Out of Control:
The Buildup Reagan Started in Iraq, Bush Is Determined to Dismantle

By Robert E. Martin

George W. Bush's Administration has never had much use for international agreements. As soon as it took office, it set about ridding itself from those it considered irksome, such as the Kyoto environmental protocol, the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty, and the statue of the International Criminal Court.
 

After the attacks of September 11, 2001, the Geneva Conventions were added to its list of obstacles to be circumvented. The 'war on terror' we have been told incessantly is 'not like other wars'.
And if you look at the track record of G.W. Bush since the September 11th attacks, one can see the way this dynamic has played out.
 

Apart from 73 different instances documented by Congress where the Bush Administration either lied or used misleading information to gain Congressional support for the War in Iraq, the recent revelations by investigative reporter Seymore Hersh that document the policy adopted by Donald Rumsfeld and key members of the Bush war team that set the standard for the atrocities at Abu Ghraib seem to be exceptional in their stupidity and senselessness.
 

In the campaign against terror, the hard men of the Bush Pentagon seem to have concluded - as they did when they opted to proceed alone against Iraq and worldwide opinion - that the standards of the Geneva Convention do not apply in the War Against Terror.
 

And as Pierre Krahenbuhl, director of Operations for the International Committee of the Red Cross told a news conference in Geneva recently, the abuse at Abu Gharaib represented more than isolated acts. "We were dealing here with a broad pattern, not individual acts."
 

And as Hersh has demonstrated, it emanated from the top: from a Secretary of Defense who designated 'unlawful combatants' as a category of people who merit no rights, to a White House counsel who derided the Geneva Conventions for insufficient 'flexibility'; and from a President who in his 2003 State of the Union address seemed to boast of extrajudicial killings ("Let's put it this way," he said of suspected terrorists, "they are no longer a problem."
 

Of course, what is sorely lacking in the Bush Administration is any notion of accountability.  But then nobody in the Bush Administration can do any wrong, therefore why should he ask Rumsfeld to resign even though he lied to Congress and kept information purportedly hidden from his Commander in Chief?
 

The true irony of the War in Iraq is that it was waged absent any proof of Weapons of Mass Destruction, advanced by distorted information, and focused against a tyrannical leader known as Saddam Hussein.
 

But if you look back in your history lessons, America used to like Saddam. We LOVED him.
This week as America mourns the loss of Ronald Reagan, we forget that the United States under the leadership of Ronald Reagan funded Saddam. We armed him. We helped him gas Iranian troops.
   

But then he messed up by invading the dictatorship of Kuwait and in doing so threatened an even BETTER friend of ours: the dictatorship of Saudi Arabia, and its vast oil reserves.
    

But it wasn't always that way. Saddam was our good friend and ally at one time. We supported his regime. We liked him because he was willing to fight the Ayatollah, and President Reagan and the Republican Congress made sure he got billions of dollars to purchase weapons of mass destruction.
    

In the 1980s we encouraged American corporations to do business with Saddam. That's how he got chemical & biological agents so he could use them in chemical & biological weapons.
     

Here's the list of some of the stuff we sent him (according to a 1994 U.S. Senate Report):

* Bacillus Anthracis, cause of anthrax.

* Clostridium Botulinum, a source of botulinum toxin.

*  Histoplasma Capsulatam, cause of a disease attacking lungs, brain, spinal cord, and heart.

* Brucella Melitensis, a bacteria that can damage major organs.
*  Clostridium Perfringens, a highly toxic bacteria causing systemic illness.

And here are some of the American corporations who helped to prop Saddam up  by doing business with him: AT&T, Bechtel, Caterpillar, Dow Chemical, Dupont, Kodak, Hewlett-Packard, and IBM.
 

Later he gassed his own people, the Kurds. You would think that would force us to disassociate ourselves from him. Congress tried to impose economic sanctions on Saddam, but the Reagan White House quickly rejected that idea - they wouldn't let anything derail their good buddy Saddam.
 

Eventually, Saddam wouldn't do what he was told by the U.S., so he had to be caught.
And the rest, as they say, is current history. Bush sent us to war on a lie, the killing is escalating, the Arab world is growing in its hatred towards us, and we are paying for this travesty out of our pockets (and will be doing so for years to come).
 

Nothing has happened in the past 9 months that has made us safer in our post-9/11 world, especially considering that Saddam was never a threat to our national security.
 

And now, as we are poised to celebrate the 4th of July holiday, perhaps we should remember the speech given by Senator Robert Byrd a little over a year ago that was published in these pages at that time.
 

We tend to have short memories in this age of electronic media and the Internet. But his words ring more prophetic today than they did when they were first spoken on the Senate floor at the outset of the War.

 

 

We Stand Passively Mute
 

by US Senator Robert Byrd
Senate Floor Speech
Wednesday 12 February 2003

"To contemplate war is to think about the most horrible of human experiences. On this February day, as this nation stands at the brink of battle, every American on some level must be contemplating the horrors of war.
 

Yet, this Chamber is, for the most part, silent -- ominously, dreadfully silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing.
 

We stand passively mute in the United States Senate, paralyzed by our own uncertainty, seemingly stunned by the sheer turmoil of events. Only on the editorial pages of our newspapers is there much substantive discussion of the prudence or imprudence of engaging in this particular war.
 

And this is no small conflagration we contemplate. This is no simple attempt to defang a villain. No. This coming battle, if it materializes, represents a turning point in U.S. foreign policy and possibly a turning point in the recent history of the world.
 

This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate time. The doctrine of preemption -- the idea that the United States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening but may be threatening in the future -- is a radical new twist on the traditional idea of self defense.
 

It appears to be in contravention of international law and the UN Charter. And it is being tested at a time of world-wide terrorism, making many countries around the globe wonder if they will soon be on our -- or some other nation's -- hit list.
 

High level Administration figures recently refused to take nuclear weapons off of the table when discussing a possible attack against Iraq. What could be more destabilizing and unwise than this type of uncertainty, particularly in a world where globalism has tied the vital economic and security interests of many nations so closely together?
 

There are huge cracks emerging in our time-honored alliances, and U.S. intentions are suddenly subject to damaging worldwide speculation.
 

Anti-Americanism based on mistrust, misinformation, suspicion, and alarming rhetoric from U.S. leaders is fracturing the once solid alliance against global terrorism which existed after September 11.
 

Here at home, people are warned of imminent terrorist attacks with little guidance as to when or where such attacks might occur.

 

Family members are being called to active military duty, with no idea of the duration of their stay or what horrors they may face.
 

Communities are being left with less than adequate police and fire protection. Other essential services are also short-staffed. The mood of the nation is grim. The economy is stumbling. Fuel prices are rising and may soon spike higher.
 

This Administration, now in power for a little over two years, must be judged on its record. I believe that that record is dismal.
 

In that scant two years, this Administration has squandered a large projected surplus of some $5.6 trillion over the next decade and taken us to projected deficits as far as the eye can see.
This Administration's domestic policy has put many of our states in dire financial condition, under funding scores of essential programs for our people.
 

This Administration has fostered policies which have slowed economic growth.    This Administration has ignored urgent matters such as the crisis in health care for our elderly. This Administration has been slow to provide adequate funding for homeland security. This Administration has been reluctant to better protect our long and porous borders.
 

In foreign policy, this Administration has failed to find Osama bin Laden. In fact, just yesterday we heard from him again marshaling his forces and urging them to kill. This Administration has split traditional alliances, possibly crippling, for all time, International order-keeping entities like the United Nations and NATO.
 

This Administration has called into question the traditional worldwide perception of the United States as well-intentioned, peacekeeper.
 

This Administration has turned the patient art of diplomacy into threats, labeling, and name calling of the sort that reflects quite poorly on the intelligence and sensitivity of our leaders, and which will have consequences for years to come.
 

Calling heads of state pygmies, labeling whole countries as evil, denigrating powerful European allies as irrelevant -- these types of crude insensitivities can do our great nation no good.
 

We may have massive military might, but we cannot fight a global war on terrorism alone. We need the cooperation and friendship of our time-honored allies as well as the newer found friends whom we can attract with our wealth.
 

Our awesome military machine will do us little good if we suffer another devastating attack on our homeland which severely damages our economy. Our military manpower is already stretched thin and we will need the augmenting support of those nations who can supply troop strength, not just sign letters cheering us on.
 

The war in Afghanistan has cost us $37 billion (now the figure has doubled) so far, yet there is evidence that terrorism may already be starting to regain its hold in that region. We have not found bin Laden, and unless we secure the peace in Afghanistan, the dark dens of terrorism may yet again flourish in that remote and devastated land.
 

Pakistan as well is at risk of destabilizing forces. This Administration has not finished the first war against terrorism and yet it is eager to embark on another conflict with perils much greater than those in Afghanistan.
 

Is our attention span that short?
 

Have we not learned that after winning the war one must always secure the peace?
And yet we hear little about the aftermath of war in Iraq. In the absence of plans, speculation abroad is rife. Will we seize Iraq's oil fields, becoming an occupying power which controls the price and supply of that nation's oil for the foreseeable future? To whom do we propose to hand the reigns of power after Saddam Hussein?
 

Will our war inflame the Muslim world resulting in devastating attacks on Israel? Will Israel retaliate with its own nuclear arsenal? Will the Jordanian and Saudi Arabian governments be toppled by radicals, bolstered by Iran which has much closer ties to terrorism than Iraq?
 

Could a disruption of the world's oil supply lead to a worldwide recession? Has our senselessly bellicose language and our callous disregard of the interests and opinions of other nations increased the global race to join the nuclear club and made proliferation an even more lucrative practice for nations which need the income?

 

In only the space of two short years this reckless and arrogant Administration has initiated policies which may reap disastrous consequences for years.
 

One can understand the anger and shock of any President after the savage attacks of September 11. One can appreciate the frustration of having only a shadow to chase and an amorphous, fleeting enemy on which it is nearly impossible to exact retribution.
But to turn one's frustration and anger into the kind of extremely destabilizing and dangerous foreign policy debacle that the world is currently witnessing is inexcusable from any Administration charged with the awesome power and responsibility of guiding the destiny of the greatest superpower on the planet.
 

Frankly many of the pronouncements made by this Administration are outrageous. There is no other word.
 

Yet this chamber is hauntingly silent. On what is possibly the eve of horrific infliction of death and destruction on the population of the nation of Iraq -- a population, I might add, of which over 50% is under age 15 -- this chamber is silent.
 

On what is possibly only days before we send thousands of our own citizens to face unimagined horrors of chemical and biological warfare -- this chamber is silent.
 

On the eve of what could possibly be a vicious terrorist attack in retaliation for our attack on Iraq, it is business as usual in the United States Senate.
 

We are truly "sleepwalking through history." In my heart of hearts I pray that this great nation and its good and trusting citizens are not in for a rudest of awakenings.
 

To engage in war is always to pick a wild card. And war must always be a last resort, not a first choice. I truly must question the judgment of any President who can say that a massive unprovoked military attack on a nation which is over 50% children is "in the highest moral traditions of our country".
 

This war is not necessary at this time.
 

Pressure appears to be having a good result in Iraq.
Our mistake was to put ourselves in a corner so quickly. Our challenge is to now find a graceful way out of a box of our own making. Perhaps there is still a way if we allow more time.