When is Jello a biological weapon? I guess when your name is George W. Bush.
Look, I supported the war in order to get rid of Saddam. Not because I thought he was an immediate threat to the United States, but because of his human rights violations, war crimes, and use of WMD in the past. I can understand the argument against deposing dictators for human rights abuses and war crimes, but I still feel like it's the right thing to do. It is also the right thing to give up control to the UN afterwards, and let the people set up their own free democratic institutions under the guide of the international community. Bush hasn't done that.
Regardless, I think Bush's full justification for the war was built on lies. He can say what he wants, but this scandal over his State of the Union address goes a whole lot deeper than forged documents about uranium. Now that Bush has finally taken full responsibility for the speech, let's take a closer look at what he said.
State of the Union, January 28, 2003:
BUSH: The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.
FACT: According to the House Armed Services Committee, Iraq had 2,160 kg of bacterial growth media — enough to produce 26,000 liters of anthrax. What is bacterial growth media you ask? Food for bacteria. Remember those high school science experiments where you grew cultures on agar? Agar (that clear, jello-like substance) was the growth media. This growth media is what Bush was referring to when he said Saddam had "biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax." That's right, according to Bush, Jello is now a biological weapon. (No word if the substance was in it's easily transportable powder form, or if it had been mixed with water to form a "weaponized" colloid).
Still laughing? Granted, you can't get tons of casein, thioglycollate broth, yeast extract and peptone at your local grocery store, but they are still only raw materials for growing antrax, not vast quantities of anthrax itself. As Hans Blix reported to the Security Council on January 27, 2003, "Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 litres of [anthrax], which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction." There is no hard evidence that they actually produced any. Even assuming any anthrax exists today in Iraq, there is no proof Saddam had the ability to weaponize it in a fine powder like that used in the anthrax attacks that followed 9/11. The threat from Saddam was no greater when Bush gave his speech than it was twelve years ago.
BUSH: The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hadn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.
FACT: What is botulinum toxin? Botox! The toxin injected to clear up wrinkles by relaxing muscles, albeit in a less concentrated form. According to an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association widely distributed by the CDC, "After the 1991 Persian Gulf War, Iraq admitted to the United Nations inspection team to having produced 19000 L of concentrated botulinum toxin, of which approximately 10000 L were loaded into military weapons." The article references a UN report that was not available online. According to the State Department, "Iraq declared 19,000 liters. The UN believes it could have produced more than double that amount." When Bush said the UN concluded that Saddam had "materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin" he simply neglected to mention that this was in 1991. You will also notice that "materials sufficient to produce" are not the same as the real thing. In other words, there is no proof of any actual biological weapons. All we have to go on is what Saddam claimed he had after the Gulf War. The threat from Saddam was no greater when Bush gave his speech than it was twelve years ago.
BUSH: Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.
FACT: Do I even need to go into the "materials sufficient to produce" argument again? This time we are talking about chemical weapons, so no growth media required. But what is required are the chemical compounds that can be used to produce these deadly agents. As Timothy McVeigh taught us in the Oklahoma City bombing, chemistry is a funny thing and you can get the compounds for some pretty lethal stuff at your local hardware center or feed store. Also notice that Bush said Saddam "had" these materials. He did not claim that he "has" them any longer. Any bets on which year the intelligence estimates Bush references were from? Impossible to say. Bush does not tell us. But my bet is that it all goes back to what Saddam claimed to have in 1991. Given that no weapons or precursors have been found, many are wondering if Saddam exaggerated his stockpiles in 1991, as a desparate attempt to look stronger than he was. Either way, the threat from Saddam was no greater when Bush gave his speech than it was twelve years ago.
BUSH: U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.
FACT: Notice the use of the word "had" not "has" here, too. If our intelligence indicated that Saddam still "has" these weapons, why didn't Bush say so? The 30,000 number matches that in the House Armed Services Committee report, and the Armed Services Committee report uses a 1997 UN report as its source. Specifically, the committee reaches a total of 31,658 by starting with the 15,620 munitions for which unilateral destruction "is not verifiable" owing to the destruction methods used by Iraq (melting and demolition). Then they add 16,038 discarded chemical muniitons for which "Iraq has not provided supporting documentation [of their destruction]."
The rest of Iraq's 152,119 filled and 95,144 empty chemical munitions, dating back to 1981, have been used or destroyed and fully documented as such. Or at least to the satisfaction of the House Armed Services Committee. To believe that Iraq still has "upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents" today, you would have to believe there were almost no weapons that Iraq destroyed by melting or demolition. You would also have to believe that there is complete documentation for all of the weapons destroyed by American bombs in operations Desert Storm and Desert Fox. You would then have to believe that all the remaining weapons are still in serviceable condition twelve years later. I wouldn't bet on it. I might believe a much smaller number than 30,000 - if it was based on hard intellegence, not a gray area in a 1997 UN report. The truth is, the threat from Saddam was no greater when Bush gave his speech than it was twelve years ago.
BUSH: From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.
FACT: Defectors also told us that the Iraqi people would rally to our cause. They wanted us to go to war and were willing to spice things up to get us there. Two trailers suspected of being mobile weapons labs were actually found. Yet, no traces of any biological agents or weapons production materials were found in either of these mobile units. In fact, "US State Department experts disputed CIA conclusions that tractor-trailers found in Iraq were mobile biological weapons labs...." Not only that, but the now deceased British scientist David Kelly, "told the press that he had examined the alleged labs in person and agreed with the Iraqi's explanation; the two vehicles were intended for the production of hydrogen to fill artillery balloons." The threat from Saddam was no greater when Bush gave his speech than it was twelve years ago.
Last but definitely not least, is the paragraph that everyone is talking about. It was the climax of this portion of Bush's speech and the ultimate reason why Saddam was an "imminent threat" to the United States.
BUSH: The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.
FACT: No, he clearly CLAIMED TO HAVE weapons of mass destruction, TWELVE YEARS AGO. This is not the same as proof that he is hiding such weapons today. The uranium fraud has been clearly exposed. The aluminum tubes claim has been "dismissed by the International Atomic Energy Agency and by an outside panel made up of two American nuclear physicists, two British experts and a German expert." And that IAEA report Bush references? It was from 1991. By calling it a report from the "1990s," Bush implies a more imminent threat. If Bush was more specific, maybe there is another report I'm missing. However, Bush is purposefully vague. The facts can't speak for themselves if you can't find them. From what I can tell, the threat from Saddam was no greater when Bush gave his speech than it was twelve years ago.
As you can see, many of the lines included in Bush's State of the Union address were "technically" correct, with the obvious exception of referring to Jello as a biological weapon. Nonetheless, every single line was misleading at best, dishonest at worst. He was lying by omission, if not lying to the American people outright. Is that what passes for Presidential integrity and leadership? The day that we start allowing our leaders to treat foreign policy and war like any other partisan squabble - and distort the facts to make their case - is a day we are in deep, deep trouble. Is that day already here? You be the judge.