By Sherry J. Tippett
Interhemispheric Resource Center
It has been distressing to see U.S. Rep. Heather Wilson, R-N.M., serving to perpetuate the myths surrounding President . Bush's justifications for the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
In a Feb. 11 interview on CNN's Anderson Cooper Show, Wilson recycled two canards used to justify the invasion of Iraq: alleged ties between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida and the existence of stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction ready to be launched at the U.S.
She argues that the recent memo discovered in Iraq alleged to be from Abu Musab al-Zarqawi to the al-Qaida leadership demonstrates that there is a clear tie between Iraq and al-Qaida.
In fact, a straightforward reading of the memo (available on the Coalition Provisional Authority's Web site) emphatically does not show that there was any connection at all between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida before Operation Iraqi Freedom. Nor does it demonstrate any connection between Saddam and al-Qaida after the war.
The memo notes that America "is looking to a near future, when it will remain safe in its bases, while handing over control of Iraq to a bastard government with an army and police force that will bring back the time of (Saddam Hussein) and his cohorts. There is no doubt that our field of movement is shrinking and the grip around the throat of the Mujahidin has begun to tighten. With the spread of the army and police, our future is becoming frightening."
Assuming Zarqawi is in fact the author (a big assumption), he is less than enthusiastic about the prospects for the jihad under a new Iraqi army and police, which will bring back Saddam's regime, or at least its iron-fist tactics.
If Saddam (or his fellow travelers) had any kind of collaboration worked out with al-Qaida, the return of his regime (or a sibling version) would be something to applaud. The regime's methods of oppression, under the logic of the Saddam-n'-Osama theorists, wouldn't apply to al-Qaida or its affiliates.
So why is the memo's author afraid of precisely this scenario coming to pass?
Wilson's more astonishing statement, however, involved her claims of the presence of biological weapons. She argues that "the most important thing was his [Saddam Hussein's3/8 biological weapons program, which we've now confirmed he was continuing to pursue up to the day of the invasion, and the ability to deliver those biological weapons against Americans on American soil."
This statement flies in the face of the most recent statements from top intelligence officials who also supported the war, including CIA Director George Tenet and former head of the Iraq Survey Group David Kay, who has said he now believes that Iraq did not have banned weapons before the war and had probably destroyed them more than a decade ago.
These claims have been so discredited that two congressional panels and an independent commission will now investigate claims such as these, which are now widely recognized at least as unqualified assertions if not actual exaggerations or misrepresentations.
In rehashing such points, Wilson shows herself to be out of step with the majority of Americans on this issue. A recent Washington Post-ABC News poll shows that 52 percent of Americans believe the president either lied or deliberately exaggerated evidence that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction in order to justify the war in Iraq. (Twenty-one percent believe he lied and 31 percent believe he deliberately exaggerated).
Wilson believes the war was justified, which is fine. Let's have an open, constructive debate about the war and the directions U.S. policy should pursue now that the war has become an occupation. But such a debate demands openness on all sides.
It is understandable that Wilson feels compelled to stand by President Bush. But she does a disservice to her constituents when she mangles the truth in doing so.
Sherry J. Tippett (sherry @irc-online.org) directs the Southwest Global-Local Links Project at the Interhemispheric Resource Center in Silver City.
opinion 
E-mail Story
Print Friendly
