"Although Bush was successful in creating his own standards for war, there was no evidence of an "imminent" threat to the U.S. and that lack of evidence violated the War Powers Resolution of 1973"

---

WASHINGTON, D.C. (1/21) - During hearings before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the confirmation of Condoleezza Rice as the new Secretary of State, the reasons given by the Bush administration for the war in Iraq were squarely brought into issue. Senator Barbara Boxer accused Rice and the Bush administration of exaggerating the Iraq threat before the war and of changing positions after the war began.

Was the Iraq war lawful? No. The war on Iraq was not lawful since there was no clear evidence of an “imminent” threat to the US from Iraq. Nor was there any clear evidence  that Saddam would have used WMDs against the United States even if he had them. Although Bush asserted that Saddam posed a "serious"," "grave" or "gathering" threat to America, the "evidence" was to the contrary.

The real question - even if Saddam had WMDs - was whether there was evidence of Saddam's "willingness" to use WMDs against the US or anyone else at the time the U.S went to war. Without the willingness to use WMDs Saddam was not an "imminent" threat to the U.S.

In fact, the evidence of Saddam's "willingness" to use WMDs, was compelling that he would not have used WMDs even if he had them. A review of the evidence at the time Bush chose war makes this clear:

§        it had been 12 years (Kuwait - 1991) since Iraq was a military aggressor against any nation state.

§         during the Gulf War, when General Colin Powell warned Iraq that there would be severe consequences if Iraq used WMD, (although he was being overwhelmingly defeated), Saddam did not use WMDs

§         during 1994 Iraq had a troop buildup on the Kuwait border -  when warned of potential consequences by the US Saddam withdrew his troops -  he did not use WMDs

§       although the US and Britain  had been maintained  "no fly" zones over North and South Iraq for 12 years, Saddam did  not used WMDs

§       although the UN issued substantial economic sanctions, Saddam never used WMDs.

§         although Baghdad was bombed for 4 days in 1998 during the Clinton administration, Saddam did not use WMDs

§         although President Clinton  called for regime change in Iraq in 1998 and Congress passed an act calling for regime change, Saddam did not use WMDs

§         during 7 years of UN inspections (1991 to 1998), Saddam did not use WMDs

§         although Saddam allegedly providing financial support for years to families of suicide bombers supporting Palestine, Saddam has not used WMDs and there was no evidence he ever provided any to them.

§       when Bush named Iraq as part of the “axis of evil,” Saddam did not use WMDs

§        although UN Security Resolution 1441 required renewal of inspections in Iraq, Saddam did not use WMDs

§        although UN inspectors conducted inspections virtually anywhere in Iraq (even the palaces and private homes), Saddam has not used WMDs

§       although the US and Britain  increased the attacks upon Iraqi targets, Saddam did not use WMDs

§         although the military invasion of Iraq was widely publicized as “inevitable” in the global press for almost a year before the war, Saddam did not use WMDs

§         Finally although his honor and courage have been repeatedly challenged by the events set forth about,  Saddam did not use WMDs

Conjecture and speculation as to what anyone may do at some time in the future should not be enough sacrifice the lives of hundreds of thousands of "people," cause the alienation of allies and potential allies in the war on terrorism, and create additional hatred towards America across the world.

Again, it had been 12 years since Iraq was an aggressor against any nation state, Saddam heeded the warnings of Colin Powell, and did not use WMDs although Baghdad was bombed for 4 days in 1998 killing many innocent Iraqi civilians.

The price to send Saddam to his glory was too high since there was no "compelling" evidence that Saddam "then" presented an "imminent" of using WMD against the US or anyone. Without evidence of Saddam's "willingness"  to use WMDs against the US or anyone else, Saddam was not an "imminent" threat to the U.S.

Although Bush was successful in creating his own standards for war. There was no evidence of an "imminent" threat to the U.S. and that the lack of evidence violated the War Powers Resolution of 1973 (incorporated in the 2002 Iraq Resolution). By lowering the standards for war to propaganda of fear and a call for freedom, the stability of the world is at stake. Our methods, policies and our law must be examined.

For more see Accountability for an illegal war?