Kristol: ``There could have been misstatements``

William Kristol, chairman of the Project for the New American Century, editor of the Weekly Standard and neocon extraodinaire said on FOX News Sunday this past weekend that ``We shouldn`t deny, those of us who were hawks, that there could have been misstatements made, I think in good faith,`` NewsMax is reporting.

This is extraodinary. When Kristol was asked who made the misstatements, he replied ``By the president and the secretary of state, [statements] that will turn out to be erroneous.`` I might ask how Kristol knows that these statements will turn out to be erroneous, but I won`t bother. I think we all already know the answer.

The Project for a New American Century, which Kristol is chairman of, has been home to such neoconservatives as Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, John Bolton and Richard Perle. In 1998 they sent a letter to President Clinton asking for a full-scale invasion of Iraq on the grounds that it possessed weapons of mass destruction. That letter, still available from the Project for the New American Century Web site, read in part:

We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

So, is William Kristol, the chief non-Administration neoconservative, abandoning the Bush Administration? I don`t think so, but this statement is absolutely shocking. Kristol has been, together with Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Perle and Bolton, the driving force behind the policy of regime change in Baghdad. For him to admit that claims regarding weapons of mass destruction may have been incorrect is astounding and the only explanation I can think of for it is that Kristol is seeking to cover himself in order to mantain future influence.

It`s important to note, however, that just a few days ago, writing in the Weekly Standard, Kristol said:

The failure so far to discover ``stocks`` of WMD material in post-Saddam Iraq raises legitimate questions about the quality of U.S. and allied intelligence--though no one doubts that Saddam`s regime had weapons of mass destruction, used weapons of mass destruction, and had an ongoing program to develop more such weapons.

It seems that what Kristol is really talking about regarding Bush`s statements isn`t that Bush was mistaken about Iraqi WMD, but that the United States didn`t actually know exactly where the WMD were. So this isn`t quite as much of a backtrack as it may first seem, although it remains absolutely extraodinary for Kristol to criticize the man who put his clique of neoconservatives in power.

Meanwhile, the Associated Press is reporting that the US military has ``run out of places to look`` for weapons of mass destruction and that units that were assigned to the WMD snipe hunt are ``getting time off or being assigned to other duties.``

``It doesn`t appear there are any more targets at this time,`` Lt. Colonel Keith Harrington told the AP. ``We`re hanging around with no mission in the forseeable future.``

The Defense Intelligence Agency is planning to take over the snipe hunt soon with a 1,300 task force called the Iraq Survey Group. These searchers plan to rely more on after-action intelligence, including information gained from the interrogation of Iraqi military and scientific personnel, rather than on the pre-war intelligence relied upon by the regular Army units that have been searching up to now. Ironically, the AP notes that the Iraq Survey Group ``will work more along the model of UN weapons inspectors.``

Meanwhile, the Guardian is reporting that the CIA ``had doubts on Iraq link to al-Qaeda``. The Guardian report stems from a New York Times article that stated that several captured top al-Qaeda officials have repeatedly said in interrogation that al-Qaeda did not cooperate with Baghdad in any way. According to the Times these captives told their interrogators that there were no Baghdad-UBL links last year.

Abu Zubaydah, an al-Qaeda planner and recruiter who was captured in March 2002, apparently told his interrogators that Usama bin-Laden had ``vetoed the idea because he did not want to be beholden to Saddam Hussein.`` Khalid Sheikh Mohammed had made similiar statements in interrogation.

Even so, as Al Bawaba reports, Bush continues to harp on both the WMD and al-Qaeda issues. ``Bush also reiterated his previous claims that al-Qaeda had a presence in Baghdad.`` Back in January of this year Bush said ``Saddam is a danger not only to countries in the region but, as I explained last night, because of his al Qaeda connections, because of his history, he is a danger to Americans,`` as CNN reported at the time.

Now Bush says that a Baghdad-based cell of al-Qaeda ordered the killing of Laurence Foley, an American diplomat in Jordan who was shot as he left his home to go to work. Speaking about the Times article, Bush said ``I guess the people that wrote that article forgot about al-Zarqawi`s network inside of Baghdad that ordered the killing of a U.S. citizen named [Laurence] Foley.``

Well, Bill Gertz at the Washington Times has apparently not forgotten about Foley. He reports today that it is Abu Musab al-Zarqawi who is suspected of ``helping the terrorists who killed Mr. Foley``. What Gertz makes clear, however, is that al-Zarqawi is not a member of al-Qaeda although he cooperates with them. He is instead, as Colin Powell has said, an ``associate and collaborator of Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda lieutenants.``

Of course, what Bush fails to address is the fact that al-Qaeda cells operate all over the world — even in the United States. The terrorist group operates in Germany, in the Phillipines, in Georgia, in the United States, in Britain, in Pakistan, in Afghanistan, in Iraq (under US operation) and in countless other countries. I have yet to hear any evidence, whatsoever, that if al-Qaeda members really were in Iraq that they were supported by Saddam Hussein`s government.

Now here`s the part where the going gets good. Gertz says that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi ``fled Iraq within the past several weeks and is in Iran.`` He attributes this statement to ``US intelligence officials.``

These same ``American intelligence officials`` apparently also told Gertz that Iran`s Ministry of Intelligence and Security and the Qods Division of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps ``are deeply involved in supporting terrorists, including al-Qaeda.`` Gertz quotes Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld saying last month, when asked whether the US would go to war with Tehran over al-Qaeda, ``Well, those are decisions not for me. Those are decisions for the president.``

Given the quality of American intelligence about Iraq — the statements and misstatements about weapons of mass destruction and al-Qaeda — can we really trust the Bush Administration on the subject of Iran? I think not.

The claims are actually rather hysterical. When I first saw Gertz`s headline I turned to a coworker and the two of us joked about Bush claiming that the al-Qaeda operatives in Iraq (who, like the WMD, we can`t seem to find) have fled to Iran. Well, it turns out that that`s exactly what they`re claiming. ``What intelligence suggested was in Iraq but wasn`t there was moved to Iran. On to Iran!``

I think what is clear here is that the Bush Administration really is intent on remaking the map in the Middle East, one invasion at a time. We must not allow them to do so. And, it seems, some so-called ``paleo conservatives`` are finally catching up to the need to stop Bush in his tracks. GOPUSA reports today that some paleo conservative believe that unless conservativism returns to its roots of ``libertarian government`` that it will die.

I heartily agree. In the comments today, Timothy refers to a Republican operative who made the statement ``There are two political wings: Liberals and Americans.`` Timothy says, ``Well, now we`re having some fun with the new way of things: now we have `Radical Fascist` and `American.```

Timothy is absolutely correct. America is now faced with a choice: do we want to go the way of the empire building neoconservatives or not? You are either a PNAC-worshipping, Rumsfeld-loving, Wolfowitz-adoring neoconservative or you are a true American. You cannot be both. So which is it, ladies and gentlemen? Will you stand up and fight against President Bush come 2004, or will you stand idly by and allow him to drag this country further into war and empire for another four years? The choice is yours, and yours alone.

I`m sure I don`t have to remind you, dear readers, of the assault against Iran that seems so much like the early days of the propaganda war against Iraq. Warblogging has written about it repeatedly.

Meanwhile, the Iranians are in fact probably developing nuclear weapons. Just yesterday Reuters reported that Iran ``warned that pressure over its nuclear capabilities, branded a threat to peace by Washington, would backfire and harden Iran`s position.``

I frankly don`t blame Iran. The lesson that cannot be forgotten about the treatment of North Korea and Iraq is this: If President Bush considers you a ``rogue state`` ripe for regime change there is only one thing you can do to save yourself — acquire nuclear weapons. The deterrent effect of nuclear weapons helped win the Cold War and is now helping North Korea win its own mini-Cold War. There are sixty years of precedent here. Iran would be foolish not to acquire nuclear weapons.

And perhaps that is the real failure of Bush`s policy. He has managed not to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction but to accelerate it.

Posted by George Paine | Comments (35) | TrackBack (0)

From the ``Gulf War Redux`` Department as of 11:09 AM