Authorization to Use Misleading Falsehoods

On this sad 5th anniversary of the war in Iraq it is time to come clean, time to set the record straight and time to unify in our heartfelt deep opposition to this war. Unintended collateral damage is an inevitable consequence of war. Sometimes innocents are destroyed. That is just the nature of it all. But today I want to redeem one particular innocent that has been riddled with more bullets and blown up with more bombs than anyone I can think of in recent history. The person I speak of is a brave soul, a smart person that has fought a lifetime to bring the hope of a better life to all Americans. The person I am here to redeem today is Hillary Clinton.

Much has been made about the failure to find any Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. As this was the whole purpose of the war to begin with I find it necessary to examine the facts of the times as they existed on the ground prior to the invasion. The most overlooked fact of all of this is why we thought that Iraq had WMDs. Well the answer to that is both simple and complicated. First the simple:

After the Iranian takeover of our Embassy in 1979 the United States started looking for an ally in the region to help stem the tide of Islamic fundamentalism. The person that offered to halt this was Saddam Hussein of Iraq. Prior to our “relationship” with Iraq it had been placed upon the list of countries providing support for State Sponsored Terrorism. But we needed an ally and we needed someone ruthless. And Hussein fit both of those requirements.

Thus: The Ties That Blind

In 1982, the Reagan administration removed Iraq from the State Department’s list of countries that allegedly supported terrorism. On December 19-20, 1983, Reagan dispatched his Middle East envoy–none other than Donald Rumsfeld–to Baghdad with a hand-written offer of a resumption of diplomatic relations, which had been severed during the 1967 Arab-Israel war. On March 24, 1984, Rumsfeld was again in Baghdad.
On that same day, the UPI wire service reported from the UN: “Mustard gas laced with a nerve agent has been used on Iranian soldiers … a team of UN experts has concluded … Meanwhile, in the Iraqi capital of Baghdad, US presidential envoy Donald Rumsfeld held talks with foreign minister Tariq Aziz.”

The day before, Iran had accused Iraq of poisoning 600 of its soldiers with mustard gas and Tabun nerve gas.

So it is quite evident that Hussein had WMDs as recently as 1984. But it gets much worse.

Conventional military sales resumed in December 1982. In 1983, the Reagan administration approved the sale of 60 Hughes helicopters to Iraq in 1983 “for civilian use”. However, as Phythian pointed out, these aircraft could be “weaponised” within hours of delivery. Then US Secretary of State George Schultz and commerce secretary George Baldridge also lobbied for the delivery of Bell helicopters equipped for “crop spraying”. It is believed that US-supplied choppers were used in the 1988 chemical attack on the Kurdish village of Halabja, which killed 5000 people.

A 1994 US Senate report revealed that US companies were licensed by the commerce department to export a “witch’s brew” of biological and chemical materials, including bacillus anthracis (which causes anthrax) and clostridium botulinum (the source of botulism). The American Type Culture Collection made 70 shipments of the anthrax bug and other pathogenic agents.

The report also noted that US exports to Iraq included the precursors to chemical warfare agents, plans for chemical and biological warfare facilities and chemical warhead filling equipment. US firms supplied advanced and specialized computers, lasers, testing and analyzing equipment. Among the better-known companies were Hewlett Packard, Unisys, Data General and Honeywell.

So we have undisputed evidence that Hussein not only had WMDs, the main reason we knew he had them was because we SOLD them to him. But the evidence is much worse than this:

Billions of dollars worth of raw materials, machinery and equipment, missile technology and other “dual-use” items were also supplied by West German, French, Italian, British, Swiss and Austrian corporations, with the approval of their governments (German firms even sold Iraq entire factories capable of mass-producing poison gas). Much of this was purchased with funds freed by the US CCC credits.

And then on March 16th, 1988 the Kurdish village of Halabja was bombed with poison gas killing approximately 5000 Kurds. If we had any doubt whatsoever that Hussein had weapons and was willing to use them this all became very clear on this horrible day. But even this atrocity did not stop our support for this madman.

Just four months later, Washington stood by as the US giant Bechtel corporation won the contract to build a huge petrochemical plant that would give the Hussein regime the capacity to generate chemical weapons.

US policy with Iraq did not change much for a few years. But when Hussein invaded Kuwait the US under the leadership of George H.W. Bush repelled his advance and ended the war under the condition that Hussein fully disarm and be subject to rigorous inspections. The inspections began and after several starts and stops they proceeded to do their job. But then a few things occurred that changed the course of the inspections program and set the stage for another confrontation with Iraq.

Iraq weapons inspections

8 February 1991: Gulf War ends, leaving Iraq subject to UN sanctions and arms inspections.

29 October 1997: Iraq bars US weapons inspectors, provoking a diplomatic crisis which is defused with a Russian-brokered compromise.

16 December 1998: The UN orders weapons inspectors out of the country after Unscom chief Richard Butler issued a report saying the Iraqis were still refusing to co-operate. US air strikes on Iraq begin hours later.

With the inspectors out of Iraq and no hope of resuming anything soon the sanctions continued. The Oil for Food program introduced in 1995 by the Clinton Administration and accepted by the United Nations brought humanitarian aid.

Oil For Food Program

Until 2001, the money for the Oil-for-Food Programme transited through the BNP Paribas bank, whose main private share-holder is Iraqi-born Nadhmi Auchi, a man estimated to be worth about $1 billion according to Forbes, and ranks 13th in Britain according to The Guardian. Auchi received a 15-month suspended sentence for his involvement in the Elf scandal, which has been qualified by the British newspaper as “the biggest fraud inquiry in Europe since the Second World War. Elf became a private bank for its executives who spent £200 million on political favours, mistresses, jewellery, fine art, villas and apartments”.[6] Elf, an oil company, merged with TotalFina to become Total S.A. in 2003.

Nadhmi Auchi is of course the billionaire with deep ties to Tony Rezko, the jailed political fixer and major fundraiser and contributor to Barack Obama.

On September 11th, 2001 our country was attacked by a band of terrorists that managed to kill over 3000 innocent people. The worst of these attacks occurred in New York City represented by Senator Hillary Clinton. Despite our loses or because of them, our country united. Our President declared War on Terrorism
and declared that the United States would seek out these terrorists wherever they were. And that nations that offered safe harbor to terrorists were put on notice that they would be held to account as well. At first we mobilized our forces and with the help of NATO we disrupted the Taliban that had an iron grip
on Afghanistan and had allowed Osama bin Laden to operate his terrorist training cells there. The world supported our efforts. Even former enemies such as Iran and Syria provided very important strategic information. It seemed as if the world had come together for a united purpose.

But then our Commander in Chief started making rumblings about Iraq. He rightfully was concerned that the terrorists that had declared war on us might be able to get their hands on the WMDs that our intelligence claimed Hussein had. And he seemed hell bent on forcing Hussein to let the inspectors back into Iraq to
complete their job. Using a tried and true strategy that painted Democrats as weak on national security, the Bush team managed to gain enough support for their idea to have it brought before Congress. While there was very little support for a war with Iraq nearly all agreed that it would be wise to have the inspectors on the ground to assure that the WMDs we were so convinced Hussein had could be accounted for and destroyed. And not wanting to give Hussein any wiggle room Bush decided that if an inspection regime was going to work it had to be backed up with the threat of the use of force.

Congress began to hold hearings and on July 31, 2002, Richard Butler, the former head of the UN Iraq inspections team told a US Senate Committee that Iraq had stepped up production of chemical and biological weapons after the inspections ceased and might even be working on a nuclear bomb. Then on September 12th George Bush addressed the United Nations General Assembly and warned Iraq that if it did not comply with the UN Resolutions requiring inspection that military conflict may be unavoidable. On September 28th Iraq rejected a proposal to begin inspections with very strict rules. And on October 1st Hans Blix reached an agreement with Iraq to allow inspectors back into the country but without the strict rules to make certain of their compliance. This was rejected out of hand by Colin Powell and the stage was set for a real confrontation.

On October 11th, 2002 the US Senate took up the AUMF on Iraq bill. A lone Senator came to the floor to deliver the most thoughtful and stirring speech about this monumental event. Addressing her colleagues and the American people she said:

Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament, and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular democratic state in the Middle East, one which could perhaps move the entire region toward democratic reform.

This view has appeal to some, because it would assure disarmament; because it would right old wrongs after our abandonment of the Shiites and Kurds in 1991, and our support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980’s when he was using chemical weapons and terrorizing his people; and because it would give the Iraqi people a chance to build a future in freedom.

However, this course is fraught with danger. We and our NATO allies did not depose Mr. Milosevic, who was responsible for more than a quarter of a million people being killed in the 1990s. Instead, by stopping his aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, and keeping on the tough sanctions, we created the conditions in which his own people threw him out and led to his being in the dock being tried for war crimes as we speak.

If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a preemptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?

So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option.

Most notable is the stark warning that the adventure sought by some is rife with serious consequences.

Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.

Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go way with delay will oppose any UN resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.

This is a very difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make — any vote that may lead to war should be hard — but I cast it with conviction.

My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of preemption, or for unilateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose — all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world.

As she makes very clear, she thought that the resolution before the Senate was not as strong as she would like it to have been. But she felt that the purpose of getting the inspectors back into Iraq was important enough to risk taking the President at his word that he would do as he said he would do publicly and what he assured her he would do privately. And why not? Democrats and Republicans rallied around our President when he responded to the horrible attack on 9/11. We were proud of him. Proud of his leadership and his resolve. So while some of those of the fringe right were asking for preemption our President assured Congress and the rest of our country that he would not take that measure except as a matter of last resort, when all other avenues had been exhausted. But Hillary didn’t intend to give Bush free reign. She took her responsibility as a U.S. Senator seriously and she and Robert Byrd crafted an amendment to the authorization bill limiting it’s effect to one year. The amendment however failed. But what is clear is that Hillary was NOT voting for war. She WAS voting to authorize the threat of use of force to get Hussein to comply with the UN Resolutions that required inspections, conditions which had brought an end to the previous war.

This is the point of history that the “progressives” refer to as Hillary voting for the war. But there is no evidence that this claim is true. In fact the record is quite clear what Hillary voted for and why. But let us not take her word for it. Let us bring in someone else that played a major role in this who offers another point of view that may clarify things.

Hans Blix is generally recognized as a man of impeccable credentials and integrity. He was a witness to all that took place running up to the war and therefore is a credible witness to explain it in an unbiased fashion. He is not an American citizen and has nothing to gain or lose by telling the truth. In Blix’s book Disarming Iraq he describes this tense moment here in the United States. Blix believed strongly as did bush that the inspectors needed unfettered access to all locations they suspected of harboring WMDs. And he understood all too well that unless there was some sort of consequence for inaction Iraq would continue it’s “cat and mouse” game that it had played for over a decade.

Let’s have a look:

The October 2002 AUMF Iraq Resolution and November 2002 UN Resolution Against Iraq

Without a military buildup by the U.S. in the summer of 2002, Iraq would probably have not accepted a resumption of inspections. Pages 11-12

Some said that the U.S. was only feigning interest in the UN and that its war plans were already made. Others said that the draft resolution was moving forward. I did not see that increasing military pressure and readiness for armed action necessarily excluded a desire for a peaceful solution. If that was what the U.S. wanted, strong inspections would be needed.

I walked over to the hotel from the UN and met Colin Powell alone for half an hour. He said that the U.S. was serious about wanting a solution without armed force and impressed on me how important it now was to beef up our inspection plans and machinery. The U.S. would help us in any way it could. Page 84

On November 8, the Security Council adopted Resolution 1441 by unanimous vote, the Syrian delegation having received last-minute authorization to vote in favor. The text declared in no uncertain terms that although Iraq was in breach of earlier resolutions it was being given one last opportunity. Iraq was requested to provide immediate, unconditional and active cooperation to the inspectors. Any further “material breach” would lead the Council “to consider the situation and the need for compliance” - diplomatic language for possible armed action. Pages 89-90

So Hans Blix agrees with Hillary that the threat of force was necessary to force Hussein to comply with unfettered inspections. I wonder who else might have agreed with her? As it turns out, someone you probably wouldn’t have guessed came to the defense of the same position Hillary took even though he voted a different way. Guessed yet? I’ll give you a clue: Teddy Kennedy.

Yes, on a March 21st, 2004 Teddy Kennedy was a guest on Meet the Press and this is what he had to say:

Meet the Press

Back in 2002, your tone towards the president and the war was much different. Let me show you.

“In this serious time for America and many American families, no one should poison the public square by attacking the patriotism of opponents, or by assailing proponents as more interested in the cause of politics than in the merits of their cause. I reject this, as should we all. Let me say it plainly, I not only concede, but I am convinced that President Bush believes genuinely in the course he urges upon us. …There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein’s regime is a serious danger, that he is [a] tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated.”

   SEN. KENNEDY: Look, he has explained his position. If John Kerry had been president of the United States with that vote, we never, I don’t believe, gone to war, certainly not at that time. He would have worked through the inspection system. He would have worked through the international kinds of system, and I don’t personally believe that we would have gone to war. I think he was…

   MR. RUSSERT: His vote was a mistake?

   SEN. KENNEDY: His think–no. I think he was thinking about what he would want if he was president of the United States, and I think he would have probably wanted that power.

That’s right. Your eyes don’t deceive you. Teddy Kennedy supported the same position that Hillary took. He really did. But what of the infamous Levin Amendment that Hillary did not vote for? It seems she has another impeccable ally in that vote as well. No one less than Russ Feingold. Tell me you know of a more
principled anti-war Senator. But what was it that Hillary said at the time? Let’s have a look see:

War Opponents Dispute Clinton’s Account Of Levin Amendment

“I have the greatest respect for my friend and colleague, Senator Levin,” she said. “The way that amendment was drafted suggested that the United States would subordinate whatever our judgment might be going forward to the United Nations Security Council. I don’t think that was a good precedent. Therefore, I voted against it.”

Sounds reasonable. So what did Senator Feingold have to add that would lend credence to Hillary’s position?

“Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to briefly comment on Senator Levin’s alternative proposal relating to Iraq. Some of my colleagues for whom I have tremendous respect have tried to address the fact that the administration’s proposal is simply not good enough by emphasizing the desirability of a United Nations resolution, thus transforming this dangerous unilateral proposal into an internationally sanctioned multilateral mission. But while I recognize that international support is a crucial ingredient in any recipe for addressing the weapons of mass destruction threat in Iraq without undercutting the fight against terrorism, I will not and cannot support any effort to give the United Nations Security Council Congress’s proxy in deciding whether or not to send American men and women into combat in Iraq. No Security Council vote can answer my questions about plans for securing WMD or American responsibilities in the wake of an invasion of Iraq. It is for this reason that I must oppose the proposal of the distinguished Senator from Michigan.”

[Congressional Record, S10257-58, 10/10/02]

And other Senators that voted against the Levin amendment include Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT), Sen. John Edwards (D-NC), Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL), and Sen. John Kerry (D-MA). Pretty good company if you ask me.

So why is it you might ask that Hillary has been so demonized for this war? She didn’t start it. In fact the record is very clear that she worked hard to ensure that the purpose of the Authorization was used as a leverage to bring about inspections and to end the crisis in Iraq. Do the people that hate her for this vote actually believe that the Bush we all now know believes for a second that he needs Congressional approval to do anything? Aren’t his signing statements alone enough to convince everyone that he has no regard whatsoever for the separation of powers that our founders intended? Where is the evidence to back up the claims of these “progressives” that Hillary was voting for a war? Are we to take them at their word that they believe it is because she is a hawk liar and would do or say anything to further her political goals?

Wouldn’t it make more sense that if that is what Hillary was trying to do she would have voted against this authorization? No, when you look at these claims that attempt to demonize Hillary you see that they are not based in fact by any means. They are an orchestrated scheme to distort and smear her by repeating and emphasizing these lies until they take on a life of their own. Pretty much exactly what the right wing Republicans did to her in the 1990s. And I want to say that under the circumstances I think she made the right decision. She did what she thought best for our country. Bush is the one that ignored the authorization that Congress gave him, threw out the inspectors and started a war. So I am going to rest my case for Hillary by citing some of the things she has done since taking this important and fateful vote.

In 2004 Hillary was asked by the Department of Defense to serve as the only Senate member of the Transformation Advisory Group to the Joint Forces Command. The military wanted her on that committee - she was the only Senator invited to serve on this committee tasked with reforming the Pentagon.

Sometimes It’s Not About You Barack

On September 6, 2006 Hillary took to the floor of the Senate and demanded that Defense Secretary Rumsfeld resign.

Senator Clinton Reiterates Call for Secretary Rumsfeld to Resign

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton today made remarks on the Senate floor underscoring her support for a Senate resolution expressing “no confidence” in Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s stewardship of the Department of Defense.

…. this Congress has abdicated its constitutional responsibility to conduct oversight and hold the administration accountable for the decisions which it has made over the course of the last five years.

On July 10th 2007, Hillary took the lead and joined with Robert Byrd in calling for an end to the authorization of force.

Congress must end U.S. role in a civil war nobody voted for

That is why we propose to end the authorization for the war in Iraq. The civil war we have on our hands in Iraq is not our fight and it is not the fight Congress authorized. Iraq is at war with itself and American troops are caught in the middle.

Prior to the vote on the original authorization of force in 2002, we worked to limit that authority to one year. Unfortunately, the amendment failed — a fact rendered all the more distressing in hindsight.

In July 2007 Hillary faces down the Pentagon on their refusal to brief her on withdrawal plans

Pentagon Aide Says Clinton Helps Enemy

A Pentagon official has told Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton that questions she has raised about how the United States would withdraw from Iraq feed enemy propaganda.

Hillary is a STRONG advocate for our veterans.

Hillary Clinton has done much for military, veterans

Since she joined the Armed Service Committee, Clinton’s unsurpassed support of our military and veterans resulted in the American Legion naming her the “unsung hero” of the 108th Congress. Efforts on behalf of the military date to her first lady position, when she brought attention to Gulf War
Syndrome.

Achievements include support for the disabled, funds for VA hospitals and defeating attempts to increase drug co-payments. With Lindsey Graham, she expanded health care for National Guard and reservists.

Her “Heroes at Home” legislation provides families of soldiers with traumatic brain injury training to assist loved ones, enhance detection, assessment and treatment and expand support systems.

Her efforts increased survivor benefits $12,000 to $100,000. She helped create the Purple Heart stamp, honoring our outstanding military. The Gold Star Parents Annuity Act provides stipends to parents of soldiers who are killed. Other legislation enables families with soldiers in a combat zone or hospitalized because of wounds the means to receive free postage on some mail.

Proposed are micro-loans for small business start-ups, expanded home ownership opportunities, protection against predatory lenders, scholarships, guaranteed funding for health care to eliminate annual budget fights and pay raises to stop some troops’ reliance on food stamps.

On September 11, 2007 Hillary called out General Petraeus to the shock and delight of many.

Hillary to Patraeus

Despite what I view as your rather extraordinary efforts in your testimony both yesterday and today, I think that the reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief.

Noting Senator Clinton’s leadership, Senator Carl Levin (D-MI), Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, today noted that Senator Clinton has introduced more legislation to address the problems facing wounded servicemembers than any other Senator.

Wounded Warriors Act

Hillary has promised to begin withdrawing from Iraq within the first 60 days of her taking office. She offerers a detailed and comprehensive plan for withdrawal that is outlined below.

Ending the War in Iraq

Starting Phased Redeployment within Hillary’s First Days in Office: The most important part of Hillary’s plan is the first: to end our military engagement in Iraq’s civil war and immediately start bringing our troops home. As president, one of Hillary’s first official actions would be to convene the Joint Chiefs of Staff, her Secretary of Defense, and her National Security Council. She would direct them to draw up a clear, viable plan to bring our troops home starting with the first 60 days of her Administration. She would also direct the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs to prepare a comprehensive plan to provide the highest quality health care and benefits to every service member — including every member of the National Guard and Reserves — and their families.

Securing Stability in Iraq as we Bring our Troops Home. As president, Hillary would focus American aid efforts during our redeployment on stabilizing Iraq, not propping up the Iraqi government. She would direct aid to the entities — whether governmental or non-governmental — most likely to get it into the hands of the Iraqi people. She would also support the appointment of a high level U.N. representative — similar to those appointed in Afghanistan, Bosnia, and Kosovo — to help broker peace among the parties in Iraq.

A New Intensive Diplomatic Initiative in the Region. In her first days in office, Hillary would convene a regional stabilization group composed of key allies, other global powers, and all of the states bordering Iraq. The- mission of this group would be to develop and implement a strategy to create a stable Iraq. It would have three specific goals:

   * Non-interference. Working with the U.N. representative, the group would work to convince Iraq’s neighbors to refrain from getting involved in the civil war.
    * Mediation. The group would attempt to mediate among the different sectarian groups in Iraq with the goal of attaining compromises on fundamental points of disputes.
    * Reconstruction funding. The members of the group would hold themselves and other countries to their past pledges to provide funding to Iraq and will encourage additional contributions to meet Iraq’s extensive needs.

As our forces redeploy out of Iraq, Hillary would also organize a multi-billion dollar international effort — funded by a wide range of donor states — under the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to address the needs of Iraqi refugees. And as we replace military force with diplomacy and global leadership, Hillary will not lose sight of our very real strategic interests in the region. She would devote the resources we need to fight terrorism and will order specialized units to engage in narrow and targeted operations against al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations in the region.

I don’t know about the rest of you. But I am fully confident in Hillary’s ability to lead our nation in so many ways. And I am proud to say that I would gladly salute her as Commander in Chief even though I am not in any way a part of the military. She has all the qualities of a good leader. She is smart, she cares about all of our citizens, she thinks things out, she isn’t afraid to make a decision and when she makes a mistake she works her tail off to correct it. We can’t ask for anything more than that from anyone. And as to those who continue to spend their time lying about this wonderful American patriot I have a salute for you too. But it only involves one finger.