THIS FAR AND NO FURTHER
A Timeline of Events Surrounding the Radical Right's Attempt to Subvert American Democracy
Written and Compiled by Black Max
March 2003
Week Three
- Mid-March: Just before the invasion, American special forces units are secretly deployed inside Iraq to investigate sites suspected of being missile or chemical- or biological-weapons storage depots.
Iraq war and occupation
The units find nothing. "They came up with nothing," says a former high-level US intelligence official. "Never found a single Scud." - In May, a Pentagon advisor to the Office of Special Plans tells Hersh that the failure to find Iraqi WMDs "means nothing. We've got to wait to get all the answers from Iraqi scientists who will tell us where they are." Another OSP advisor says, "I think they're hidden in the mountains or transferred to some friendly countries. Saddam had enough time to move them." The OSP likes Syria as a target destination. But the former intelligence officer dismisses the OSP justifications as "bait and switch. Bait them into Iraq with weapons of mass destruction. And, when they aren't found, there's this whole bullsh*t about the weapons being in Syria."
- Former Democratic senator Bob Kerrey, a supporter of the invasion, says, "It appeared that [the Bush administration hawks] understood that to get the American people on their side, they needed to come up with something more to say than 'We've liberated Iraq and got rid of a tyrant.' So they had to find some ties to weapons of mass destruction and were willing to allow a majority of Americans to incorrectly conclude that the invasion of Iraq had something to do with the World Trade Center. Overemphasizing the national security threat made it more difficult to get the rest of the world on our side. It was the weakest and most misleading argument we could use. ...It appears that they have the intelligence. The problem is, they didn't like the conclusions." (Seymour Hersh)
- March 15: The CIA helps Iraqi General Nizar al-Khazraji escape from Denmark to Kuwait.
Iraq war and occupation
Al-Khazraji is favored by senior officials at the CIA to be the US's choice to succeed Saddam Hussein as ruler of Iraq, a choice not mirrored by the Pentagon or the State Department. He was previously head of the Iraqi armed forces during the invasion of Kuwait in 1990, and after fleeing to Jordan in 1995, applied for political asylum in Denmark in 1998. (ABC)
"I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. ...I think it will go relatively quickly, [in] weeks rather than months." -- Dick Cheney, March 16, on Meet the Press
- March 16: In anticipation of the failure of the US-sponsored war resolution in the United Nations
Iraq war and occupation
(Bulgaria is the only country besides the US, Britain, and Spain, the original sponsors, to support the resolution), Bush meets with Britain's Tony Blair and Spain's Jose Maria Aznar for an "emergency summit" in the Portuguese Azores. As the summit concludes on March 16, the three reiterate their support for the invasion of Iraq. Bush says, "Tomorrow is a moment of truth for the world." The US will officially abandon its attempts to secure the resolution; it fails to pass largely because most nations do not believe Bush's assertions that Iraq has failed to meet the conditions of Resolution 1441. (CNN/Mother Jones) - March 16: Three days before the invasion, 169 members of the Pentagon's Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance fly to Kuwait to begin preparations for the post-Hussein era of Iraq.
Iraq war and occupation
The ORHA group is in chaos; no one has an organizational chart of the various Iraqi government ministries, so they have to begin their planning without a fundamental outline of the Iraqi government structure. Some members gather to draw up an informal list of 16 key sites around the city of Baghdad that American troops should protect after the fall of the city. The list includes the central bank, the Iraqi Museum, and the Oil Ministry. Of the listed sites, few besides the Oil Ministry receive any protection. (New Yorker/Mother Jones) - March 16: In a final administration effort to shape public opinion before the invasion, Dick Cheney appears again on Meet the Press and reiterates his views of the previous August about Saddam Hussein's nuclear program:
Iraq war and occupation
"We know he's been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons. ...And Saddam Hussein becomes a prime suspect in that regard because of his past track record and because we know he has, in fact, developed these kinds of capabilities, chemical and biological weapons.... We know he's out trying once again to produce nuclear weapons.... We know that he has a long-standing relationship with various terrorist groups, including the al-Qaeda organization. ...We have to be prepared now to take the kind of bold action that's being contemplated with respect to Iraq in order to ensure that we don't get hit with a devastating attack when the terrorists' organization gets married up with a rogue state that's willing to provide it with the kinds of deadly capabilities that Saddam Hussein has developed and used over the years." Cheney does not reveal his source for this skein of allegations, all of which turn out to be flatly wrong. When asked about Mohammed ElBaradei's statement that Iraq does not have a nuclear program, Cheney responds by insulting the competence of both ElBaradei and his IAEA. - Cheney is asked by interviewer Tim Russert about the upcoming invasion of Iraq: "If...we're not treated as liberators, but as conquerors, and the Iraqis begin to resist, particularly in Baghdad, do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly, and bloody battle with significant American casualties?" Cheney's response: "Well, I don't think it's likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators. ...The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but what they want to get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that." Sadly, history will prove Cheney wrong. During the interview Cheney admits indirectly that most of the information he has about Iraq comes from defectors and exiles, many of whom have not lived in the country for decades. Later Cheney is forced to admit that he "misspoke" when he accuses Iraq of having nuclear weapons, later saying that he meant to say Iraq had "reconstituted its nuclear program," a claim equally false. Cheney also says, "To suggest that we need several hundred thousand troops there after military operations cease, after the conflict ends, I don't think is accurate. I think that's an overstatement." Again, wildly erroneous. (Washington Post, "Meet the Press", Progressive, NBC/Bush on Iraq, Frank Rich [PDF file], David Corn, Al Franken, Bob Woodward)
- March 16: General Wesley Clark predicts that the result of a unilateral invasion of Iraq will be "to supercharge recruiting for al-Qaeda."
Iraq war and occupation
Former Clinton administration counterterrorism official Daniel Benjamin agrees, saying that such a war will provide "the propaganda gains the jihadists will make in pointing to this as America attacking Islam. That will give them a big boost in recruiting and fund-raising. There are millions and millions of people whose hearts and minds are in play." And shortly after the invasion, a senior US counterintelligence official will observe that "the invasion of Iraq is already being used as a recruitment tool by al-Qaeda and other groups.... And it is an effective tool." Al-Qaeda recruitment efforts will spike in Germany, Britain, Spain, the Netherlands, and other countries. "[W]e know the activity is increasing," says a member of the German interior ministry, "and the willingness to participate and to listen to radical messages is on the rise." Saad al Faqih, the head of the Movement for Islamic Reform in Arabia, a Saudi dissident group, says that within a few weeks of the invasion, over 3000 Saudi youths will leave for Iraq to fight the Americans. He calls the invasion "a gift to Osama bin Laden." Authors Eric Alterman and Mark Green later write, "The Bush administration had tried to hype a phony connection between Hussein and global terrorism before the war and was warned by its own intelligence agencies that while the connection didn't exist yet, the war Bush planned just might cause one." Counterterrorism expert Vincent Cannistraro tells a Senate panel after the invasion, "There was no substantive intelligence information linking Saddam to international terrorism before the war. Now we've created the conditions that have made Iraq the place to come to attack Americans." (Washington Post/New York Times/Eric Alterman and Mark Green) - March 16: The Washington Post publishes a carefully crafted article titled "US Lacks Specifics on Banned Arms," written by Walter Pincus with input from Bob Woodward. The Post story grew out of "three separate sources" telling Woodward "confidentially that the intelligence on WMD was not as conclusive as the CIA and the administration had suggested." The story is buried in the back pages and has no effect on the media's anticipatory discussions of the upcoming invasion. (Frank Rich [PDF file])
"Do not destroy oil wells." -- George W. Bush, to the people of Iraq
"Should Saddam Hussein choose confrontation, the American people can know that every measure has been taken to avoid war, and every measure will be taken to win it." -- George W. Bush, to the people of America, quoted by Frank Rich, p.218 (Rich recalls Mary McCarthy's quip about Lillian Hellman: "Every word she writes is a lie, including 'and' and 'the.'")
- March 17: Bush tells the nation, "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.
Iraq war and occupation
...There is no question we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical. ...The regime...has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al-Qaeda. The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other." (David Corn emphasizes the measure of Bush's lies: "Unequivocal. Unambiguous. Bush was telling the public he knew for sure. He had undeniable proof." Bush's statements of fact have all been proven to be complete and utter lies, designed to raise war hysteria and fear among Americans. Aided by the ever-compliant mainstream media, the effort is wildly successful.) Bush also issues a false assurance to the US, saying, "...the American people can know that every measure has been taken to avoid war." In fact, Bush decided to invade Iraq over a year ago, and has been working steadily ever since to prepare for and promote the war. He issues an ultimatum to Saddam Hussein, demanding that he and his two sons surrender and leave the country within 48 hours, or face an invasion: essentially a declaration of war. All diplomatic efforts to resolve the crisis cease. - Either right before or right after the speech, John Gibson, the Bush speechwriter who had worked so hard to craft an "unequivocal, unambiguous" case against Hussein, runs into NSC press spokesman Sean McCormack. According to Gibson, McCormack asks the speechwriter, "What if we invade Iraq and we don't find any weapons?" Gibson recalls, "We both kind of laughed," but Gibson doesn't find much humor in the question. Privately, Gibson is much less sure of the rationale behind the war than his words in Bush's mouth indicate. No weapons? Gibson thinks. That would be a problem. (White House, FactMonster, Democratic Underground, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, White House/Doug Long, Bush on Iraq, David Corn, Michael Isikoff and David Corn)
- Of Bush's speech, writer David Corn observes, "Bush's final pre-war remarks capped off a deceptive campaign that had been fueled by unsubstantiated, inaccurate, untruthful, or misleading statements about Iraq's WMD arsenal, Saddam Hussein's supposed links to al-Qaeda (and 9/11), and the alternatives to war.
Iraq war and occupation
And none of this had been a secret. The day after Bush issued his ultimatum, the Washington Post published a piece on A13 that began, 'As the Bush administration prepares to attack Iraq this week it is doing so on the basis of a number of allegations against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein that have been challenged -- and in some cases disproved -- by the United Nations, European governments and even US intelligence reports.' The headline was damning: 'Bush Clings to Dubious Allegations About Iraq.' Bush's road to Baghdad -- whether the war was justified or not -- had been paved with lies." (David Corn) - During the speech, Bush says, "I'd like to speak to the Iraqi people."
Iraq war and occupation
While some might expect Bush to defend the upcoming invasion as a liberation of the civilian populace, or praise the Iraqis for their steadfastness in surviving under Hussein, Bush has only five words: "Do not destroy oil wells." Meanwhile, Britain's Tony Blair is telling Parliament, "Our actions have nothing to do with oil or any of the other conspiracy theories put forward." When press secretary Ari Fleischer calls the mission "Operation Iraqi Liberation," or O.I.L., Karl Rove quickly has the name changed to "Operation Iraqi Freedom." (Greg Palast) - After the speech, the Department of Homeland Security raises the official threat
Iraq war and occupation
level to "orange," or high. (Mother Jones) - March 17: Hours after Jay Garner and his team, in charge of the Iraqi reconstruction project to be implemented after the fall of Hussein, arrive in Kuwait, Garner is called by Donald Rumsfeld, who again asserts that he wants to replace Garner's entire slate of Americans to head the 23 Iraqi ministries with his own Defense Department personnel.
Iraq war and occupation
(See March 13 item for more information.) Garner tries to give Rumsfeld something: "Okay, maybe we can take a DOD guy here," he offers. "Maybe we can take one there." Rumsfeld wants at least a majority of his own personnel, most likely so he can assert direct authority over the ministry officials. "Trust me, I'm going to put together a good team for you," Rumsfeld tells Garner, still naming no one to replace Garner's carefully chosen selections. "It's going to be a great team." Garner protests, "[Y]ou can't get them here in time." Rumsfeld counters, "Jay, we're going to give you a much better team than you have now." Garner answers, "Okay, that's fine," hangs up, and says to his deputy, Ron Adams, "We're not going to do a damn thing. We're going to go with what we got. Don't say a word to anybody. They'll never know." (Bob Woodward)
Bush lies about legal justification for invasion
- March 18: Bush flatly lies about the legal justification for invading Iraq.
Iraq war and occupation
He tells Congress, "[A]cting pursuant to the Constitution and [the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of October 2002] is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001." Bush knows full well that Iraq has no connections to the 9/11 attacks, regardless of how lustily he claims otherwise. (White House/OhMy News) - March 18: While the news media is busy covering the runup to invasion, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz
Iraq war and occupation
orders military-service chiefs to provide information that will help Bush invoke national-security exemptions to environmental laws. Molly Ivins acidly comments, "Can you say, 'Using national security for political purposes?'" (Molly Ivins and Lou Dubose) - March 18: Late this evening, as the US prepares to launch its "shock and awe" offensive against Iraq, NBC's chief Washington correspondent Tim Russert calls the White House.
Iraq war and occupation
In his conversation with White House press aide Adam Levine, Russert says, "All I can tell you, man, is you guys better find the WMD." "You're telling me," Levine replies, then cracks, "Either that, or we'll find the CIA version of Mark Fuhrman." Fuhrman is the Los Angeles police officer accused of planting evidence in the murder investigation of O.J. Simpson. (Michael Isikoff and David Corn) - March 18: Clear Channel, one of the nation's largest radio owners, has ordered that its stations no longer play the music of the country group Dixie Chicks after a statement made by lead singer Natalie Maines disparaging Bush.
Conservative media slant
Maines, a Texan, recently told a London audience, "Just so you know, we're ashamed that the president of the United States is from Texas." She added she felt Bush's foreign policy is alienating the rest of the world. Her remark unleashes a nationwide backlash. The group's records will be pulled by dozens of country-music stations across the country. "Out of respect for our troops, our city and our listeners, [we] have taken the Dixie Chicks off our playlists," says Gail Austin, Clear Channel's director of programming for the two Jacksonville stations owned by the media conglomerate. That's a big leap in logic, said media expert Dennis Stouse, a Jacksonville University professor and chairman of the school's department of communications. "It doesn't have anything to do with our troops or our city." Punishing Maines for speaking her mind does not fit into the American idea of democracy, he says. "We should accept the fact that there are viewpoints we don't agree with." Celebrities have as much right to make political commentary as do television pundits, he adds. Maines later apologizes for the remark, but for months, Clear Channel continues to refuse to allow its stations to play the group's songs. (Jacksonville Business Journal) - March 18:Former Teledesic CEO Russ Daggett writes in a column opposing the upcoming war with Iraq: "The reasons given for war by the Bush administration are, I believe, flawed.
Iraq war and occupation
The fact that the reasons given have been constantly shifting also draws into question their sincerity. And there are practical, financial and moral reasons to oppose this war. Despite President Bush's rhetoric about war being his 'last choice' and that the 'choice of going to war is Saddam's,' the fact is that the U.S. is choosing to go to war. There is no immediate provocation. It is part of this Administration's new doctrine of 'pre-emptive war' which states, essentially, that we can start a war whenever we feel threatened (it's not clear if this doctrine allows other countries, similarly, to start wars when they feel threatened). But use of the term 'preemption' is misleading in this case, as there is no indication that any kind of attack by Saddam on anyone, let alone the U.S., is imminent. Saddam's military is irrelevant and doesn't pose a threat to any other country, let alone the U.S.. If you believe Saddam constitutes a more abstract or long-term threat, you might call war in this case 'preventative.' But if there is no imminent threat to the U.S., then the U.S. bears a heavy burden of proof that war is necessary and justified. It's really not up to France or any other country (or opponents of war) to make the case that war is not necessary or justified. Has President Bush met that burden? I don't think so." (Strategic News Service/Smalla) - March 18: Fox talk show host Bill O'Reilly states, "...if the Americans go in and overthrow Saddam Hussein and it's clear he had nothing [i.e. no WMDs],
Conservative media slant
I will apologize to the nation, and I will not trust the Bush administration again." To date, O'Reilly has not made good on his pledge. (Dallas Star-Telegram)
