Nuclear Intelligence, Iraq, Iran, and North Korea

Now that the President has his sights on the remaining pair of the “Axis of Evil”, regarding nuclear weapons, it is appropriate to examine facts relative to his beliefs about Iraq and WMDs. It is the position of the Republican party that virtually all the world had the same belief as this administration that Iraq had stockpiles of and active programs in weapons of mass destruction. Significant evidence can be delivered from informed sources commenting prior the invasion of Iraq that this was not the case. Key players such as Hans Blix and Scott Ritter, who had bee on the scene as active participants questioned the administration’s positions. Their warnings and those of other persons in place were ignored and those critics were excoriated. The administration distanced itself from all dissenting voices, a common habit of this president.

The purpose of this blog is to examine the actual beliefs of this administration particularly regarding nuclear programs and materials because we see this same issue playing such a large part in our dealings with Iran and North Korea.

We will not examine the beliefs of any individual, as beliefs are privately held, and in this case the actions that stem from the beliefs in question are not those of individuals, but of the administration as a whole. Mr. Bush is fond of the expression “there is/was no doubt in my mind…” This can be either virtue or fault depending on how one arrives at conviction. Prejudice is, after all, a firmly convinced mind that has pre-judged an issue without giving due consideration of all the facts. When one holds strong religious or patriotic views it is extremely tempting to overlook evidence that could weaken those positions.

For example, there are over 300 Protestant Christian groups, each relying on the Bible as God’s word, and each believing that their group alone is especially right. They read passages in Scripture and individually interpret them (surprise, surprise) in harmony with their own doctrinal constructs. Pre-judging, in my experience, often prevents them from coming to a reasonable consensus on the passages that separate them. I do not doubt their sincere desire to serve God honestly, but the perspective from which they approach given passages prevents agreement among the various interpretations.

Many of the issues on which Mr. Bush has declared “no doubt in my mind” have strong religious, political, or both religious and political significance. How he deals with these issues is instructive in understanding his own honesty about his undoubted convictions. Remember that we are not questioning the beliefs of any individual here, but rather the administration as an acting entity. We hope to show, in fact, that the President deeply believes the opinions he expresses. We believe there is strong evidence, however, that in many issues on which he expresses no doubt it is often the case that his conviction is prejudicially based.

For example, from the President’s Commission on Bioethics, that body was composed from the outset predominantly of religious and non-scientific members. It did, however, include two of the most prominent authorities in disciplines that reference stem cell research. When those two scientists disagreed with the President’s position they were removed and replaced with non-scientists holding opinions friendly to the President. A large contingency of prominent scientists publicly expressed their disapproval and chagrin over this action.

A Tale of Two Cites
Let's get one thing straight. Jesus said "Ye shall know them by their fruits." By "fruits" he meant actions. Looking beyond the rhetoric about flawed intelligence, what Clinton believed, what other nations might have thought about Saddam's nuclear program and its status we must get right down to what the administration believed at the time we invaded Iraq. After all, that is what really matters,--not words and explanations, but what was really in their minds.

To thoroughly understand this matter we will compare two citations of intelligence, compare their relative significance, and then compare the reaction by the US forces to determine what was actually believed.

The executive branch and the intelligence community claimed that Iraq was actively pursuing atomic weaponry and that they were months away from having nuclear weapons. We claimed to know the sites where this development was taking place as well as the materials Saddam had or was acquiring. This imminent danger was a primary reason why immediate action against Saddam was an urgent imperative. Obviously, if this were true, immediate action was indeed called for. The security of the entire world could be at stake!

There was another piece of intelligence that was also worrisome. The executive branch and the intelligence community believed that Saddam intended to sabotage his oil fields. We believed that forces were dispatched to put explosives at the well heads that could be set off if Iraq were invaded. This could cause significant environmental damage and eliminate oil revenues vital to jump-starting the Iraq economy as well as stabilizing world oil prices. While international security was not at risk the economic health of the new Iraq was. Note that while this problem was urgent, it paled in importance compared to the threat of Saddam's imminent nuclear success.

Now that we have reviewed these two problems we can examine how they were handled during the war.

One of the first incursions was to air drop and otherwise place coalition forces in both the northern and southern oil fields. The action was both prudent and successful. Wellheads were indeed wired with explosives, and the coalition forces quickly secured both regions, averting disasters in the oil fields.

What about the far more important issue,-- the Iraqi nuclear program? We knew where the suspected nuclear sites were located. We could just as easily have dropped forces in each region, securing the locations and preventing the removal of extremely dangerous weapons and technology.

However, this was not done. The "known" nuclear sites in Iraq were virtually ignored. As the war progressed and the Iraqi forces were forced to retreat, these nuclear sites were so totally ignored that they were plundered by the local people for anything they thought might be of value.

The conclusion is obvious. American forces and the Executive branch that oversees them had NO confidence that there was sophisticated and advanced nuclear development at those sites. Had they believed there were, surely there is no way these sites would have been ignored. The risk of neglect, after all, was to potentially give advanced nuclear materials, technology, and nearly complete weaponry to terrorists or agents of known rogue nations. Not to deal with that threat would be cause for immediate dismissal of all the highest commanders in the invading forces, including Rumsfeld, Rice, and even the commander in chief.

"Ye shall know them by their fruits." Forget what the President and his security leaders are saying. Their actions clearly show that no matter how vigorously they object, they had no confidence that Iraq had a well developed nuclear program. This puts them on a two-horned dilemma. If they truly believed that Iraq had an advanced nuclear program they were grossly negligent in not securing those sites as quickly, or even more quickly, than the oil fields. If they did not really so believe, then they deliberately and fraudulently led America into an unprovoked offensive against a sovereign nation in violation of international law. Furthermore they violated the trust of the American people.

Now we are asked to take their word on the status of nuclear programs in Iran and North Korea. While activity in both nations seems definitely to exist, its significance is widely debated in world opinion. In view of the obvious disconnect between rhetoric and action on the part of this administration, how can we depend on their rhetoric regarding these two nations. We already know this rhetoric has a long established foundation in ideology and political posturing. We further know that this President virtually closes his ears to and distances himself from even experts with contrary opinions.

It would be helpful if this administration could provide any clear reason why they would have so grossly neglected sites they firmly believed held dangerous nuclear materials and research, or for that matter, any other WMDs. A convincing explanation would go far toward helping Americans and the world at large to rally behind its cause regarding the rest of Bush’s axis of evil.