A New Look at an Old Letter
March 18, 2003
Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)
Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
Sincerely,
GEORGE W. BUSH
This is the text of the letter sent by Dubbyuh to Congress on the eve of the invasion of Iraq. It is important to review this in light of the new informatuion which has surfaced in the form of the
Downing Street Minutes and other documents.
With regards to paragraph 1, the
Downing Street Minutes clearly state that:
Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.
Saddam was, in essence, no threat to his neighbors, let alone the US or the UK. Furthermore, Peter Rricketts stated that the pace of Saddam's weapons programs was not changed nor, according to the
2002 IAEA Fact Sheet on Iraq's nuclear weapons program.
There were no indications that there remains in Iraq any physical capability for the production of amounts of weapons-usable nuclear material of any practical significance.
In other words, there would have been no smoking gun in the form of a "mushroom cloud" as Condi Rice was so fond of stating. And, as we now know, there were no weapons of mass destruction to be found in Iraq.
As for Paragraph 2, using Public Law 107-243 to justify military action against Iraq is probelmatic in and of itself. Especialy since several of the premises it is based on are unfounded. First and foremost being that Saddam's regime was a supporter of Al Qaeda, and thus partly responsible for the attacks on 9/11. No credible evidence of any such connection has been produced. Other terrorist organizations, which may have had dealings with Saddam, seems to be
greatly exaggerated. Saddam did support Abu Nidal in the early eighties. The last act of anti-American terroism that can be linked to Saddam was in 1993. After that there was no act of international terrorism that could be directly linked to Iraq. While there are those who contend that Iraq provided substantial support to Hamas and other Palestinian terrorists, far greater support came from Saudi Arabia and other Arab nations supported by the US government.
There is little to directly support the contentions in this letter that support military action against Iraq. The Bush administration was intent on the removal of Saddam Hussein from the beginings of the first Bush administration. 9/11 was merely the lever the Administration used to move Congress to give the president the authority to invade Iraq, and the ceding of that Congressional authority to the President is problematic in and of itself.
And as for the UN resolutions regarding Iraq, it is clear from the Downing Street Minutes that the Bush administration had already decided the UN was to be circumvented. The goal was to try to use the UN a tool to justify war with Iraq rather than an instrument of peace.
The NSC had no patience with the UN route...
