The WMD fraud: Is it too much to ask the "press corps" to focus?

I would have to agree on the partisan side that the Democrats should be framing the WMD fraud issue better.  There are two points they should stress clearly.  One is that the Bush administration's alarming claims on Iraq's nuclear weapons program were not only of a different nature that those on chem-bio weapons.  But these charges were new to the Bush administration; they weren't something that the Clinton administration or the think-tank crowd had accepted as a likely possibility before the Bush administration had started pimping these fake charges.  (Of course, the neocons had been promoting every alarmist charge against Iraq they could cook up ever since the Gulf War of 1991.)

The other point is that there is a radical difference between recognizing the possibility or likelihood that Iraq had chem-bio weapons, and the decision to invade and occupy the country based on the existing evidence.

The nuclear charges were far and away the most alarming.  It's hard to imagine that even in the post-9/11 war fever, that Congress and the public would have agreed to go to war on the basis of the unproved existence of probably-inert stock of chemical and biological weapons.  And those were also not the "weapons of mass destruction" that the administration emphasized in the buildup to war.  Nobody thought that the various prominent references to a "mushroom cloud" meant mustard gas.

To illustrate, it's worth looking at the account of Bush court stenographer Bob Woodward in his Plan of Attack (2004).  Writing of Bush's speech of 10/07/02 on the pending Congressional resolution, stenographer Bob writes:

Bush's core argument was that Iraq "gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place" and that, "The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time."

There was no acknowledgment that they lacked "smoking gun" evidence. Bush instead suggested only a larger risk, one that Rice had publicly raised a month earlier. "Facing clear evidence of peril," he said, "we cannot wait for the final proof, the smoking gun, that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."

In case anyone missed the point, Bush invoked the Cuban missile crisis of October 1962 when the Soviet Union had installed offensive medium-range missiles in Cuba. Bush quoted PresidentJohn F. Kennedy saying, "Neither the United States of America nor the world community of nations can tolerate deliberate deception and offensive threats on the part of any nation, large or small. We no longer live in a world where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nation's security to constitute maximum peril." (my emphasis)

It's surprising that Steno Bob would say there was no acknowledgment that a smoking gun was lacking.  In the "mushroom cloud" setence he quotes, Bush said: " Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof - the smoking gun - that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."  But Bush certainly didn't share the cautions and doubts that intelligence agencies were expressing and turned out to have been far more realistic than the neocons' "mushroom cloud" propaganda.

Bush also said in that speech:

The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" -- his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.

If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year. And if we allow that to happen, a terrible line would be crossed. Saddam Hussein would be in a position to blackmail anyone who opposes his aggression. He would be in a position to dominate the Middle East. He would be in a position to threaten America. And Saddam Hussein would be in a position to pass nuclear technology to terrorists.

Some citizens wonder, after 11 years of living with this problem, why do we need to confront it now? And there's a reason. We've experienced the horror of September the 11th. We have seen that those who hate America are willing to crash airplanes into buildings full of innocent people. Our enemies would be no less willing, in fact, they would be eager, to use biological or chemical, or a nuclear weapon. (me emphasis)

TheSan Francisco Chronicle offers a news analysis on The Claims and Facts on Iraq Weapons by Robert Collier and Anna Badkhen 11/20/05. Unfortunately, Collier and Badken fall into the rhetorical trap of "weapons of mass destruction".  This "WMD" notion began as a way of blurring the distinction between nuclear weapons on the one hand and chem-bio weapons on the other.  Nuclear weapons are a special category of weapons and present radically different challenges than chem-bio weapons.

They write:

The White House version is largely correct. Most Democratic leaders don't like to admit it now, but they roundly supported the prewar conventional wisdom that Hussein had chemical and biological weapons and an active nuclear program. From former President Bill Clinton to former House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt to Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., to 2004 presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., the consensus was overwhelming - Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

Here the distinctions I mentioned are important: that Saddam was holding some form of chem-bio weapons was generall assumed.  The nuclear charges were fabrications ginned up by the neocons and their favorite Iraqi defectors, then promoted relentlessly by the Bush administration.  Some Democrats were presumably fooled by some of the nuclear reports.  But it's false for the war supporters to claim that everyone was agreed about the nuclear weapons program.

And deciding to go to war based on the evidence is another major element of judgment.  Collier and Badkhen get tripped up by the Republican spin there, too:

Claim: The White House says the October 2002 war-powers resolution passed by the House and Senate was essentiallya vote on whether to invade Iraq.Democrats say it was merely a vote to give the president increased leverage over Hussein in jockeying over U.N. weapons inspections.

Facts: The White House version is correct. At the time of the vote, it was widely understood that the vote was about whether toinvade Iraq.

But from the perspective of the tiny handful of experts who dissented from the conventional wisdom about Iraq's weapons, both Republicans and Democrats are to blame.

"The White House wasn't misleading Congress because Congress was playing the game," said Scott Ritter, the chief U.N. weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 through 1998. Ritter was derided by many commentators for his claims in the prewar debate that Iraq did not have any banned weapons.

"It was politically expedient for all," he said. "The problem is that no politician, Republican or Democrat, had the courage to stand up and speak the truth about Iraq, because that would ... not only fly in the face of the American policy of 'regime change,' but also damage them politically because people would say: 'You're supportive of Saddam.' Everybody fell right in line and said: 'Yes, Saddam is a threat,' when they knew there was no information out there to sustain this information."

Uh, no, it wasn't "widely understood that the vote was about whether to invade Iraq".  Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending the Democrats who voted for the October 2002 war resolution, and it's correct to call it a "war resolution".  They made a big mistake - as did every Republican who voted for it.

But what the resolution actually said should count for something.  And it can't be that hard for reporters to look it up.  It's online:  Public Law 107-243 - Oct. 16, 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. It authorizes the President to use forceagainst Iraq under two specific conditions:

Here's the entire text of Section 3:

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. - The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to-

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.-In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that-

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means aloneeither (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS.-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION. - Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS. - Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

As I wrote about here last year, John Dean discusses the war resolution in Worse Than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush (2004).  He interprets the two conditions as follows:

To avoid having to return to Congress for more debate on Iraq, Bush had pushed for and received authority to launch a war without further advance notice to Congress.  Never before had Congress so trusted a president with this authority.  But in granting this unprecedented authorization, Congress insisted that certain conditions be established as existing and that the president submit a formal determination, assuring the Congress that, in fact, these conditions were present.  Specifically (and here I am summarizing technical wording; the actual language [is in section 3(b) (1) and (2) of PL 107-243]), Congress wanted a formal determination submitted to it either before using force or within forty-eight hours of having done so, stating that the president had found that (1) further diplomatic means alone would not resolve the "continuing threat" (meaning WMD) and (2) the military action was part of the overall response to terrorism, including dealing with those involved in "the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."  In short, Congress insisted that there be evidence of two points that were the centerpirce of Bush's argument for the war.

Bush met neither of those conditions.  Inspections in Iraq were proceeding.  Even in facilities designated by US intelligence as being likely locations for chem-bio weapons, the inspectors were, as we now know, finding nothing.

And did Bush and his team tell the Congress and the country they were voting for war with that resolution?  Court stenographer Woodward recounts, for example, Karl Rove's pitch to Chuck Hagel, one of the allegedly "moderate" Republican Senators:

Rove had several assignments to hoelp win the congressional resolution.  He spoke with some House Republicans and acted as a sounding board for some who wanted to send a message to Bush.  One assignment was to talk to Senator Chuck Hagel, the Nebraska Republican with an independent streak who was a frequent Bush critics.  Rove's argument was that Iraq was an imporatnt front in the war on terror.  The president needed this resolution in order to give him the maximum leverage to resolve this peacefully and, if not, to have the support to strike militarily.

Again, nothing I'm saying here is meant to justify Republicans or Democrats for voting for that resolution.  They were wrong to do so.  But is it too much to ask reporters to do some basic fact-checking on things like this?  Yes, every Democrat and Republican in Congress should have seen that Bush's intentions were bad.  But the pitch to Congress was that Bush needed the backing of Congress giving him a military option so that he could go the United National Security Council and get a resolution there to demand new inspections.  Bush's pitch was cynical and dishonest, and many of us recognized it at the time.  But the war resolution was not a blank check for Bush to attack Iraq, nor was it a declaration of war.

Stenographer Bob also quotes the speech of Massachusetts Senator John Kerry declaring why he was voting for the resolution:

Senator John F. Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat who would soon be running for president, said in a speech on the SEnatore floor he would vote for the resolution to use force in disarming Saddam because "a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security."  In announcing his support, Kerry stated that he expected the president "to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days - to work with the United National Security Council to adopt a new resolution ... and to act with allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force."

Whatever else we could say about that statement of Kerry's, it's clear he didn't the war resolution as a blank check for war.  Although stenographer Bob literally interprets the resolution as the Bush administration chose to see it:  "It was a blank check."

Bush said in his speech of 10/16/02 on the signing of the war resolution:

With this resolution, Congress has now authorized the use of force. I have not ordered the use of force. I hope the use of force will not become necessary. Yet, confronting the threat posed by Iraq is necessary, by whatever means that requires. Either the Iraqi regime will give up its weapons of mass destruction, or, for the sake of peace, the United States will lead a global coalition to disarm that regime. If any doubt our nation's resolve, our determination, they would be unwise to test it.

The Iraqiregime is a serious and growing threat to peace. On the commands of a dictator, the regime is armed with biological and chemical weapons, possesses ballistic missiles, promotes international terror and seeks nuclear weapons. The same dictator has a history of mass murder, striking other nations without warning; of intense hatred for America; and of contempt for the demands of the civilized world. ...

Our goal is not merely to limit Iraq's violations of Security Council resolutions, or to slow down its weapons program. Our goal is to fully and finally remove a real threat to world peace and to America. Hopefully this can be done peacefully. Hopefully we can do this without any military action. ...

Like the members of Congress here today, I've carefully weighed the human cost of every option before us. If we go into battle, as a last resort, we will confront an enemy capable of irrational miscalculations, capable of terrible deeds. As the Commander-in-Chief, I know the risks to our country. I'm fully responsible to the young men and women in uniform who may face these risks. (my emphasis)

But now that a big majority of the public has realized that the Iraq War is a disaster,  Bush seems eager to spread that responsibility to the opposition party as much as he can.

I just wish reporters would check their facts a little more diligently  before they go into print flaking for the White House line.