by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright June 16, 2004
All Rights Reserved.

hrowing cold water on another White House excuse for war with Iraq, the Sept. 11 commission concluded that “no credible evidence” exists between Iraq and 9/11. Before hitting Baghdad with Cruise Missiles on March 20, 2003, the administration insisted Saddam's arsenal of weapons of mass destruction threatened U.S. national security. First, Saddam was dangerously close to producing A-bombs. Then, when U.N. inspectors dashed that theory, the White House insisted Saddam possessed mobile germ laboratories, mysteriously disguised in trucks. When the U.S. military disproved that fantasy, the White House switched gears, justifying the war to stop Saddam's “rape rooms” and “torture chambers.” When that didn't fly, they talked about “liberating Iraq” and “transforming the Middle East.” Today, the U.S. finds itself in quicksand, fighting an unwinable guerrilla war.

      Vice President Dick Cheney continues to insist that Saddam had close ties with Osama bin Laden. Iraq had “long-established ties with Al-Qaeda,” said Cheney, opining, as he did last fall, that Sept. 11 ringleader Mohamed Atta met in Prague, Czech Republic with an Iraqi intelligence official sometime in Spring 2001. Despite CIA doubts, Cheney still asserts forcefully that the meeting took place. Now that the commission refutes Cheney's explanation, it's accused of partisan shenanigans. Presumptive Democratic nominee Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) blasted the White House for stretching the truth. “They did not tell the truth to Americans about what was happening or their own intentions,” said Kerry, blaming the White House for misleading the public about its case for war. With the public now doubting Bush's Iraq policy, administration officials are closing ranks.

      Blowing more smoke, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell gave plausible deniability to Cheney's recent remarks about the relationship between Saddam and Bin Laden. “I think we have said, and it is clear, that there is a connection, and we have seen these connections between Al Qaeda and the regime of Saddam Hussein and we stick with that,” speaking gibberish about some mythical relationship. Using the word “connection” suggests some type of relationship but doesn't imply anything real. There's a more real relationship between the planets and human behavior—called astrology—than Al Qaeda and Saddam. “We have not said it was related to Sept. 11,” said Powell, giving his disclaimer. But with Bush and Cheney insisting on vague connections, it perpetuates the public's misperception. If Saddam wasn't involved in 9/11, why detour the war on terror to Iraq?

      Powell's prewar reputation as a straight shooter has gone by the boards. His persuasive Feb. 6, 2003 speech to the U.N. Security Council documenting Saddam's mobile germ labs was based on fraudulent intelligence supplied by now discredited Iraqi exile and CIA contact Ahmad Chalabi. Powell knew at the time—together with Cheney and everyone else at the Pentagon—that Chalabi's intel was concocted for the single-minded purpose of waging war. Cheney and Powell's ongoing dissembling reflects a desperate attempt to keep public opinion from deteriorating. Recent polls finally show that the American people are wising up but opinions fall largely on partisan lines. Dredging up the fraudulent basis for war, the Sept. 11 commission makes no reference to ongoing casualties in Iraq. Debating the merits of going to war doesn't stop the bloodshed or give a viable exit strategy.

      Damage control from Cheney's office now centers on nebulous reports about Saddam giving aid and comfort to the enemy. After all, the Bush Doctrine said that supporting terrorists was tantamount to committing the acts. Yet the White House turns a blind eye to Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia, currently supporting, funding, arming and giving safe havens to terrorists fighting U.S. occupation. “Credible information indicates that Iraq and Al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal non-aggression,” says a Oct. 7, 2003 CIA letter, marshaled by Cheney as proof of collaboration. Who knows whether it's the same “credible” information, now discredited, that “corroborated” Saddam's mobile germ labs. According to the commission, that CIA letter was based on 1994 meeting between Iraq and Al Qaeda, when Bin Laden was exiled in Sudan. He never went to Iraq and wound up in Afghanistan.

      Whatever “connection” existed between Saddam and Bin Laden wasn't significant—certainly not linked to Sept. 11. Looming more excuses for war doesn't undo current policies leaving 140,000 U.S. troops in harms' way. Regardless of the original rationale, a bipartisan group of 26 retired diplomats and military commanders called for Bush's defeat in November, citing egregious harm to U.S. foreign policy and national security. Whether partisan or not, the U.S. faces a nightmare in Iraq. “We were totally unprepared for the combat occupation. So we see here unfolding before us a total disaster,” said retired Air Force chief of staff Gen. Merrill A. “Tony” McPeak, concerned about the ongoing loss of Americans lives and drain on the federal treasury. Instead concocting more stories, the White House should admit its mistakes, and, more importantly, take steps to correct them.

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2002 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.