towards Iraq has been based on the tangible threat that Saddam poses to our security. That threat is clear.”

 

Answer: Clinton National Security Council advisor Sandy Berger in December 1998 speech at Stanford.

 

War critics either downplay, skim over, or completely ignore this historical context. The prior administration’s beliefs and policies towards Iraq were consistent with the threat assessment motivating our war with Saddam. They would have you think that it all began with Bush, who was driven to war by neocon zealots who hijacked US foreign policy.

 

They do not tell you, for obvious reasons, that the Clinton administration in November 1997 launched a public campaign to build support for a possible war against Iraq. The do not mention that on October 31, 1998, President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act, which stated that

 

it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power.

 

And, that in 1998, Congress authorized President Clinton to

 

…use US armed forces pursuant to UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 678 to achieve implementation of UNSCRs 660-667.

 

Saddam was then on his way to setting the Guinness World Record for most resolutions violated. Wanting to indict President Bush, Donald Rumsfeld and senior Pentagon officers for “an invented war,” as former top planner Lt.Gen. Newbold now puts it, they dare not admit that the Bush administration was, in fact, looking at the threat posed by Iraq in much the same way its predecessor did… the difference being that while Bill dallied, W. took on the threat.

 

As President Bush said in his January 28, 2003 State of the Union speech:

 

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words,, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.

 

In a speech the following month, the President said:

 

In Iraq, a dictator is building and hiding weapons that could enable him to dominate the Middle East and intimidate the civilized world – and we will not allow it. This same tyrant has close ties to terrorist organizations and could supply them with the terrible means to strike this country – and America will not permit it…the danger must be confronted…if it does not (fully and peacefully disarm per UN resolutions), we are prepared to disarm Iraq by force. Either way, this danger will be removed.

 

The critics allege that Iraq was a diversion from the real war on terror. They refuse to acknowledge the proven links that existed between Saddam’s regime and al Qaeda as documented by Stephen F. Hayes in his book The Connection and in his Weekly Standard articles on this subject. In his September 8, 2003 article “Saddam’s Al Qaeda Connection” Hayes wrote about a letter by CIA Director George Tenet that

 

declassified CIA reporting on WMD and Iraq’s links to Al Qaeda… “We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda going back a decade,” Tenet wrote… “we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of Al Qaeda members…we have credible reporting that Al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD…”

 

Captured documents recently translated revealed that thousands of radical Islamists trained in camps at Samarra, Ramadi and Salman Pak four years prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom. Those documents and others can be found here and here.

 

Now let’s look at some of the text of House Joint Resolution 114, passed October 12, 2002, which listed the indictments against Saddam’s regime. They make a convincing argument that the Butcher of Baghdad was not being kept in his “box” as the war plan critics allege.

 

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors on October 31, 1998…whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on thousands of occasions on United States and coalition armed forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council….

 

HJ Res. 114 contains much more, of course, including the fact that Saddam used WMD on neighboring countries and on his own people. As for WMD, both the Duelfer and Kay reports concluded that while Saddam might not have any large stockpiles, he retained, he planned for, the ability to reconstitute WMD programs as soon as all inspectors left.

 

Then there was the matter of Saddam’s programmatic deception and concealment efforts. As Duelfer wrote in his report:

 

Iraq was never able to convince us that they had stopped concealment, and in fact, we were convinced of the opposite, that they still retain weapons.

 

We need to remember here that Saddam began his Guinness Book UNSCR violations record right after we expelled his army from Kuwait. He signed a cease-fire agreement in 1991 promising to destroy all his WMD.

 

All of this historic context, all of these facts, are ignored by the war plan critics. I am reminded of a comment by an Iraqi, frustrated by the WMD debate, who opined that “Saddam Hussein himself was a weapon of mass destruction.” Through it all, the US worked with the UN, then formed a coalition to liberate Iraq, putting the lie to charges that President Bush acted unilaterally.

 

The carping critics erect a rhetorical, if not imaginary, entity so they can bash it with charges of “not enough troops” and other hindsight insight. The perfect war plan devised by omniscient planners has never existed. And as Donald Rumsfeld has acknowledged on several occasions, no plan, however perfect, survives first contact with the enemy. But since tactical flexibility was inherent in the plan, commanders on the ground adapted to changing circumstances. And now, a little over three years later, we see the tremendous success that Coalition and Iraqi forces have achieved.

 

President Bush put it this way in an April 10 speech at Johns Hopkins University:

 

We have learned from our mistakes. We’ve adjusted our approach to meet the changing circumstances on the ground; we’ve adjusted depending upon the actions of the enemy. By pursuing a clear and flexible strategy in Iraq, we helped make it possible for Iraqis to choose their leaders and begin to assume the responsibilities of self-government and self-defense.

 

The most recent war plan critic is retired Lt. Gen. Greg Newbold, who, up to four months prior to the launch of OIF, was the Pentagon’s top planner. He left in part due to his opposition to the plan. He now alleges that other top Pentagon officers who opposed the plan did not speak up, that they are culpable for an “invented war.”

 

At an April 11 press conference Joint Chiefs chairman, Gen. Peter Pace answered Newbold and other like-minded critics about how the process worked building up to Iraq:

 

First of all, once it became apparent that we may have to take military action, the Secretary of Defense asked Tom Franks, who was the commander of Central Command, to begin doing some planning, which he did. Over the next two years, 50 or 60 times, Tom Franks either came to Washington or by video teleconference, sat down with the Secretary of Defense, sat down with the Joint Chiefs and went over what he was thinking, how he was planning. And as a result of those iterative opportunities and all the questions that were asked not once was Tom told, “No, don’t do that; no, don’t do this; no, you can’t have this; no, you can’t have that.” What happened was, in a very open roundtable discussion, questions (were raised) about what might go right, what might go wrong, what would you need, how would you handle it, and that happened with the Joint Chiefs, and it happened with the Secretary. And before the final orders were given, the Joint Chiefs met in private with General Franks and assured ourselves that that plan was a solid plan and that the resources that he needed were going to be allocated.

 

That agreement on resources having been reached, the Joint Chiefs went to Rumsfeld and then to President Bush, assuring them about the plan and the necessary resources. Pres. Bush asked specific questions about whether the proper amount of resources had been allocated.

 

He did that with us and then again when all the combatant commanders were in from [around] the globe well before a final decision was made.

 

Gen. Pace stressed the fact that there was every opportunity for anyone with qualms or disagreements to speak their minds. He concluded:

 

I wanted to tell you how I believe this system works, and I wanted to tell you how I have observed it working for five years, because the [critical] articles that are out there about folks not speaking up are just flat wrong.

 

There are some who choose to believe that Saddam never presented a threat to America or the Middle East, that he was safely contained in his “box,” that he had no connections with Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups, that neocon zealots hijacked US foreign policy, that the war plan was fatally flawed due to silent top ranking officers and “Pentagon dictator” Donald Rumsfeld, that the liberation of Iraq was an invented war, and that the Saddam-Iraq chapter of our history began with President Bush, are entitled to their opinions.

 

They are refuted by the facts which they and their media allies refuse to acknowledge.

 

John B. Dwyer is a military historian and a frequent contributor.

i love how nobody even responded to this.

i love how nobody even responded to this.

 

 

Nobody respond,because everybody know it's a fairy tail and it just a lies;)

documented facts arent fairy tales. its not a conpsiracy theory thats came from someones wild imagination without any thing to back it up. sorry but they are irrefutable facts, backed up by research. difference between a fairy tale and facts is one is made up the others real. just letting you know.

documented facts arent fairy tales. its not a conpsiracy theory thats came from someones wild imagination without any thing to back it up. sorry but they are irrefutable facts' date=' backed up by research. difference between a fairy tale and facts is one is made up the others real. just letting you know.[/quote']

 

From which source this documents

there are plenty who said whats going around, its just the democrats are either too pussy or too good to start throwing them back at the republicans. i could come up with a textbook of bullshit the bush administration has told us. and do you want to know why nobody cares what the clinton administration said??? because we were in the highest surplus we had ever been in, in the entire history of the country....and now we are in the lowest DEFICIT in the entire history of the country (next to the depression) when you go from all time highs to lows, people tend to get pissed

there are plenty who said whats going around' date=' its just the democrats are either too pussy or too good to start throwing them back at the republicans. i could come up with a textbook of bullshit the bush administration has told us. and do you want to know why nobody cares what the clinton administration said??? because we were in the highest surplus we had ever been in, in the entire history of the country....and now we are in the lowest DEFICIT in the entire history of the country (next to the depression) when you go from all time highs to lows, people tend to get pissed[/quote']

 

 

 

democrats too pussy? hahahahahaaha. to good? the dems play dirty all the time, it has nothing with being too good, in politics have NO shame what so ever. they'll play as dirty as they can, the whole anti war democrats have proved that, put politics over the nations well being.

 

so its ok to do ok with the highest surplus? i mean its ok for them to screw us over in every other way, but damnit as long as we have a surplus its all good. Clinton did good with economy, but that was it, he screwed teh nation over in every other way. and need i mention bush has brought back our economy from 911 in an amazing way. the media likes to ignore this little fact, but bush's policies have helped our economy overall make an amazing recovery from 911.

Dude....

 

 

 

 

 

Have you been to the pumps lately?

 

 

 

I just put 55 dollars of my own hard earned money into my Jeep... Probably will last me to tomorrow. I don't know who's fault this is, but what the hell, seriously.

Dude....

 

 

 

 

 

Have you been to the pumps lately?

 

 

 

I just put 55 dollars of my own hard earned money into my Jeep... Probably will last me to tomorrow. I don't know who's fault this is, but what the hell, seriously.

 

I know but overall the economy has made a huge comback since 911. our economy will be able to handle teh high price of oil, even though we shouldnt have to, because our goverment screwed us over with that and so have oil companies, there making record profits.

 

did you know in i think its brazil, the goverment mandated in the 1970s that all cars would run on ethanol, which is much cheaper and better for the enviroment then oil. so now Brazil is completely self relient on energy for cars and their citizens arent paying that much to power their cars.

 

In america we have enough waste from corn products to make most of america self relient on its on safe fuel that is cheap.

 

 

I had a long discussion with my history teacher about this and he was telling me that people have invented gas tank things that alow you to get like 100 miles per gallon, but oil companies buy the patents for these so car comapanies cant produce cars that get 100 miles per gallon.

 

Theres alot of different theories for gas prices, one being china and india are using up alot of gas. im not sure which ones to believe.

Really, really true. There ARE cars like that that exist, but this country is SO in the pocket with the big time oil companies and entrepreneurs.... It's unbelievable..... And for the record, I am NOT talking about Bush and his administration ;). This is an ongoing problem, this country has always been too reliant on oil. We need someone to do something about it, and I just can't help but feeling really mad at the people running this country for not recognizing that and doing something instantaneous about it. I'm not saying snapping their fingers and making the prices lower themselves, or making us run on more efficient fuel... I just want to know there's some reform work going on....

 

 

 

 

Blah. It's just I feel like everyone I know is scrounging for money lately, including my family.... I've become overly sensitive to the economy...

But here in america we have it better then many other nations. japan and alot of europe are paying more for gas then us.

I know but overall the economy has made a huge comback since 911. our economy will be able to handle teh high price of oil' date=' [b']even though we shouldnt have to, because our goverment screwed us over with that and so have oil companies, there making record profits. [/b]

did you know in i think its brazil, the goverment mandated in the 1970s that all cars would run on ethanol, which is much cheaper and better for the enviroment then oil. so now Brazil is completely self relient on energy for cars and their citizens arent paying that much to power their cars.

 

In america we have enough waste from corn products to make most of america self relient on its on safe fuel that is cheap.

 

 

I had a long discussion with my history teacher about this and he was telling me that people have invented gas tank things that alow you to get like 100 miles per gallon, but oil companies buy the patents for these so car comapanies cant produce cars that get 100 miles per gallon.

 

Theres alot of different theories for gas prices, one being china and india are using up alot of gas. im not sure which ones to believe.

 

you do know who profited from this right??? Hint: he's currently running the country.

you do know who profited from this right??? Hint: he's currently running the country.

 

Bush isnt profiting. but leave it to you to make it about him. let it be known that basically all our goverment has screwed us over on the gas situation, dems included Camille. So dont go all high and mighty bush blaming when its more then his fault.

I think Bush owes me 55 bucks, HMPH!!!! *stamps foot*

 

 

 

 

Seriously, though, I think he does. And he certainly isn't HELPING. No one is. Then again those big shot political people all get driven around in shiny limos, don't they. Not beat up Jeeps that eat billions of gallons of overly priced fuel per day. BLah!

I think Bush owes me 55 bucks, HMPH!!!! *stamps foot*

 

 

 

 

Seriously, though, I think he does. And he certainly isn't HELPING. No one is. Then again those big shot political people all get driven around in shiny limos, don't they. Not beat up Jeeps that eat billions of gallons of overly priced fuel per day. BLah!

 

lol teh goverment owes you that money, they screwed you and all of us over with the prices.

 

This problem goes beyond republican or democrat lines. both parties are at fault for this. its time we look past petty politics for this issue.

I agree with that, it's something I think we should do with a lot of issues (damn this two party system!), but that's off topic... ;)

 

 

Every political party has had their faults with the economy and their shining stars. But now that I'm working, driving and paying for my own stuff... I just care a little bit more about THIS economy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm confused, how did we get to talking about the economy? I just realized how random this conversation (BUT GOOD) is....??

dont know, but its a good debate right now.

Dude....

 

 

 

 

 

Have you been to the pumps lately?

 

 

 

I just put 55 dollars of my own hard earned money into my Jeep... Probably will last me to tomorrow. I don't know who's fault this is, but what the hell, seriously.

 

I know how you feel, I drive a mustang.

I still think we should drill in Alaska. I don't see why the environmentalists are bitching...we run a pipe over the land, and couple of drill sites. No big deal. It's not like we're gunna slaughter all the baby elk that get in our way...

 

And I heard something bout drilling somewhere out West, like Colorado or something? I can't remember which state, but, there's a bunch of oil there that we could use to run the country, and there would be enough to put gas prices down to $.25 a gallon. But the thing is, oil is probably the most major thing we rely on the world for now. If we were to stop this trade with other countries, the world economy would drop severly.

 

I dunno, I just heard that somewhere today...

Bush isnt profiting. but leave it to you to make it about him. let it be known that basically all our goverment has screwed us over on the gas situation' date=' dems included Camille. So dont go all high and mighty bush blaming when its more then his fault.[/quote']

 

 

:lol: you're funny!!

 

 

he is too.. but I agree.. this isn't about a bi-partisanship jargon... its about us finding our own resources for oil!!

 

AND I never said this was his fault.. I just stated that he's one of the ones profiting.. he has investments in oil.. he's a Texan! :P the only difference is he can't hold those holdings whilst in office.. ;)

 

but for the record.. yes, we do need to do something about this gas shite.... I paid $30 bucks for 1/2 a tank of gas the other day!!!! :stunned:

But here in america we have it better then many other nations. japan and alot of europe are paying more for gas then us.

 

tell me about it!!! we're at some of our most expensive petrol levels ever, and have some of the most expensive petrol in the world. its likely to go higher as well http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4941262.stm

 

and poor BP only made £3bn of profit last year, which was 4% down on the previous year. boo hoo!

 

Interesting article on "Oil & Conflict"

Oh good! today we reached our highest petrol price ever. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4950680.stm

Ahhhhh, Where Is Everybody???

dude we have hardly any oil left, for one i am glad the gas prices are so high, major gouging or not, i think its time people wake up and see that, it is running out, and if it runs our or not in our lifetime is irrellivent. It WILL run out soon, and what are we going to do just leave our next generation with their thumbs up their asses thinking "oh shit"

 

 

and to mr cool. dude brought the economy back? what are you talkign about man? we are in the lowest deficte EVER! how is that bringing the economy back?? i mean just about everything has a loophole for failure in it, guest worker programs, no child left behind, the WHOLE katrina catastrophe, iraq, everything. Rumsfeld is a blundering fool and he needs to step down immediately, but of course in the words of our brilliant president Mr. Bush "I listen, i hear the voices, but that doesnt matter, I'm the decider...." well said mr president, well said. I just get so sick of people bashing clinton for doing a good job when people look upon bush as the worst president in history (new time magazine), even going so far as to compare him to adolph hitler. its just frustrating, clinton does a good job and people try to compare him to bush?? jeez, if clinton ran again i would vote for him

dude we have hardly any oil left, for one i am glad the gas prices are so high, major gouging or not, i think its time people wake up and see that, it is running out, and if it runs our or not in our lifetime is irrellivent. It WILL run out soon, and what are we going to do just leave our next generation with their thumbs up their asses thinking "oh shit"

 

 

and to mr cool. dude brought the economy back? what are you talkign about man? we are in the lowest deficte EVER! how is that bringing the economy back?? i mean just about everything has a loophole for failure in it, guest worker programs, no child left behind, the WHOLE katrina catastrophe, iraq, everything. Rumsfeld is a blundering fool and he needs to step down immediately, but of course in the words of our brilliant president Mr. Bush "I listen, i hear the voices, but that doesnt matter, I'm the decider...." well said mr president, well said. I just get so sick of people bashing clinton for doing a good job when people look upon bush as the worst president in history (new time magazine), even going so far as to compare him to adolph hitler. its just frustrating, clinton does a good job and people try to compare him to bush?? jeez, if clinton ran again i would vote for him

 

Haha, nice joke! Got anymore?