When the Bush administration was making its case against Iraq before the war began, the White House needed — but had trouble generating — a sense of urgency.
Bush said Saddam Hussein was violating U.N. resolutions, developing WMD, and torturing his own people. However, all of these claims were, more or less, the status quo in Iraq. There were no new charges and the administration had trouble responding to critics who asked, “Why now?”
The urgency came when Bush explained how quickly Hussein could strike at his adversaries with his alleged weapons of mass destruction.
Last fall, for example, Bush said the “danger to our country is grave and it is growing” because Iraq could “launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given.” He repeated an identical claim in a “global message” the same week.
It was a claim that Bush used repeatedly during the buildup towards war. Sometimes the president would attribute the claim to “British intelligence,” other times he would simply state it as fact.
Now we know, however, that we can add the “45 minutes” claim to the laundry list of Bush claims that weren’t true.
The Washington Post ran a front page story over the weekend noting that the White House “did not seek CIA approval before” making the charge about Hussein’s ability to strike within 45 minutes.
To be sure, in England, where the 45-minute claim was first circulated, this is a critically important story. A British weapons scientist, David Kelly, secretly told the BBC that the claim was false and questioned Tony Blair’s government for making the charge. Under intense pressure and public scrutiny, Kelly committed suicide last week.
In the U.S., however, this has not become a significant issue. The Post’s article made a big deal about the fact that the CIA never approved the claim, but the same story explained that the CIA does not regularly review remarks such as Bush’s radio addresses, where the president first made the 45-minute charge.
While that may make the Post article a bit overblown, it does raise an important question: Were any of Bush’s claims about Iraq true?
The fact that the CIA never reviewed the claim before the September 2002 radio address is probably irrelevant. But the fact remains that the 45-minute claim was just as bogus as the Niger/uranium claim.
Granted, the charge that Hussein could launch WMD attacks within 45 minutes wasn’t in the State of the Union, but that hardly seems important. Bush making false claims to Congress about national security in a SOTU may be reprehensible, but more routine, day-to-day lies about national security from the White House should generate at least some outrage, right?
Let’s review: Bush said Iraq had enough weapons of mass destruction to kill millions; now we can’t find any. Rumsfeld said we know where the WMD are, but still nothing. Bush said Iraq was close to building a nuclear bomb; Cheney said that Iraq in fact had reconstituted nuclear weapons. Both were wrong. Bush said Iraq purchased uranium ore from Niger. Wrong again. Bush said Iraq had ties to Al Queda. Also wrong. Bush said Iraq had purchased aluminum tubes “for nuclear weapons production.” Still wrong. And Bush said Hussein had 45-minute strike capabilities, and — surprise, surprise — this too was wrong.
The administration, however, continues to believe that Americans should have faith in their judgment on national security issues and find their claims about Iraq credible. I’m left trying to figure out how they can ask us to trust them while maintaining a straight face. It can’t be easy.
And can anyone imagine what congressional Republicans would do if Clinton had said so many things about national security that turned out to be false?