This page was last updated on July 24, 2004.

Bush should repent for his lies; Nikola (Nick) Drobac; Beaver County Times; July 20, 2004.

Mr. Drobac is busy during summer vacation.  This is his fourth letter in three weeks.  This one uses a Ten Commandments theme to try and bash President Bush.  It’s an interesting use (abuse?) of religion.

As most liberals, Mr. Drobac makes false claims easily disproved by both logic and verifiable fact.  These people assume we are stupid and won’t verify their claims.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.

“In the Bible, Exodus 20:16, one of God’s Ten Commandments, it is written, ‘You must not testify falsely as a witness against your fellow man.’”

[RWC] The Ten Commandments are also listed in Deuteronomy 5:6-21.  It’s clear Mr. Drobac read the words.  It’s not clear he knows what they mean.

“Before God and county, in an effort to convince Americans and the world that Saddam Hussein was a grave and growing threat to the United States, George W. Bush stated that Hussein had:

·        Ties to al-Qaeda,

·        Was somehow involved in the Sept. 11, 2001, tragedy.

·        Had weapons of mass destruction that he was about to use against the people of the United States.

“None of it was true.”

[RWC] Regarding the first bullet point, the Bush administration did and does make this claim.  Unfortunately for Mr. Drobac, the intelligence report he cites below said there were ties between Iraq and al-Qaida, though not operational.  Therefore, President Bush spoke the truth.  President Bush never claimed Iraq and al-Qaida were “joined at the hip” as liberals would like us to believe.

On the second bullet, President Bush did not make this claim.  Anti-Bush groups always make this statement, but can never provide proof.  The official Bush administration position has always been there was no evidence to support claiming Iraq/al-Qaida collaboration on the 9/11 attacks.

Further, let’s call what happened on 9/11 what it was, the latest battle in an all out war by terrorists on the United States that has been going on for over a decade.  An earthquake or a hurricane is a “tragedy.”  9/11 was wholesale murder of defenseless civilians by people who want us all dead.

On the third bullet, President Bush did not make this claim.  In his 2003 State of the Union speech, President Bush specifically said, “Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent.  Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?  If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late.  Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.”  President Bush claimed Iraq had WMD; he did not claim Iraq was going to use them immediately.

Based on the above, “None of it was true” is an incorrect conclusion.

“The day the war in Iraq began, Bush sent a letter to Congress stating that the war was justified under legislation permitting the use of force against those who ‘planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.’”

[RWC] I’ll be generous and say Mr. Drobac’s selective quoting of the letter is only misleading.  He wants us to believe we attacked Iraq because of 9/11.  So you can see the context, here is the entire letter to the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate.

“Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)

“Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

“(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

“(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

“Sincerely,

“GEORGE W. BUSH”¹

“On July 9, the Republican-dominated bipartisan Senate Select Intelligence Committee, in a 512-page investigative report that was adopted unanimously, said that the United States went to war on false WMD info.”

[RWC] “Republican-dominated” is a tad strong.  As the majority party, the chairman is a Republican – the vice chairman is a Democrat – and Republicans have one more member than Democrats on the committee, nine vs. eight.

To me, the use of “false” conveys intent to deceive.  While the investigation determined some of the intelligence conclusions were unfounded, the report did not conclude intent to deceive, by either analysts or policymakers.

On the subject of lying, the report included a section on Joe Wilson.  If you recall, Wilson was the former ambassador who claimed President Bush lied about Iraq trying to buy yellowcake (uranium) from Niger.  The Wilson section (Section II- B. Former Ambassador) of the report indicated that much of what he said publicly via his book, interviews, and speeches was a lie.

·        Wilson claimed his CIA agent wife had nothing to do with his being sent to Niger.  The report showed his wife recommended him twice, once in 1999 and again in 2002.  Further, she approached Wilson on behalf of the CIA to see if he would accept the assignment.

·        Wilson claimed his investigation debunked the idea of Niger yellowcake sales to Iraq.  In fact, the report showed the CIA believed Wilson’s report provided some confirmation of foreign government reports of alleged sales.

·        Wilson claimed some documents used to indicate a Niger/Iraq connection were forged because the dates and names were wrong.  The report showed Wilson could not have seen these documents because they were not yet circulating in the intelligence community at the time he claimed he saw them.  When confronted with the fact that he never saw the disputed documents and had no knowledge of the dates and names on the documents, he said he might have confused recollection with an IAEA finding published eight months after his assignment.

·        Wilson claimed VP Cheney was briefed on his findings.  The report showed the CIA briefer did not brief Cheney because Wilson’s report didn’t add any new information to clarify the situation.  When confronted about this by Committee staff, Wilson admitted he had no direct knowledge that Cheney had been briefed.  He conceded his statement was based on what he thought would happen, not fact.

The report also says there was no pressure on the intelligence community to fabricate information as Bush administration critics like to claim.  Below are the relevant conclusions.

“Conclusion 83.  The Committee did not find any evidence that Administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction capabilities.

“Conclusion 84.  The Committee found no evidence that the Vice President’s visits to the Central Intelligence Agency were attempts to pressure analysts, were perceived as intended to pressure analysts by those who participated in the briefings on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs, or did pressure analysts to change their assessments.

“Conclusion 102.  The Committee found that none of the analysts or other people interviewed by the Committee said that they were pressured to change their conclusions related to Iraq’s links to terrorism.  After 9/11, however, analysts were under tremendous pressure to make correct assessments, to avoid missing a credible threat, and to avoid an intelligence failure on the scale of 9/11.  As a result, the Intelligence Community’s assessments were bold and assertive in pointing out potential terrorist links.”

This is at least the second investigation to make the same conclusions with respect to WMD intelligence.  David Kay reported the same to Congress in early 2004.

“It also concluded that Iraq posed no imminent threat to the United States and that there was no solid evidence that Hussein was cooperating with the al-Qaeda terror network.”

[RWC] As noted above, President Bush said Iraq was not an imminent threat in his 2003 State of the Union speech.  His point was that we needed to act before Iraq became an imminent threat.

Though current intelligence shows no working relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida, that is not the same as saying there was no contact.  Below are relevant conclusions with respect to Iraq links to terrorism.

“Conclusion 91.  The Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA) assessment that Iraq had maintained ties to several secular Palestinian terrorist groups and with the Mujahidin e-Khalq was supported by the intelligence.  The CIA was also responsible in judging that Iraq appeared to have been reaching out to more effective terrorist groups, such as Hizballah and Hamas, and might have intended to employ such surrogates in the event of war.

“Conclusion 92.  The Central Intelligence Agency’s examination of contacts, training, safehaven and operational cooperation as indicators of a possible Iraq-al-Qaida relationship was a reasonable and objective approach to the question.

“Conclusion 93. The Central Intelligence Agency reasonable assessed that there were likely several instances of contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida throughout the 1990s, but that these contacts did not add up to an established formal relationship.

“Conclusion 94.  The Central Intelligence Agency reasonably and objectively assessed in Iraq Support for Terrorism that the most problematic area of contact between Iraq and al-Qaida were the reports of training in the use of non-conventional weapons, specifically chemical and biological weapons.”  [The remainder of the conclusion is blacked out in the unclassified version of the report.]

“Conclusion 95.  The Central Intelligence Agency’s assessment on safehaven – that al-Qaida or associated operatives were present in Baghdad and in northeastern Iraq in an area under Kurdish control – was reasonable.

“Conclusion 96.  The Central Intelligence Agency’s assessment that to date there was no evidence proving Iraqi complicity or assistance in an al-Qaida attack was reasonable and objective.  No additional information has emerged to suggest otherwise.

“Conclusion 97.  The Central Intelligence Agency’s judgment that Saddam Hussein, if sufficiently desperate, might employ terrorists with a global reach – al-Qaida – to conduct terrorist attacks in the event of war was reasonable.  No information has emerged thus far to suggest that Saddam did try to employ al-Qaida in conducting terrorist attacks.”

In summary, there was plenty of evidence of Iraq links to terrorism in general, including al-Qaida, just no evidence of Iraq/al-Qaida collaboration on attacks.

“Does that report now mean that Bush bore false witness against Hussein and the people of Iraq?  Does that report now mean that Bush broke one of the Lord’s Ten Commandments?”

[RWC] I’m not a Ten Commandments scholar, but in my eight years at St. Titus grade school and my four years of St. Frances Cabrini CCD classes, I learned violating the eighth Commandment requires intent.  That is, it is not a lie if you make a statement you believe to be true.  You may be wrong, but you didn’t lie.

Given the information available to President Bush, he did not lie.  If he “lied,” so did former President Clinton, former VP Gore, Sen. John Edwards, Sen. John Kerry, Sen. Edward Kennedy, most of Congress – including Democrats, the United Nations, and the leaders of just about every free nation on the planet.

The Intelligence Committee report notwithstanding, coalition troops have found a small number of shells loaded with mustard gas and sarin.  Two of these shells were used in attacks against U.S. troops in early May 2004 and some soldiers had to be treated for sarin exposure.  Would it be wise to assume these were the only WMD in Iraq?

Does Mr. Drobac actually believe Saddam Hussein deserves an apology?  Does he believe Iraqis would prefer to be under Hussein’s control and thus would want an apology?  Ignoring American interests for a second, every poll conducted in Iraq shows most Iraqis are glad Hussein is gone.

“On the campaign trail, Bush continues to preach his false information in an attempt to justify the war.  Vice President Cheney continues to say that Saddam ‘had long-established ties with al-Qaeda.’

“Is there anyway to stop these people from lying?  Should Bush be held accountable?”

[RWC] Both the 9/11 Commission and the Select Committee on Intelligence agree there were Iraq/al-Qaida links, just no joint operations.

Bush and Cheney are/were telling the truth.  Is Mr. Drobac?  Should he be held accountable?  After all, as a government schoolteacher shouldn’t he set an example for his students?

 “Should Bush now repent?  As Christians, the self-proclaimed ‘Party of God’ (the Grand Old Party) should now look at Bush and demand an explanation.”

[RWC] I didn’t know the GOP declared itself the party of God.  I guess I didn’t get the memo.  [If Mr. Drobac had been more clever, he would have used “God’s Own Party” instead of “Party of God” so the initials matched. <g>]  Indeed, just as the rest of Americans, not all Republicans are Christians.  Republicans also include agnostics, atheists, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, et cetera.

The only people from whom Republicans – and all Americans – should demand an explanation are those like Mr. Drobac who continue to make false claims, especially when we have servicemen and servicewomen in harm’s way.

If Mr. Drobac – or anyone for that matter – wants to disagree with policy, that’s fine. Regardless of which side of an issue a person takes, we deserve truth-based discussions of the issue devoid of personal attacks, however.  If you have to distort, lie, and/or resort to name calling to “prove” your case, perhaps you’re fighting for the wrong side.

1. Bush letter to Congress; President George W. Bush; CNN.com; March 19, 2003.

© 2004 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.