Holding Politicians Responsible For Their Irresponsible Statements About Iraq

Few decisions made in Washington are morewarming-the real world threat-according to the star of
monumental than the decision to go to war withthe film An Inconvenient Truth.
another sovereign nation. The decision to engage inFew politicians are more respected, revered, and
hostilities where civilians will be killed and U.S.admired than Senator Ted Kennedy of
servicemen and women will be separated from theirMassachusetts. It is his reputation as a model senator
families-many never to return-is the gravest that athat makes his support for the Iraq war all the more
president can make and a congress can approve. Inrepugnant. On September 27, 2002, the champion
the case of the Iraq War, a war predicated on theswimmer said, "There is no doubt that Saddam
existence of weapons of mass destruction in violationHussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a
of United Nations Security Council resolutions,tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass
numerous politicians are guilty of misleading thedestruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed"
American people into a rush to war. These politicians(vi). Apparently, the Senator knows as much about
ought to be held to account.Iraqi weapons programs as he does about operating a
Senator John F. Kerry is one such politician. He said onmotor vehicle under the influence of alcohol and leaving
January 23, 2003 that, "Without question, we need tothe scene of an accident.
disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderousPerhaps the two people who most eloquently-and
dictator, leading an oppressive regime . . . And now hemistakenly-made the case for war against Iraq were
is miscalculating America's response to his continuedHillary and Bill Clinton. On October 10, 2002, the former
deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of massfirst lady said, "In the four years since the inspectors
destruction . . . So the threat of Saddam Hussein withleft, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has
weapons of mass destruction is real" (i). Perhaps theworked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons
Senator should stop blindly accepting the evidence ofstock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear
WMD provided by his friends in Europe. Senator Kerryprogram. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary
had apparently held this view for some time. Onto terrorists, including Al Qaeda members . . . It is clear,
October 9, 2002, he said, "I believe that a deadlyhowever, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will
arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in [Saddamcontinue to increase his capacity to wage biological
Hussein's] hands is a real and grave threat to ourand chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop
security" (ii). A Senator like Kerry, who consistentlynuclear weapons" (vii). The Senator's words seem
voted against every new weapons program proposedquite reasonable, considering the words of her
for U.S. armed forces, ought be more judicious in hishusband on February 4, 1998: "One way or the other,
support for U.S. military adventurism.we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
It was not just elected officials who beat the drum fordevelop weapons of mass destruction and the
war against Iraq; political appointees did their part inmissiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line" (iix).
propagating lies about the Iraq regime's weapons andWhether it was 1998 or 2002, whether Monica
intentions, as well. On February 1, 1998, Secretary ofLewinsky was in the news or not, the Clintons have
State Madeline Albright said, "We must stop Saddamalways provided a united front in their dishonest
from ever again jeopardizing the stability and securityjustification for U.S. imperialism.
of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction" (iii).These politicians ought to be ashamed of themselves
Considering that Albright spent most of her time asfor misleading the American public. They used their
Secretary of State clinking champagne glasses withprovocative words and faulty intelligence to lead
the leaders of rogue states, seeing her chastise onethousands of U.S. servicemen and an estimated
should have warned Americans of the dishonesty655,000 (ix). Iraqis to their deaths. Weapons of mass
behind her comment. National Security Advisor Sandydestruction were not found in Iraq, the conflict has
Berger chimed in a few weeks later, adding, "[Saddamspiraled out of control, and worse, these politicians
Hussein] will use those weapons of mass destructionhave now absolved themselves of responsibility for
again, as he has ten times since 1983" (iv). Such blatantthe debacle by claiming they were "misled" by other
misuse of faulty intelligence is particularly troublingpoliticians. Rubbish. When politicians make monumental
considering Berger's security clearance. Perhapsmistakes that lead U.S. soldiers to their deaths over
Berger thought that if he were ever called on his lies,false premises and diminish U.S. standing in the
he could always just sneak the evidence out of theinternational community, they should hold themselves
National Archives in his underwear to cover his tracks.accountable for their deceitful statements. And, we
Despite the ecological collateral damage inherent inshould hold them accountable, as well.
war, leading environmentalist Al Gore decided thatNotes:i) John Kerry for President. 23 January 2003.ii)
ousting Saddam Hussein trumped environmentalJohn Kerry for President. 9 October 2002.iii) CNN. 1
concerns. On September 23, 2002, the former viceFebruary 1998.iv) USA Today. 18 February 1998.v)
president said, "We know that [Saddam Hussein] hasWashington Post. 23 September 2002.vi) AlterNet. 27
stored secret supplies of biological and chemicalSeptember 2002.vii) U.S. Senate Floor Speech. 10
weapons throughout his country" (v). Apparently,October 2002.iix) CNN. 4 February 1998.ix) Toronto
spending billions of dollars chasing non-existent WMDStar. 12 October 2006.
was more important than combating global