September 2, 2003

Dear Gus:

Thank you for contacting me to voice your concerns regarding the search 
for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.  I appreciate the time you 
have taken to share your views with me and the directness with which you 
have communicated them. I welcome the opportunity to respond.

The following is what we know to be true about Iraq:


1) Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMD), and had 
a history of using such weapons in combat operations.  In fact, as soon 
as Hussein came to power in Iraq, he launched successive wars against 
Iran (1980-1988) and Kuwait (1990) and used chemical weapons dozens of 
times, killing more than 180,000 thousand Kurds and 20,000 Iranians.  On 
March 17th, 1988, Hussein used a mixture of VX, sarin, tabun, and 
mustard gas to kill 5,000 innocent civilians in the town of Halabja.  


2) Saddam Hussein had chemical and biological weapons and an advanced 
nuclear weapons program in 1991.  After Desert Storm, Hussein promised 
to end those programs and destroy enormous stockpiles of chemical agents 
including VX, sarin, cyclosarin, and mustard gas as well as thousands 
of liters of biological agents including anthrax, botulinum toxin, and 
aflatoxin.  


3) From May 1991 to December 1998, the United Nations and the 
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Action Team on Iraq conducted almost 
300 inspections at over 1,000 facilities.  These inspections made 
undeniably clear Hussein's brazen violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation 
Treaty, the Biological Weapons Convention, and the 1925 Geneva Protocol 
prohibiting the use of bacteriological or chemical weapons.  Hussein's 
programs to develop biological weapons, chemical weapons, and nuclear 
weapons were extensive, surprising even those knowledgeable in those 
areas.  In 1998 former President Bill Clinton spoke on several occasions 
of Iraq as a "rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use 
them or provide them to terrorists."  Further, he stated, "If we fail 
to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps 
will be emboldened tomorrow."   

It is simply not realistic to believe that, in the last two years, 
after seven years of deceiving the United Nations and the world Saddam 
Hussein decided to destroy his weapons programs and not tell anyone about 
it.  Since the end of the Gulf War, Iraq has forgone $120 billion in 
petroleum revenues so that Hussein could keep his chemical, biological and 
nuclear weapons programs.  In addition, the U.N.'s chief inspector Hans 
Blix and IAEA head Mohammad El Baradei criticized Hussein's December 7, 
2002 declaration of WMD programs.  Both men agreed that Iraq had failed 
to comply with U.N. Resolution 1441, which required Iraq to truthfully 
disclose all its weapons capabilities.  The inference is inescapable 
that Saddam continued his WMD programs as long as he was in power and 
would have continued them had he not been removed.

Your letter raises the issue of a new commission to investigate whether 
our intelligence sources were correct.  There are five investigations 
ongoing right now; another investigation will not satisfy skeptics, no 
matter what it concludes - and that brings me to what I believe is the 
real issue in dispute here.  

After the attack on September 11, 2001, America went to war against 
terrorism.  The elements of that war are:

1) Hunting down terrorists here and abroad.
1) Removing regimes that harbor terrorists or practice terrorism and 
aggression against their neighbors or people.
2) Resolving the Israel-Palestinian crisis so as to deprive the 
terrorists of an excuse for their violence.
3) Combating the ideas of terrorists with an ideal of hope and justice, 
backed up by real measures (like the global AIDS bill) to address the 
chronic problems of places like Africa.

Now America is not alone in this program.  Great Britain, Eastern and 
South Europe, the Pacific Rim countries and many Mid-East nations are 
strongly with us.  But many nations, and many people here at home, 
believe the policy is too aggressive.  They don't want America and its allies 
using their power aggressively to change regimes in places like Iraq.  
My point is this:  neither the supporters nor the opponents of the 
effort in Iraq, or of the broader war on terrorism, are basing their 
positions on pieces of intelligence about Saddam Hussein.  Neither side will 
change its view about the war whether it turns out that Iraq did or 
didn't buy uranium from Niger.  

Saddam's regime repeatedly attacked its neighbors, tyrannized its 
people, possessed great military strength vis-à-vis its neighbors, possessed 
WMD capabilities and worked to broaden that capability, worked against 
a peaceful resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, and supported 
Mid-Eastern terrorists (including possibly Al-Qaeda).  I believe, based 
on these undisputed facts that it is right for America to overthrow 
Saddam and set up a representative government in his place.  Those who 
disagree have the perfect right to their opinion, but it is not 
constructive to attack the overall policy in the guise of criticizing 
intelligence that, right or wrong, had no impact on the overall direction of 
policy.  Whatever the extent of our war effort should be, we all want to win 
it, and that means we should be open and honest about the nature of our 
disagreements.

If you would like to continue this discussion, or have concerns on any 
other subject, please do not hesitate to write or call.

Thank you for your email. To contact me on this or any other subject, 
please go to http://talent.senate.gov/contact/index.html

Sincerely, 

Senator Jim Talent

**************************************

September 10, 2003

Dear Senator Talent:

Thank you for your response to my letter regarding the search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and a commission to investigate our reasons for going to war. Your letter brought up a lot of important issues that I believe need to be addressed.

First of all, it was mentioned that five investigations are going on right now. Who is leading these investigations? My letter recommended a nonpartisan committee, as it is quite obvious that an investigation led by (or working for) the same people who led the country into the war being investigated may present a conflict of interests.

Secondly, it is without question that Saddam Hussein possessed WMDs. After all, he received them from the United States in the early 1980s, to aid us in our fight against Iran. In Bush’s State of the Union address, he stated, "Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard, and VX nerve agent." (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html)

Wow, 500 tons! My question, and the question being asked by many others, is where are these weapons and why were they not used when it became clear that Saddam had nothing left to lose?

Third, it has become quite common to hear about Hussein’s ties with Al-Qaeda, but what is not common is to hear exactly what those ties are. Bush was asked at a July 30 press conference about such ties, and his response was, "It’s going to take time for us to gather the evidence and analyze the miles of evidence, literally the miles of evidence that we have uncovered." (qtd. from "Caught in His Own Lies," The Progressive. Sept, 2003.) This was two months after the war was officially declared over, and suggests that such evidence did not exist when war was declared, and possibly still does not.

If our reason for bringing down Saddam was to fight terrorism, why not attack North Korea? We know they have the bomb, and they do not seem to like us very much. But it was not just the WMDs, right? Saddam was also a really bad guy. What about Iran, or Saudi Arabia, or Cuba? Talk about oppressive regimes! Why not march into India and demand regime change?

I fear the answers to these questions.

It may be true that, despite whatever evidence turns up about Iraq, neither side of the debate is likely to change its views.

However, we can not, as a democracy, declare war on other countries simply because we think they might be a threat to us. I believe it was Joseph Stalin who once said, "We must eliminate our enemies before they eliminate us." And Al Capone’s motto was, "Kill before they kill you." The Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor because they could have been attacked from there. Last March, the United States enacted that same policy. Whatever the reason, it is the very same.

Finally, I understand the president’s agenda for fighting terrorism. I hear it every night on the evening news. I know that we are sending our military to seek out terrorists wherever they hide. In short, I know of the four points mentioned in your letter.

My problem is, providing our police and firefighters with adequate resources to protect and rescue American civilians from another attack is not on that list.

Protecting the American people from the terrorism of unemployment is also not on that list. I know of no people who were victims of attacks from people of other countries, but I know of at least 40 people who were victims of lay-offs just this past month. My father was one of those people.

What about protecting American citizens who originated from the Middle East from the terrorism of xenophobia and racism that resulted from the 9-11 attacks? Since then, terms like "rag head" seem to have become a common part of the American vernacular. The media has done little to curb these sentiments, by constantly posting Middle Eastern faces along with the word "terrorist." The President has also done little, by referring to certain countries as an "Axis of Evil." Does that mean that all the people from those countries are evil? Some people certainly think so.

Again, these are all important issues facing us today, and all need to be taken into very serious consideration. Thank you again, Senator, for your response and invitation for very interesting discussion.

Sincerely,

Mr. Gus Stevenson