Wayne Allard: Those who say Bush lied about Iraq irresponsible, imperil the nation

Sen. Wayne Allard

Published December 3, 2005 at midnight

Text size

More Speakout

Critics of the Bush administration have recently gone out of their way to try to persuade the American people that the president misled our nation about Iraq. Some are arguing most vociferously that President Bush purposely withheld intelligence information from Congress. Others accuse the president of deliberately fashioning U.S. intelligence to fit his own agenda. A few even suggest that the president had some kind of personal vendetta against Saddam Hussein and was willing to do whatever it took to remove him from power.

I can accept criticism leveled at our intelligence agencies for providing inaccurate intelligence. I can accept criticism lodged against the Department of Defense for not sufficiently preparing for an Iraqi insurgency. I can even accept criticism that the Bush administration did not appropriately prepare the American people for the cost of the war in Iraq.

What I cannot accept, what I feel is so irresponsible, and what is so damaging to our nation, are accusations that suggest that President Bush deliberately lied to the American people about either the intelligence or about his reasons for going to war.

I was a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee when the president requested congressional authorization for the use of force against Iraq in 2002. I participated in numerous bipartisan hearings and briefings on our intelligence regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

The conclusions that I reached, that President Bush reached, and that many Democrats reached, were the same. We all agreed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. We all agreed that he had used such weapons in the past against Iran and Iraq's Kurdish populations. And we all agreed that he would not hesitate to use them against the United States in the future.

The U.S. Congress and President Bush were not alone in this assessment. The intelligence agencies of Britain, Germany, Russia, China, and even France all believed Saddam had WMD. The entire international community watched as Saddam used these weapons to murder thousands of his own people. Even the chief United Nations weapons inspector, Hans Blix, thought the chemical weapons he discovered prior to the war in Iraq were the "tip of a submerged iceberg."

In fact, the debate in Congress over whether to authorize the use of force was never about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Everyone thought Saddam had them. Even those in Congress who voted against the use of force never questioned the veracity of our intelligence information.

This is not because the Bush administration manipulated the intelligence that was presented to Congress, as some have alleged. Indeed, a number of independent commissions since the war began have investigated this issue and found the Bush administration did not distort intelligence information. So, if we agree that the president did not lie about our intelligence on Iraq's WMD programs, then the critics can only argue that President Bush's rationale for going to war at the time of the congressional debate was somehow flawed and unjustifiable. Here I would again disagree.

During the debate, I joined with a large majority of the members of Congress on both sides of the aisle who voted to authorize force. We did so because of two important facts - the same two facts offered by the president.

First, Saddam was in breach of more than a dozen United Nations Security Council resolutions. He continued to refuse to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors even after a decade of sanctions. He rejected proposal after proposal to conduct fair and transparent inspections.

When he finally allowed inspections, Saddam did everything he could to undermine and otherwise manipulate the inspections process. He gave every appearance of hiding large stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction.

Second, a large bipartisan majority of members of Congress, including nearly 30 Senate Democrats and 81 House Democrats, voted to authorize the use of force against Iraq because, after 9/11, it was clear that America could no longer afford to allow imminent threats to our nation to go unhindered and unopposed. In most minds, Iraq represented a highly dangerous nexus between terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. In the context of Saddam's decade-long defiance, it was a nexus that members of both sides of the aisle in both the Senate and the House were no longer willing to ignore.

When critics try to cover up their vote in support of the use of force against Iraq, they damage the credibility of our government overseas and send a disheartening message to our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines who are bravely defending freedom in Iraq and Afghanistan.

When they falsely accuse the president of misleading the American people, they encourage the enemy who believes America will throw in the towel and give up when the fighting gets tough.

It is time for the president's critics in Congress to remember why they voted to authorize force against Iraq in 2002. It is time for them to acknowledge the progress our soldiers are making now in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is time for them to recognize the success we have had against global networks of terror.

And most of all, it is time for these critics to lay aside their own political ambitions and do what is right for America. It is time for them join our commander-in-chief in the fight against those who wish to destroy our nation.

An agenda of disunity and surrender will never lead to victory. We need to unite behind our commander-in-chief if we are to defeat this enemy. It is my hope that the president's critics will see this imperative and finally do what is best for our nation.

Wayne Allard is Colorado's senior U.S. Senator.

Subscribe to the Rocky Mountain News