'Disarming' Tehran

President Bush will soon, once again, "take a few minutes to discuss a grave threat to peace, and America's determination to lead the world in confronting that threat."

Here are selected points Bush made in such a "discussion" back in 2002:

TRENDING: 'Situation is completely unstable:' Crenshaw tours border, exposes how bad it really is

The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime's own actions – its history of aggression and its drive toward an arsenal of terror.

Advertisement - story continues below

Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups.

The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations.

Wrong! By 1997, U.N. inspectors had concluded that Iraq was effectively in full compliance with all relevant Security Council resolutions. Hence, Council members called for the lifting of U.N. sanctions. President Clinton announced he would never allow the sanctions to be lifted so long as Saddam Hussein was in power.

Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today – and we do – does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?

And how do "we" know that?

In 1995, after several years of deceit by the Iraqi regime, the head of Iraq's military industries defected.

But the defector Bush refers to was General Hussein Kamal, Saddam's son-in-law, who told the U.N. exactly the opposite of what Bush implies. Kamal revealed that by the end of 1991, all of Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction" and the means for producing more had been destroyed – either in the Gulf War, itself, or on Saddam's orders in the immediate aftermath.

Hence, by 1997, U.N. inspectors reported to the Security Council that they had verified that Kamal spoke the truth – "Nothing remained."

Many people have asked how close Saddam Hussein is to developing a nuclear weapon. Well, we don't know exactly, and that's the problem.

The world has tried limited military strikes to destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities – only to see them openly rebuilt, while the regime again denies they even exist.

Bush is apparently referring to Clinton's five-day cruise-missile assault on Saddam's "palaces" in 1998. Of course, by then Clinton already knew that Saddam had completely disarmed and had made no attempt to re-arm. Clinton's outrageous assault on Baghdad was a blatant attempt to kill Saddam Hussein.

Clearly, to actually work, any new inspections, sanctions or enforcement mechanisms will have to be very different.

America wants the U.N. to be an effective organization that helps keep the peace.

And that is why we are urging the Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough, immediate requirements.

And inspectors must have access to any site, at any time, without pre-clearance, without delay, without exceptions.

The time for denying, deceiving and delaying has come to an end. Saddam Hussein must disarm himself – or, for the sake of peace, we will lead a coalition to disarm him.

In 2002, the "grave threat to peace" was the nuclear weapons program Bush almost certainly knew the Iraqis were not pursuing.

And, by the time Bush launched his war of aggression against Iraq, the whole world certainly knew, because the International Atomic Energy Agency had certified it.

This time the "grave threat to peace" will be the nuclear weapons program Bush charges the Iranians are pursuing, right under the sensors of IAEA inspectors to whom the Iranians voluntarily gave more than two years ago the kind of access Bush demanded of – and was granted by – the Iraqis back in 2002.

And Bush's 2006 speech about the Iranian "nu-cular' threat, will likely be replete with other statements that are – at best – misleading, and deliberately so.

In particular, "America" may want the U.N. to be an "effective organization" that helps keep the peace, but Bush and the Cheney Cabal certainly don't.

In fact, historians will no doubt marvel at their success – in the pursuit of Iraq's non-existent nukes – in partially undermining international treaties (such as the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons), international agencies (such as the IAEA), the U.N. Security Council and the U.N. Charter, itself.

Will Bush finish the U.N. demolition job by "leading the world in confronting the [non-existent] Iranian nuke threat"?

Stay tuned.

Related special offer:

"THE MOST DANGEROUS NATION ON EARTH"