|
Maybe there's a quote or two in here you can use:
Thanks for your recent message expressing concerns about the Bush Administration's repeated claims about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the existence of which was used as the primary justification for the U.S.-led invasion. I appreciate hearing from you on this critical issue.
I have no doubt that the Bush Administration hyped, manipulated, and misrepresented the intelligence regarding the threat posed by Iraq's previously known weapons of mass destruction programs and stockpiles.
While Iraq had active weapons programs in the 1980s-early 1990s (some of the precursor materials were even provided by the United States), United Nations inspectors had virtually dismantled the programs by 1998. The inspectors were forced out later that year when President Clinton conducted a short bombing campaign against Iraq. However, when the inspectors returned late last year, they were unable to find any evidence that the programs had resumed since 1998. As you know, the Bush Administration cut short the U.N. inspections and launched the war.
It is clear that the President and his advisors stated as fact what intelligence showed was only one possibility or interpretation. The Administration chose to highlight intelligence that appeared to justify their cause while ignoring or burying evidence that contradicted their thesis. When faced with conflicting facts, the Administration always chose to acknowledge only those that supported their worldview. The Administration did the same with the supposed cooperation between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. What is not clear is the extent to which the original intelligence was reliable or credible.
Even before I voted against the resolution authorizing the invasion of Iraq, which Congress approved in October 2002, there was plenty of evidence the Administration was misrepresenting the danger posed by Iraq. For example, even if Iraq had active chemical, biological, or nuclear programs, Iraq did not have a delivery system capable of threatening the United States. Iraq's missiles could barely hit its immediate neighbors. Regrettably, the majority of my colleagues chose to ignore the shortfalls in the Administration's arguments and voted to authorize the first ever preventive war.
Some of the Administration's claims fell apart before the war even started. United Nations weapons inspectors testified before the U.N. Security Council that the charge that Iraq attempted to buy uranium for nuclear weapons from the African country of Niger was based on crudely forged documents and was false. The head of the U.N. inspections team also testified that the uranium tubes purchased by Iraq were not suitable for the centrifuges necessary to develop nuclear weapons. Both of these pieces of "evidence" were cited by President Bush in his State of the Union address as justification for going to war.
To date, no chemical, biological or nuclear weapons have been found in post-war Iraq. There is still a chance that weapons stockpiles will be found. But, even if they are, it has become even clearer that the weapons did not pose an imminent threat to U.S. national security.
I would certainly support a truly independent investigation into U.S. intelligence on Iraq and the use of the intelligence by the Bush Administration. The reality is, however, that such an investigation would require enactment of a law, which is unlikely given Republican control of the House, Senate, and White House. In addition, even independent investigations can have hurdles placed in their way that make them virtually useless. For example, the independent investigation into the federal government failures leading up to the September 11, 2001, attacks has accomplished very little. By contrast, the Joint House-Senate Intelligence Committee Investigation into the September 11, 2001, attacks uncovered several important holes in the government's ability to prevent terrorism. Unfortunately, the Bush Administration has blocked the release of the Committee's final report for months on supposed national security grounds.
As you may know, both the House and Senate Intelligence Committees have announced investigations into the U.S. intelligence on Iraq and the Administration's use of the intelligence. The Committees are currently reviewing thousands of documents provided by U.S. intelligence agencies. The Senate Chairman has issued an open call to intelligence analysts who feel their work was misrepresented or politicized to contact the Committee. The Senate hearings began the week of June 16, 2003. The House hearings are expected to begin around the same time. At least initially, the hearings will be classified, but the Senate has indicated a willingness to hold public hearings in the future and issue a final report with its conclusions. I will do all I can to push these committees to conduct vigorous investigations that follow the evidence no matter where it leads. Oregon Senator Ron Wyden is on the Senate Intelligence Committee, so you may also want to contact him to express your concerns.
Thanks again for writing. Please keep in touch.
Rep. Peter DeFazio
Fourth District, OREGON
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
