An Iraqi defector who went by the codename “Curveball” has publicly admitted for the first time that he made up stories about mobile bioweapons trucks and secret factories to try to bring down Saddam Hussein’s regime.
Anti-war people--who simply will not stop debating the decision to go to war with Iraq--have wrongly portrayed this as destroying the only reason we went to war with Saddam. Can we ignore the fact that it fit with the knowledge we had that in the mid-1990s, when Iraq had supposedly gotten rid of WMD, and we discovered through the defection of one of Saddam's sons-in-law that Iraq had a biological weapons program? He soon undefected and joined the unliving at Saddam's hand. Even taking bio weapons out of the Congressional declaration of war on Saddam's Iraq leaves plenty of reasons to destroy Saddam's regime.
Face it, Curveball was just one of many pieces of information that the world's intelligence agencies had to indicate Saddam was pursuing chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. And even though we have not found any chemical weapons, Saddam maintained the technical and scientific structure to restart the pursuit of WMD had our sanction faltered.
Even the sainted international community, under Hans Blix, concluded that Saddam had failed to come clean on the WMD materials we know he acquired. Remember, inspections weren't supposed to be a game of hide and seek where we had to prove Saddam hadn't disarmed. Saddam was obligated to prove to us he had disarmed. Saddam did not do that and so forfeited the protection of the Persian Gulf War ceasefire.
Indeed, let's see what Blix said about the bio weapons issue:
While Iraq claims, with little evidence, that it destroyed all biological weapons unilaterally in 1991, it is certain that UNSCOM destroyed large biological weapons production facilities in 1996. The large nuclear infrastructure was destroyed and the fissionable material was removed from Iraq by the IAEA.
One of three important questions before us today is, How much might remain undeclared and intact from before 1991 and possibly thereafter? The second question is, What, if anything, was illegally produced or procured after 1998 when the inspectors left. And the third question is, How it can be prevented that any weapons of mass destruction be produced or procured in the future?
Before the war, I didn't assume Saddam had bio weapons or did not. I was concerned about his intent and worried that we missed a bio weapons project while we were inspecting Iraq for compliance with the ceasefire. I was also worried about nuclear programs given that we were surprised in 1991 after the war to see how advanced Saddam's project was. I didn't think Saddam was close to nukes, but I feared he'd get there eventually. Again, his intent was the key. The only WMD I thought Saddam could have was chemical weapons based on the fact that Saddam had them, could make them, and had used them against Iran and his own Kurdish people in the 1980s First Gulf War.
I set forth my reasons for wanting Saddam's regime destroyed before the war (see here and here, because it is easy to forget how evil Saddam was after all this time), and I stand by them--Curveball or not. The short version:
The justification for war against Saddam's Iraq rests on three main pillars: his sheer wretched despotism; his record of aggression; and his pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. And then there are the final multiplying factors. One is based on the idea that the bottom line value of all the above parts is greater than merely their sum. The other is the multiple based on the wealth that Saddam has to carry out his risky schemes.
Note that I said "pursuit of WMD." I was unsure enough of the status to avoid claiming existence. What was clear was Saddam's determination over many years to pursue them. And with his oil wealth, once free of sanctions, he'd get there.
So yes, I defend going to war with Iraq, ending Saddam's regime, building a fledgling democracy and ally in Iraq, and possibly setting an example of democracy for the wider Arab and Persian worlds. One lie (not from the Bush administration) does not change any of that.
Or would you say we should have chosen not to achieve what we did even though there were no biological weapons in Saddam's hands in March 2003?
I'm glad Saddam is dead and his regime buried. You should be glad, too.
UPDATE: And the Hardball variety of Screwballs chimes in on the "lie" of Saddam possessing nuclear weapons. What lie? Read the friggin' declaration of war (see above), Chris! This is what the declaration of war says about Saddam's post-1991 nuclear status:
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[.] [emphasis added]
We worried Saddam would eventually get them if we left him in power--not that Saddam had them in March 2003. Is Chris Matthews really that friggin' stupid to say we believed that? Or forgetful? Or that partisan?
My God, that hyper-ventilating idiot has no business giving his opinion on anything related to the war.
Call to arms, Chris? Call to Google, for God's sake.
