Dean: Missing WMD: Lies about reasons for war and impeachable offense?

[Dave Farber <dave () farber net>]

------ Forwarded Message
From: "Robert J. Berger" <rberger () ibd com>
Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2003 12:54:22 -0700
To: Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne () warpspeed com>, Dave Farber <dave () farber net>
Subject: Dean: Missing WMD: Lies about reasons for war and impeachable
offense?

Missing Weapons Of Mass Destruction: Is Lying About The Reason For War An
Impeachable Offense?
  By John W. Dean
  FindLaw
  http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20030606.html
  Friday 06 June 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 decision
making 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.


--
Robert J. Berger - Internet Bandwidth Development, LLC.
Voice: 408-882-4755 eFax: +1-408-490-2868
http://www.ibd.com


------ End of Forwarded Message

-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com
To manage your subscription, go to
  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/