In the News

Harry Browne on What's Next

Democracy domino plan won't work: secret report

Were Neo-Conservatives' 1998 Memos a Blueprint for Iraq War?

"Proof" that Iraq sought uranium was fake

War 'may bring more terror'

US prepares to use toxic gases in Iraq

Army Chief: Huge Force Would Occupy Iraq

A threat on eve of UN vote

GAO: Justice Dept. Inflated Terror Cases

What Happened to the War on Terrorism?

Full U.S. Control Planned for Iraq

Inspectors call U.S. Tips 'Garbage'

The Price We Pay

False Alarm? Terror Alert Partly Based on Fabricated Information

Bin Laden-Hussein Link Hazy

CIA 'sabotaged inspections and hid weapons details'

Rumsfeld Won't Rule Out Nuclear Bomb Against Iraq
(This news article is no longer available. We apologize for the inconvenience.)

Our Claims

Claim #1: One of our radio ads asserts that Hussein has no nuclear weapons, or other weapons of mass destruction. How do we support this claim? And what if he acquires these weapons in the future?

Claim #2: One of our radio ads claims that Hussein has no clear ties to Osama bin Laden or other terrorist groups. Can we back-up this assertion in the face of Colin Powell's UN testimony to the contrary?

Claim #3: One of our radio ads claims that a congressional declaration of war is needed to invade Iraq, but doesn't Bush have that already?

Claim #4: One of our radio ads claims our government was told in advance by Hussein that he might invade Kuwait in 1990, but we did nothing to deter him. Can we support this claim?

Claim #5: One of our radio ads makes the startling claim that our government lied to the world before the last Gulf War when we claimed that Iraqi troops were massed on the border of Saudi Arabia, ready to invade. Can we support this serious charge?

Claim #6: One of our radio ads claims that the same people who are proposing the current war were also involved in the first one, and that their lies then should lead us to reject what they're saying now. Who, exactly, are we talking about?

Claim #7: One of our radio ads claims that Bush's plan to invade Iraq is not motivated by the "War on Terror." Can we support this claim?

This archival web page was frozen in its current form for historical record with the commencement of hostilities in Iraq, March, 2003. Only two articles by Harry Browne were added afterwards, from December, 2003 and March, 2004. Some of the news links on the left side may no longer work. All other content is property of the Downsize DC Foundation, formerly known as the American Liberty Foundation. » Two Important Notes...

Can we back up
our claims?

by Jim Babka

Claim #7: One of our radio ads claims that Bush's plan to invade Iraq is not motivated by the "War on Terror." Can we support this claim?

There is no cause-and-effect relationship between the proposed war on Iraq and the "War on Terror." There is only a manufactured one, created by Bush after 9-11 to justify a pre-existing desire.

Our government has been committed to a policy of regime change in Iraq since 1991, long before the events of 9-11. It was the unspoken policy of the first Bush administration to maintain the sanctions against Iraq until Hussein was deposed. (See A World Transformed by former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft.)

Then, in 2000, Secretary of State Madeline Albright became the first U.S. official to publicly state this policy, saying that the U.S. should oppose lifting the sanctions as long as Hussein was Iraq's ruler—even if he complied with UN weapons resolutions. (Source: Albright interview with Tim Russert on "Meet the Press" January 2, 2000)

continued below…

      Make a difference:
      Help us remodel this site!

This should make it perfectly clear that the policy of regime change existed long before, and completely independent of, any war on terrorism. But that's not all. Bush speechwriter, David Frum, in his recently published pro-Bush book The Right Man, reveals that Bush, Jr. was already committed to deposing Hussein when he came into office, long before the terrorist attacks of September 11.

As Matthew Rothschild pointed out in the Los Angeles Times,

More than 30 times in the last seven months, Bush has used variations on a theme to describe the U.S. as vulnerable. For example, speaking to a conference of religious broadcasters in Nashville on Feb. 10, he said that before 9/11, "we thought oceans would protect us forever." The same day, at an informal press conference, Bush said: "The world changed on Sept. 11… In our country, it used to be that oceans could protect us—at least we thought so." Meeting with small-business owners in Georgia on Feb. 20, he invoked the oceans again.

But since Pearl Harbor, the oceans have not served as a buffer. And the intercontinental ballistic missiles of the Soviet Union kept the U.S. in a bull's-eye for 40 years, notwithstanding our vaunted seas.

But would deposing Hussein be helpful to the "War on Terror" anyway, even if that wasn't the original reason for the policy?

The answer is no—it would make the risk of terrorism much higher. The majority of the Iraqi population is Shia Muslim, the same religious grouping that dominates Iran. This is a major reason Hussein went to war with Iran in the 1980s—he wanted to keep the militant Shia regime in Iran from inciting Islamic revolution among his own Shia population. This problem still exists today. If we topple Hussein there is a very real chance that the Shia will come to power in Iraq and join with Iran to bring Islamic revolution to the whole region. In this event the potential for terrorist acts against the U.S. would increase dramatically. This danger is especially great if we use force to suppress the Shia majority in Iraq as part of our occupation of that country. Consider the current events in Afghanistan to get an idea of the kind of problems that could develop.

In addition, the current Muslim regime in Turkey is relatively moderate, and allied to us. But Turkey has a large Kurdish population bordering on Iraq's Kurdish population. If we topple Hussein there is a very real danger that the Kurds in Iraq will persuade the Kurds in Turkey to secede, and join them in forming a new Kurdish nation. This would mean civil war in Turkey, and create ripe conditions for extremist Muslims to gain power there. This would place a potentially terrorist nation on the doorstep of Europe.

But a policy of deterrence rather than war would avoid all of these risks. Deterrence would take advantage of Hussein's natural desire for self-preservation. Our government could simply say to Hussein, "Give weapons to terrorists and you die." Under a policy of deterrence it is much more likely that terrorists will acquire nuclear weapons from poor Russian scientists, or from an Islamist revolution in nuclear armed Pakistan, than from Saddam Hussein.

Finally, the idea that Hussein has any significant ties to either terrorists or militant Islamist groups of any kind is very poorly supported. It's important to remember that Hussein was our government's favored tool for containing militant Islamism in the region. He fought a war against the Islamist regime in Iran, with our encouragement, for just this purpose. (For a fuller analysis of Hussein's supposed links to terrorists see Claim #2.)


Radio Ads
Listen to our radio ads!
Share the Truth!
Click here to help broadcast our ads.

Add one of our banners to your website.

Use our form to email others about this site.

Download a TruthKit.
(Includes fliers.)
Email List
Sign up to get alerts and updates.
Harry Browne
"George Bush, Lying, and the Dogs of War"

"How Do I Liberate Thee? Let Me Count the Ways"

"Rule-the-World Productions Proudly Presents…"

"Support Our Boys In Uniform"

"Those Shameful Frenchmen"

"What can I do about the war?"

"A Little History Can Be a Dangerous Thing"
To the Point
Mark Fiore has used his talent to comment on many issues. Here his animated cartoons address three of the current war issues.

"Dissent Exposed!"

"What should you do in an emergency?"

"Why we must invade Iraq right now!"
Our Vision
"The United States goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is a well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. If the United States took up all foreign affairs, it would become entangled in all the wars of interest and intrigue, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own soul."
John Quincy Adams
© American Liberty Foundation ALF eagle contact us