Twisted History: False Claims of Bush's Success on WMD

Co-authored by Alexandra Bell, Research Associate at Ploughshares Fund.

The victors write history. Few would ascribe that right to the outgoing Bush Administration. The "Highlights of Accomplishments and Results of the Administration of George W. Bush" is fifty pages of glossy photos and false claims of the last eight years, complete with "Did You Know" sections usually seen in 8th grade textbooks.

Some of the claims have already been rebutted on Huffington Post.

Here, we just want to set the record straight on the 10 big wins claimed on nuclear weapons. Rather than making us safer, President Bush leaves office with nearly every proliferation problem more dangerous than when he entered. Here are the claims and the facts.

"1-Prevented our Enemies from Threatening America and our Allies with
Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)"

True, that there were no attacks in the seven years following 9/11, but there were also none in the seven years previous. Globally, threats have grown. Every member of the "axis of evil" is more dangerous to America today than in 2001. Iraq is in turmoil; Iran and North Korea advanced their nuclear programs more in the past five years than in the previous ten. The Taliban and Al Qaeda have regrouped in unstable and nuclear-armed Pakistan. Nuclear sites around the world remain at risk while funding for securing and eliminating nuclear threats stagnates. Net risk has increased.

"2-Secured a commitment from North Korea to end its nuclear weapons program."

True, but only after the neoconservative fantasy of overthrowing the Pyongyang regime thwarted negotiations for five years. Vice-President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Undersecretary of State John Bolton championed policies that let North Korea go from having enough fissile material for 2 weapons in 2001 to enough for 12 by 2006. It restarted its plutonium processing, withdrew from the NPT, tested new missiles and detonated a nuclear bomb. It also may have traded nuclear secrets with Syria, Pakistan and Iran. At the end of 2006, the Bush Administration finally began negotiations in earnest and got the tenuous agreement that stands today. It is a deal we could have secured eight years ago.

"3- Persuaded Libya to disclose and dismantle all aspects of its WMD and
advanced missile programs and renounce terrorism."

This is the most notable success of the Bush years, but made possible only by breaking with the neocon strategy. Instead of trying to change the Libyan regime, we changed the regime's behavior. US military strength played a role, but so did strong alliances, negotiations, sanctions, security assurances and persuasion over four administrations. Diplomacy delivered the victory, not force. Libya has now dismantled its nuclear, chemical and long-range missile programs. It provided the model for stopping the North Korean programs and could be applied to Iran.

"4- Withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and operationalized missile defense."

We did withdraw from the treaty, but all we have to show for it is a scarecrow of a weapons system. Over the past 8 years, the U.S. has spent almost $70 billion on anti-missile systems with no real increase in capability. The Bush-created Missile Defense Agency Pentagon faked tests, misled Congress and adopted a bizarre "spiral development" process in which interceptors and radars are deployed before they are fully tested, fail, are fixed, fail again, are fixed again, etc. This $9 billion dollar-a-year booster club should be disbanded; the weapons devolved back to the management and budgets of the military services from whence they came.

"5- Dismantled the A.Q. Khan nuclear proliferation network."

Partially true. The A.Q. Khan smuggling network was finally disrupted in 2004, only after sensitive technology was transferred to Iran, Libya, North Korea and possibly other states. Pakistan's lack of cooperation, including its refusal to allow Khan to be questioned, has thwarted attempts of the U.S. and its allies to determine if the network persists. European intelligence reports note that nuclear black market sales continue in the region.

"6- Established the Proliferation Security Initiative and multilateral coalitions
to stop WMD proliferation and strengthen our ability to locate and secure
nuclear and radiological materials around the world."

The Proliferation Security Initiative is a good idea of marginal benefit. It is good at detecting and stopping illicit shipments of large items, like missiles and centrifuges, but cannot stop a suitcase full of plutonium or key nuclear components shipped through legitimate channels. This program was a major talking point of the administration, but did little to stop the nuclear program in Iran, for example. The legacy booklet points out that Bush programs have removed enough material from insecure sites for 30 nuclear bombs. That's good, but there is enough material in the world for 200,000, says Harvard's Matt Bunn. This boast is like bragging about throwing a bucket of water on a burning building.

"7- Halved the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile five years ahead of schedule."

This has been positive. We have moved ahead of schedule to cut weapons down to the numbers negotiated with Russia in the 2002 Moscow Treaty. The problem is that the treaty has no verification provisions, no dismantlement requirement and expires the day it comes into force. After this treaty the Bush Administration ended arms negotiations with Russia, leaving the increasingly authoritarian state with over ten thousands thermonuclear bombs and a deteriorating command and control system.

This is dangerous even during good times; today, U.S.-Russian relations are at their worst point since before the collapse of the Soviet Union. Administration plans to expand NATO and deploy anti-missile bases on Russia's borders inflamed Russian concerns over U.S. intentions.
There remains no coherent plan for addressing the danger from the almost 1,300 Russian nuclear warheads poised for attack within 15 minutes and thousands more in insecure storage. Former Senator Sam Nunn warns, "It's insane for us, 16 years after the Cold War, to think of the Russian president having four or five minutes to make a decision about whether what may be a false warning requires a response before he loses his retaliatory force."

The War to Nowhere

Finally, the greatest sin in the Bush Legacy Book is one of omission. Nowhere does the history note that senior officials led by President Bush and Vice-President Cheney intentionally misled the American people on the threat from chemical, biological and nuclear weapons from Iraq. Not one claim was true. At the time of the invasion Iraq did not have any significant quantities of these weapons or weapons components, did not have any programs for making these weapons, did not have any plans to restart programs to make these weapons and did not have any operational ties to Al Qaeda or involvement in the attacks of September 11.

President Bush called the failure to find any weapons in Iraq "a disappointment." It is much more. President Bush committed the greatest mistake any president can: he lead the nation into an unnecessary war. That is a legacy we will never forget.

Comments

[holyhandgrenaid]

What I want to see is a president go before the UN and propose an international nuclear disarmament. Nations do not need such weapons, as the entire idea behind them is to never use them. The only nuclear weapons that will be used in the foreseeable future will be used, most likely, by forces that are not part of any of the countries with nuclear arsenals. These are not attacks that can be responded to in like kind, as the 'target' would most likely not be the assailant. If anyone has nuclear weapons, everyone needs them- if nobody has them, then nobody needs them. A true great triumph for mankind would be for the nuclear nation; US, UK, France, Russia, Israel, Pakistan, India, China, and North Korea to stand together and say "No more!"

Other nations, such as Iran, that may or may not have nuclear aspirations would be left with no choice but to follow suit, lest they incur the wrath of the rest of the world.

[bud812]

Why do we as americans have any right to tell other countries they cant have wmd when we have more than anyone and in Iraq we had no reason to fear them.Iraq never had the capacity to cause us harm but on the other hand we did have wmds and we did threaten them,so who is the thug in this equasion?These types of actions are some of the reasons we will suffer as a country do as i say not as i do is a problem for individuals and countries alike!

[G-guy]

The Bush presidency began with empty promises of unity.

After being caught completely off-guard on 9/11, it became a study in
how a President can mislead the country. Anger and incompetence
and lies turned the obvious source {bin Laden} to Saddam and Iraq
{our-so-called} biggest threat, complete with weapons that never existed
to their "hating our freedom", to the entire basis of this contract-profiting
invasion. Capturing bin Laden went from the vowed never -ending search
to an after thought. Meanwhile, tragedys such as Katrina were handled with
an ignorant failure and concern. Billions spent, economy shot, Bush era ends.

8 years of unaccounted foolery, and contradictions, apathy of plight of injured vets,
Destruction of our respect and trust in U.S. leadership around the world, and now......

Tomorrow night, the final snow-job speech, when the last 8 years will be distorted
in the final blast of hot air will humbly create a picture of unity and no further terror attacks.

Then, Our President will leave his final TV appearance, with an arrogant smirk, thinking.
"Nailed it!"............ then soon return home to his comfortable, out of touch retired life.

[dessertsfirst]

W. did such a good job of decimating this country, that the terrorists don't need to attack. GWB and his administration have brought America to her knees economically, and that's what Osama bin Laden's stated goal was... remember he attacked the financial citadel of New York City.

[ranchero42]

Dubya's official portrait needs a nameplate for the ages: "History records the story of a leader of a party paralyzed by ideology, his name has been lost for all time".

[jhamm1]

Another point to emphasis about number two, is that we didn't need a commitment until posturing from the Bush administration forced North Korea into a defensive posture which accelerated development of its nuclear program.

[slarabee]

Thank you for your insights. Please be sure to repeat these facts over the next ten to twenty years as the country's memory wanes. We all need to make very sure we do not allow the GOP to rewrite history.

[StillAmused]

Without a doubt, the grandest canard is the repeated claim that the Bush/Cheney junta has protected the U.S. from "another attack" since September 11, 2001. Curiously, not a single pundit or newsmodel has raised this question: Why would bin Laden or his apostles invest the time, risk, logistics and money plotting another large-scale "event" on U.S. soil when they've already accomplished more than they could have dreamed with the original version?

Bush has saved them the airfare and logistical overhead by delivering the targets to them on their own soil, conveniently accessible to regional foreign fighters who are free of even the debatable security measures faced by international passengers and cargo landing here.

As a result, beyond the approximately 3,000 original victims in 2001, it can be reasonably argued that al Qaeda has since exacted another 4,800 American lives (including Afghanistan), 100,000 injured and untold hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi lives (the latter, of course, never appearing in the Bush calculus).

... and not a microbe or neutron has so far been employed.

[vippy]

Not having been attacked yet is like wearing a Tin Foil Hat because we have not yet been
invaded by the aliens! What nonsense!

[Buddy McCue]

It's a joke as old as Vaudeville:

"Why are you wearing that funny hat?"

"It keeps the lions away!"

"But there aren't any lions around for thousands of miles."

"See how well it works?"

To assume that the Bush's policies have kept us safe is a logical error in causality. That would be "Non Causa Pro Causa," if I remember correctly.

[Deidroni]

Bush was disappointed there were no WMD in Iraq, heck he should be happy that none of our troops were killed by the WMD that were supposed to have existed.

[Tenebrae]

He presided over (ordered? who knows?) the outing of a covert CIA operative working on non-proliferation of WMDs, one who specialized in Iran and the Middle East. What chutzpah to claim he has made the US, or anyone, safer from WMDs. The man is a war criminal and even the rest of his party is backing away as fast as they can.

[Carolab]

New admission over legal advice on Iraq invasion

Government fails to provide proof that the former attorney general Goldsmith was not pressured to change his initial opinion that 2003 invasion could be illegal

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jan/13/iraq-iraq

[Joe Cirincione - Huffpost Blogger]

Here is a direct link to Hans' personal blog:

http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/category/hans_kristensen

[Joe Cirincione - Huffpost Blogger]

My colleague, Hans Kristensen from the Federation of American Scientists, wrote me that I was too kind to President Bush. He digs deeper into the flaws of the Moscow Treaty (officially the Stratetgic Offensive Reductions Threaty or SORT of a treaty).

From Hans Kristensen at www.Nukestrat.com

"You're actually too nice about his legacy on nuclear reductions:

"1. They have not "Halved the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile five years ahead of schedule." They reduced it by "nearly half" by late-2007. I'm not being academic; just a 1% difference is over 1,000 warheads. And the reduction was almost entirely in inactive warheads.
2. Essentially all of the cuts in operational weapons were from implementing decisions made by the 1994 NPR: retiring the MX, removing 4 SSBNs from nuclear service, ending the nuclear role for the B-1.
3. SORT is not a new reduction; it is the START III force level decided by the 1997 Helsinki Agreement. Bush did not come up with a new force level vision during his eight years in office.
4. Bush achieved the lowest warhead dismantling record of any U.S. president since Eisenhower.
5. The Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction was part of a questionable phase in US nuclear policy that spawned a new Global Strike mission focused on preemption, and led to inclusion into the strategic war plan of new nuclear strike options against regional states with WMD programs.

"It's important to put the reductions in perspective."

[TrooAmerican]

THank you for posting this article and your comments.
I appreciate it.

[LizM]

Highlights of Accomplishments and Results, is a tough read, in more ways than one... 8th grade "Did You Know" sections notwithstanding. I got as far as the accomplishment of achieving "operational missile defense" and could not bear to continue.

As for Iraq, they may have the Arab world"s most progressive constitution but they will have to follow it...and amend it - good luck with that, by the way! - if they want a stable and united country. I"d like to know which new Iraq strategy was supported by the surge in 2007 and I would take issue with the assertion that the surge reduced violence. A more accurate description would be that the surge in troops and a reduction in violence were coincidental - in fact, a reduction in violence predated the surge and can be more attributable to the so-called Sunni awakening and all that entailed than to an increase in US troop levels.

...continued...

[LizM]

...continued...

The problem with the surge in Iraq, even if we assume it was wholly responsible for the reduction in violence, is that it was a mere tactic that remains in search of a strategy, to this day. In other words, the surge in Iraq was an abysmal strategic failure...of epic proportions. And, while it may be true that the reduction in violence produced the conditions for political and economic progress in Iraq, the Bush administration is silent on what was done to actually promote and facilitate a sustainable political settlement...because they did nothing in this regard. In fact, they did worse than nothing. When the Biden strategy for reversing US policy in Iraq passed the Senate and House, President Bush and his crack foreign policy team engaged with officials at the US Embassy in Baghdad in what can only be called a thinly veiled act of sabotage as they intentionally misinterpreted a viable plan to move toward a stable and united Iraq as one which would partition and carve up the country. The failure of the Bush administration to embrace the Biden strategy in Iraq, or one like it, was one of the most egregious squandered opportunities of the last eight years.

It will be twisted history, indeed, that will be needed to elevate the legacy of this Bush administration from the dustbin of history where it belongs.