|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Bush Defends War, Pledges Cooperation With Intelligence Commission By Mike Nartker WASHINGTON — U.S. President George W. Bush yesterday defended his decision to invade Iraq, saying that he had had “no doubt” that former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was a danger to the United States (see GSN, Feb. 6). In an interview with NBC’s Meet the Press, Bush defended Operation Iraqi Freedom on the grounds that Hussein had the intent and capability to develop weapons of mass destruction, even though months of searching by coalition forces have found no WMD stockpiles in Iraq. Bush also said yesterday that he would cooperate with a presidential commission investigating U.S. intelligence-gathering capabilities and the prewar intelligence on Iraq, but rejected the notion that he would testify before the commission. Bush said he made the decision to invade Iraq based on “the best intelligence possible,” adding that he had “expected to find the weapons.” While no WMD stockpiles have yet been found in Iraq, and former U.S. chief weapons inspector David Kay has recently cast doubt that such stockpiles will ever be found, Bush said the invasion was necessary because of the threat posed by Hussein and his capability to produce weapons of mass destruction. “Saddam Hussein was dangerous with weapons. Saddam Hussein was dangerous with the ability to make weapons. He was a dangerous man in a dangerous part of the world,” Bush said. “I believe it is essential that when we see a threat we deal with those threats before they become imminent. It’s too late if they become imminent. It’s too late in this new kind of war. And so that’s why I made the decision I made,” he said. Bush denied, though, that he labeled the threat posed by Hussein as “imminent” before the invasion. “I think, if I might, remind you that in my language I called it ‘a grave and gathering threat.’ I don’t want to get into a word contest, but what I do want to share with you is my sentiment at the time,” he said. Bush also said that the threat of Hussein’s regime had to be reconsidered in light of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks against the United States, noting the alleged connections between prewar Iraq and terrorist groups. “It’s important for people to understand the context in which I made a decision in the Oval Office. I’m dealing with a world in which we have gotten struck by terrorists with airplanes, and we get intelligence saying that, you know, we want to harm America. And the worst nightmare scenario for any president is to realize that these kind of terrorist networks have the capacity to arm up with some of these deadly weapons, and they strike us. And the president of the United States’ most solemn responsibility is to keep this country secure,” Bush said. If the United States had not attacked Iraq, Bush said, Hussein would have been “emboldened” to develop weapons of mass destruction, including at some point nuclear weapons. “You can’t rely upon a madman, and he was a madman. You can’t rely upon him making rational decisions when it comes to war and peace. And it’s too late, in my judgment, when a madman who has got terrorist connections is able to act,” Bush said. A failure by the United States to act would also have weakened U.S. credibility in dealing with other countries of proliferation concern, Bush said. “In my judgment, when the United States says there will be serious consequences, and if there isn’t serious consequences, it creates adverse consequences: people look at us and say, ‘They don’t mean what they say. They’re not willing to follow through,’” he said. The U.S. willingness to act led to positive developments elsewhere, Bush said, particularly in Libya (see related GSN story, today). “There was a positive effect in Libya where [Col.] Muammar Qadhafi voluntarily disclosed his weapons programs and agreed to dismantle them, and the world is a better place as a result of that,” he added. Some experts, though, have criticized the Bush administration’s view that the war in Iraq has had positive nonproliferation benefits regarding other countries of concern, such as Libya (see GSN, Jan. 30). “It’s tempting that after the debacle they’ve had in Iraq, they would like to say that this is a good thing that came out of it,” former chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix said in an interview late last month with Global Security Newswire. “I can understand that politically. But again we should look at that with a critical mind,” he added Bush also said yesterday that the final fate of Hussein’s long-suspected WMD stockpiles is still unknown, adding that the Iraq Survey Group still needed to continue its work. “There’s theories as to where the weapons went — they could have been destroyed during the war. Saddam and his henchmen could have destroyed them as we entered into Iraq. They could have been hidden. They could have been transported to another country. And we’ll find out,” Bush said. Bush’s view was shared by Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) during an appearance yesterday on FOX News Sunday. He noted the existence of thousands of boxes of documents that still needed to be examined. “I don’t know if it will be the smoking WMD or not, but I wouldn’t discount that. If, in fact, that would happen, there would be a lot of people with WMD and egg on their face,” Roberts said. Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.), the leading candidate for this year’s Democratic presidential nomination, was quoted by CNN.com yesterday as accusing Bush, though, of “changing his story” on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. “This morning on Meet the Press, President Bush said that his decision to go to war with Iraq when he did was because Saddam Hussein had, quote, ‘the ability to make weapons,’” Kerry said yesterday. “This is a far cry from what the president and his administration told the American people throughout 2002. Back then, President Bush repeatedly told the American people that Saddam Hussein, quote, ‘has got chemical weapons,’” Kerry said. IntelligenceIn his Meet the Press interview yesterday, Bush also discussed the commission he created Friday to investigate U.S. intelligence-gathering efforts, noting the importance of accurate intelligence in combating proliferation and terrorism. “The commission I’ve set up is to obviously analyze what went right or what went wrong with the Iraqi intelligence, kind of lessons learned. But it’s really set up to make sure the intelligence services provide as good a product as possible for future presidents as well. This is a part of analyzing where we are on the war against terror,” he said. While the U.S. intelligence commission has been given a deadline of March 2005 to report its findings, a similar commission established recently by British Prime Minister Tony Blair has until this summer to report. Bush yesterday defended the long timeline for the U.S. commission, denying that political motivations were involved for having it report after the November presidential elections. “We’re in a political season — I fully understand people — ‘He’s trying to avoid responsibility.’ There’s going to be ample time for the American people to assess whether or not I made good calls, whether or not I used good judgment, whether or not I made the right decision in removing Saddam Hussein from power. And I look forward to that debate,” Bush said. Bush also said yesterday that he would cooperate with the commission, but indicated that he would reject calls to testify. “I don’t testify,” he said. “I’ll be glad to visit with them. I’ll be glad to share with them knowledge. I’ll be glad to make recommendations, if they ask for some,” Bush added. In addition, Bush also denied that CIA Director George Tenet was in jeopardy of losing his position over prewar intelligence on Iraq. “I strongly believe the CIA is ably led by George Tenet,” he said. On FOX News Sunday yesterday, both Roberts and House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Porter Goss (R-Fla.) defended Tenet. “I think the director has done a very good job,” Goss said. “I don’t see any reason to go out and fire the director of central intelligence, especially when he is trying to build morale and build capability in his community,” he added.
| ||||||||||
Back to top
