The Historical Record: Congress Speaks
President George W. Bush took the U.S. to war in Iraq because he lied about WMD. There was no WMD, never was, Bush knew it and that means that the rationale he advanced for the war was phoney. The whole thing was a neo-con fantasy.
In other words, Bush Lied, People Died.
Sigh.
Let’s take the Wayback Machine and go slowly, shall we?
Back in 1992, the 102nd Congress authorized President George H.W. Bush to use force against Iraq after that country’s invasion of “brother Arab” nation Kuwait. The authorization was Public Law 102-1, the text of which you can find here. The vote for that authorization took place at a time when the Democratic Party controlled both Houses of Congress. The vote totals were as follows:
House of Representatives: 250 Yeas, 183 Nays
Party breakdown: Yeas: 164 Republican, 86 Democrats
Nays: 3 Republicans, 179 Democrats, 1 Ind.
Only 2 members failed to vote
Senate: By Unanimous Consent, passed without amendment
In making that authorization, the Congress found, as part of its rationale, the following:
Whereas, Iraq's conventional, chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs and its demonstrated willingness to use weapons of mass destruction pose a grave threat to world peace;
Make no mistake, the proximate cause of the 1992 authorization to use force was Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait. However, what is interesting and should stand out like a sore thumb to anyone reading the resolution’s text today is how Iraq’s WMD programs were included as a casus belli, and how little excitement or controversy this proposition aroused at the time.
The current President Bush took office in January of 2001. Searching the archives, one finds that President Bush first continued to report to Congress under the aegis of the 1992 resolution. Here is his letter to Congress pursuant to that law, dated April 12, 2001:
Consistent with the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), and as part of my effort to keep the Congress fully informed, I am reporting on the status of efforts to obtain Iraq's compliance with various resolutions adopted by the United Nations Security Council. The last report, consistent with Public Law 102-1, was transmitted on January 19, 2001.
On July 31, 2001, President Bush extended the sanctions which had been placed on Iraq with the following notice going to Congress:
On August 2, 1990, by Executive Order 12722, President Bush declared a national emergency to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States constituted by the actions and policies of the Government of Iraq. By Executive Orders 12722 of August 2, 1990, and 12724 of August 9, 1990, the President imposed trade sanctions on Iraq and blocked Iraqi government assets. Because the Government of Iraq has continued its activities hostile to United States interests in the Middle East, the national emergency declared on August 2, 1990, and the measures adopted on August 2 and August 9, 1990, to deal with that emergency must continue in effect beyond August 2, 2001. Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing the national emergency with respect to Iraq.
This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress
The provisions of the National Emergencies Act, referred to in the President’s note above, make its necessity clear:
Any national emergency declared by the President in accordance with this title, and not otherwise previously terminated, shall terminate on the anniversary of the declaration of that emergency if, within the ninety-day period prior to each anniversary date, the President does not publish in the Federal Register and transmit to the Congress a notice stating that such emergency is to continue in effect after such anniversary.
What this means, of course, is that President Clinton renewed this every year of his eight year presidency and that President Bush continued with that policy given the first opportunity, in April, 2001.
The next major happening were the attacks of 9.11. For what that meant to the President’s world view, specifically as it related to Iraq, please see my earlier post here. But to summarize, the President came to the conclusion that the “containment” policy the sanctions epitomized was no longer tenable.
The aftermath of 9.11 up to the end of the year saw the campaign in Afghanistan. This is also a remarkable period in history that is being forgotten quickly—especially among our friends to the left, who’d really not rather think about a just war led by Bush—but its details are not critical in this narrative.
In the President’s 2002 State of the Union Speech, the President devoted only one passage to Iraq:
Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens -- leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections -- then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world.
This speech generated a lot of coverage, in that it labeled Iraq, Iran and North Korea as a new “Axis of Evil” that intended the United States harm. Looking at the above passage, however, there is nothing even slightly controversial about any of the factual representations made regarding Iraq by President Bush.
Iraq was hostile to the U.S. It fired on our pilots who were enforcing the No-Fly Zone under U.N. order and, as best as we can tell, did engage in a failed assassination plot against the first President Bush. It did support terror in, at the least, the form of cash awards to the families of suicide bombers who struck at civilians. The widespread belief, shared by all parties at this time, as demonstrated by the Congressional resolution noted above if nothing else, was that Iraq was working on WMD capability. It is a absolute undeniable fact that Iraq used WMD to murder Kurds; the image that Bush was referring to specifically is well-known and has proved to be genuine. Iraq also had agreed to inspections, then kicked the inspectors out.
The last sentence is, of course, a judgment arising out of the facts stated. That they represent the actions of a “regime that has something to hide” is, not by any standard I am aware of, unreasonable given the factual predicates. In short, the President was forthright on this issue in early 2002 and he used his judgment, for which he was elected, to draw a conclusion.
By October of 2002, the Congress had again spoken on the issue. In the much-discussed, much-debated run up to the authorization of force vote with regard to Iraqi stonewalling on U.N. weapons inspectors, all parties were heard from. It is simply not possible to argue (though that doesn’t stop people!) that a full debate was not had. You can find the full text of the authorizing resolution here. The final vote tally on the resolution is as follows:
House of Representatives: 296 Yeas, 133 Nays
Party breakdown: Yeas: 215 Republican, 81 Democrats
Nays: 6 Republicans, 126 Democrats, 1 Ind.
Only 3 members failed to vote
Senate: 77-23
Party breakdown: Yeas: 48 Republican, 29 Democrats
Nays: 1 Republican, 21 Democrats, 1 Ind.
Prominent Democrats voting Yea included: Biden, Clinton, Daschle, Dodd, Edwards, Kerry, Feinstein, Harkin, Hollings, Lieberman, Reid and, of course, NS honorary Democrat Chuck Hagel.
The details of this resolution are not discussed by the MSM or the Democrats very often. Read it for yourself and you’ll soon realize why that is. The preamble of the resolution is a list of findings, all of which were commonly accepted truths at the time, though they have become yesterday’s inconvenient truth if one were to go by the DCC’s talking points memos today. Let’s take a closer look at what the vast majority of Congress had to say about the Iraq issue in October of 2002:
Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;
(Wow. Try saying that on Meet the Press these days and they’ll look at you like you’re a nutter.)
Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations';
(Wait a minute!!! What!?! 1998!?! 1998!?! Why, who was President then? But, hey, it doesn’t matter. It probably got rushed through Congress by a secret Jewish Neo-Con Cabal and the White House while Bill wasn’t paying attention.)
Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;
(This little gem is real handy next time a Democrat tells you that Iraq was never a threat to the United States. Lots of Democrats thought so at the time. Man, I just *love* the Congressional Record!)
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people
Whereas members of al Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;
(There’s no connection! There’s no connection!! Er, wait…)
Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;
(There’s that damn 1998 stuff again. But, I suppose, if you want to maintain that regime change was Bush’s invention and only his policy, go right ahead and look like a moron. God knows, I won’t stop you.)
Democrats and left-liberals will trot out the tired canard that this vote wasn’t really a vote and didn’t really mean what it said, but I leave that to you, dear reader, to sort out. From where I’m sitting, it all looks very straight forward and clear. Bush’s judgments were made on the basis of facts for which there was a strong bi-partisan consensus, which reflected the judgment of the previous Democrat administration and which were considered the received wisdom at the time they were made. One can object to this on a number of fronts, but one objection that absolutely cannot be made is, sadly, the one made most often: that Bush lied and pushed a phoney rationale for the war.
The historical facts simply do not support such a contention.
In other words, Bush Lied, People Died.
Sigh.
Let’s take the Wayback Machine and go slowly, shall we?
Back in 1992, the 102nd Congress authorized President George H.W. Bush to use force against Iraq after that country’s invasion of “brother Arab” nation Kuwait. The authorization was Public Law 102-1, the text of which you can find here. The vote for that authorization took place at a time when the Democratic Party controlled both Houses of Congress. The vote totals were as follows:
House of Representatives: 250 Yeas, 183 Nays
Party breakdown: Yeas: 164 Republican, 86 Democrats
Nays: 3 Republicans, 179 Democrats, 1 Ind.
Only 2 members failed to vote
Senate: By Unanimous Consent, passed without amendment
In making that authorization, the Congress found, as part of its rationale, the following:
Whereas, Iraq's conventional, chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs and its demonstrated willingness to use weapons of mass destruction pose a grave threat to world peace;
Make no mistake, the proximate cause of the 1992 authorization to use force was Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait. However, what is interesting and should stand out like a sore thumb to anyone reading the resolution’s text today is how Iraq’s WMD programs were included as a casus belli, and how little excitement or controversy this proposition aroused at the time.
The current President Bush took office in January of 2001. Searching the archives, one finds that President Bush first continued to report to Congress under the aegis of the 1992 resolution. Here is his letter to Congress pursuant to that law, dated April 12, 2001:
Consistent with the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), and as part of my effort to keep the Congress fully informed, I am reporting on the status of efforts to obtain Iraq's compliance with various resolutions adopted by the United Nations Security Council. The last report, consistent with Public Law 102-1, was transmitted on January 19, 2001.
On July 31, 2001, President Bush extended the sanctions which had been placed on Iraq with the following notice going to Congress:
On August 2, 1990, by Executive Order 12722, President Bush declared a national emergency to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States constituted by the actions and policies of the Government of Iraq. By Executive Orders 12722 of August 2, 1990, and 12724 of August 9, 1990, the President imposed trade sanctions on Iraq and blocked Iraqi government assets. Because the Government of Iraq has continued its activities hostile to United States interests in the Middle East, the national emergency declared on August 2, 1990, and the measures adopted on August 2 and August 9, 1990, to deal with that emergency must continue in effect beyond August 2, 2001. Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing the national emergency with respect to Iraq.
This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress
The provisions of the National Emergencies Act, referred to in the President’s note above, make its necessity clear:
Any national emergency declared by the President in accordance with this title, and not otherwise previously terminated, shall terminate on the anniversary of the declaration of that emergency if, within the ninety-day period prior to each anniversary date, the President does not publish in the Federal Register and transmit to the Congress a notice stating that such emergency is to continue in effect after such anniversary.
What this means, of course, is that President Clinton renewed this every year of his eight year presidency and that President Bush continued with that policy given the first opportunity, in April, 2001.
The next major happening were the attacks of 9.11. For what that meant to the President’s world view, specifically as it related to Iraq, please see my earlier post here. But to summarize, the President came to the conclusion that the “containment” policy the sanctions epitomized was no longer tenable.
The aftermath of 9.11 up to the end of the year saw the campaign in Afghanistan. This is also a remarkable period in history that is being forgotten quickly—especially among our friends to the left, who’d really not rather think about a just war led by Bush—but its details are not critical in this narrative.
In the President’s 2002 State of the Union Speech, the President devoted only one passage to Iraq:
Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens -- leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections -- then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world.
This speech generated a lot of coverage, in that it labeled Iraq, Iran and North Korea as a new “Axis of Evil” that intended the United States harm. Looking at the above passage, however, there is nothing even slightly controversial about any of the factual representations made regarding Iraq by President Bush.
Iraq was hostile to the U.S. It fired on our pilots who were enforcing the No-Fly Zone under U.N. order and, as best as we can tell, did engage in a failed assassination plot against the first President Bush. It did support terror in, at the least, the form of cash awards to the families of suicide bombers who struck at civilians. The widespread belief, shared by all parties at this time, as demonstrated by the Congressional resolution noted above if nothing else, was that Iraq was working on WMD capability. It is a absolute undeniable fact that Iraq used WMD to murder Kurds; the image that Bush was referring to specifically is well-known and has proved to be genuine. Iraq also had agreed to inspections, then kicked the inspectors out.
The last sentence is, of course, a judgment arising out of the facts stated. That they represent the actions of a “regime that has something to hide” is, not by any standard I am aware of, unreasonable given the factual predicates. In short, the President was forthright on this issue in early 2002 and he used his judgment, for which he was elected, to draw a conclusion.
By October of 2002, the Congress had again spoken on the issue. In the much-discussed, much-debated run up to the authorization of force vote with regard to Iraqi stonewalling on U.N. weapons inspectors, all parties were heard from. It is simply not possible to argue (though that doesn’t stop people!) that a full debate was not had. You can find the full text of the authorizing resolution here. The final vote tally on the resolution is as follows:
House of Representatives: 296 Yeas, 133 Nays
Party breakdown: Yeas: 215 Republican, 81 Democrats
Nays: 6 Republicans, 126 Democrats, 1 Ind.
Only 3 members failed to vote
Senate: 77-23
Party breakdown: Yeas: 48 Republican, 29 Democrats
Nays: 1 Republican, 21 Democrats, 1 Ind.
Prominent Democrats voting Yea included: Biden, Clinton, Daschle, Dodd, Edwards, Kerry, Feinstein, Harkin, Hollings, Lieberman, Reid and, of course, NS honorary Democrat Chuck Hagel.
The details of this resolution are not discussed by the MSM or the Democrats very often. Read it for yourself and you’ll soon realize why that is. The preamble of the resolution is a list of findings, all of which were commonly accepted truths at the time, though they have become yesterday’s inconvenient truth if one were to go by the DCC’s talking points memos today. Let’s take a closer look at what the vast majority of Congress had to say about the Iraq issue in October of 2002:
Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;
(Wow. Try saying that on Meet the Press these days and they’ll look at you like you’re a nutter.)
Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations';
(Wait a minute!!! What!?! 1998!?! 1998!?! Why, who was President then? But, hey, it doesn’t matter. It probably got rushed through Congress by a secret Jewish Neo-Con Cabal and the White House while Bill wasn’t paying attention.)
Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;
(This little gem is real handy next time a Democrat tells you that Iraq was never a threat to the United States. Lots of Democrats thought so at the time. Man, I just *love* the Congressional Record!)
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people
Whereas members of al Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;
(There’s no connection! There’s no connection!! Er, wait…)
Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;
(There’s that damn 1998 stuff again. But, I suppose, if you want to maintain that regime change was Bush’s invention and only his policy, go right ahead and look like a moron. God knows, I won’t stop you.)
Democrats and left-liberals will trot out the tired canard that this vote wasn’t really a vote and didn’t really mean what it said, but I leave that to you, dear reader, to sort out. From where I’m sitting, it all looks very straight forward and clear. Bush’s judgments were made on the basis of facts for which there was a strong bi-partisan consensus, which reflected the judgment of the previous Democrat administration and which were considered the received wisdom at the time they were made. One can object to this on a number of fronts, but one objection that absolutely cannot be made is, sadly, the one made most often: that Bush lied and pushed a phoney rationale for the war.
The historical facts simply do not support such a contention.
