On Aug. 22, 2002, at the Veterans of Foreign Wars 103rd National Convention, Vice President Cheney said that there was "no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."
On March 18, 2003, in a televised address to the nation, George W. Bush declared that intelligence gathered by various governments had left "no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess ... some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
Four days later, General Tommy Franks was quoted in the Minnesota Star-Tribune as asserting that there was "no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction."
These veteran decision-makers were wrong. Four years after those statements were made, what was envisioned as a quick, cheap and popular military action to oust a dictator and spread democracy has resulted in a quagmire of epic proportions.
Thousands of soldiers have died, Iraq has slid into chaos, and 20,000 additional troops were recently deployed in an attempt to stop the hemorrhaging. Every government official who had no doubt that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction was a key player in the decision to rush America into an ill-conceived, ill-planned military conflict.
Yesterday, President Bush stated in a news conference that there was no doubt that Iran is providing weapons to help Iraqis harm American soldiers, as reported by the Associated Press.
Regardless of the validity of this statement, both Congress and the American people are duty-bound to question it. It may be that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, president of Iran, has personally authorized the sale of improvised explosive devices to the militias in Iraq in order to further deepen the conflict and cripple America's military power. Conversely, these sales could have been authorized by rogue agents within the government, or they may not have occurred at all.
If these allegations turn out to have a grain of truth, the United States has few options. A wider war with Iran is both politically repugnant and militarily unfeasible; the United States Army is stretched to the breaking point. But President Bush has expressed little faith in engaging diplomatically with Iran directly.
The Democratic Congress must now serve as a check on the leadership of the president. Congressional oversight of the executive branch is one of the cornerstones of American democracy, and one that becomes even more important during a time of war. Speaker of the House Pelosi has already promised that Congress will provide no more "blank checks" to wage war in Iraq.
It is the duty of our senators and representatives to exercise caution, particularly considering the result the last time Congress gave the president the authority to use force in the Middle East. It is imperative that tough questions be asked and answered before any kind of action can be taken.
As yet, no formal action has been taken in the direction of Iran, and it is possible that no formal action will be. At this point, the unquestioning patriotism and fear for safety that many Americans and their leaders in Congress felt in the run-up to the Iraq war has largely evaporated. For this reason, and because of the change in control of Congress, it is likely that difficult questions will be asked when determining a course of action. Many senators, particularly the myriad running for president, will be only too happy to challenge further unpopular military action.
Finally, we as college students, voters and individuals in the context of a greater America must be willing to look with a discerning eye on the president's proposals and the reaction of Congress. Whatever the ultimate outcome, it is critical that both Congress and the American people provide the oversight that this administration desperately needs.
