Sean Leonard (government side) challenges statements made by the opposition during Thursday’s debate.

When we decided to live stream the RUDU/RUSA debate on Thursday, I was glad Muckgers would be giving students who were unable to attend the event an opportunity to watch it from their homes. I thought we would be helping people to make a more informed decision, not only about whether Condoleezza Rice should be welcomed as the Commencement speaker, but also about the way we understand the Iraq War and the effects it has had (and is still having) on the world. Unfortunately, that’s not what happened.

Apparently, the American Parliamentary style of debate does not encourage fact-finding.

After speaking with former debate team members and participants, I now know that American Parliamentary debate is not actually about finding the truth but about presenting the most appealing arguments — even if most of the claims you make in support of those arguments are false.

On the few occasions during the debate when the government side (the team opposing Rice’s invitation to speak at graduation) was permitted to challenge a statement made by the opposition side (the team supporting Rice’s invitation), the challenge appeared to be aimed more at embarrassing the other team than keeping them honest.

Since Thursday’s debate was less of an informed discussion than it was a theatrical succession of falsehoods, I felt it was necessary to help set the record straight.

Arguments in support of welcoming Condoleezza Rice as the 2014 Commencement speaker:

1. “It was not exactly torture.”

False.

Waterboarding was (and still is) considered torture. Here’s a press release by Amnesty International from back in 2004 declaring waterboarding to be torture:

https://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/AMR51/081/2004/en/c14a6165-fab3-11dd-b6c4-73b1aa157d32/amr510812004en.pdf/

This is from a 2004 article in Newsweek:

The White House’s top lawyer warned more than two years ago that U.S. officials could be prosecuted for ‘war crimes’ as a result of new and unorthodox measures used by the Bush administration in the war on terrorism, according to an internal White House memo and interviews with participants in the debate over the issue.

This is a 2011 report by Human Rights Watch titled, “Getting Away With Torture: The Bush Administration and Mistreatment of Detainees.”

The United States even condemned the practice as torture in its 2005 Country Report on Tunisia:

“The forms of torture and other abuse included: electric shock; submersion of the head in water; beatings with hands, sticks, and police batons; suspension, sometimes manacled, from cell doors and rods resulting in loss of consciousness; and cigarette burns.”

2. “[Torture] was done to ensure the safety and security of our country; to ensure the safety and security of Americans.”

False.

Torture has never been shown to produce valuable or actionable intelligence. The New York Times published an article in 2009 that included a “2004 report by the inspector general and two memos from 2004 and 2005 on intelligence gained from detainees” all of which “fail to show that the techniques stopped even a single imminent threat of terrorism.”

In fact, according to a 2009 article published in the Social Issues and Policy Review journal, the use of torture and other so-called “enhanced interrogation techniques” against detainees in places like Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, and Bagram Air Base, to name a few, have actually increased the likelihood of an attack against US citizens and personnel around the world.

3. “Dr. Rice did not actually enact these policies, make these policies, or pass them, right?”

False.

Dr. Rice did indeed help make, pass, and enact these policies, as shown in this complete list of memos exchanged between high-profile officials in the Bush Administration. The memos illustrate the true depth of their involvement in the process.

This quote is from Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU in an article on the Bush Administration’s explicit knowledge and approval of torture:

We have always known that the CIA’s use of torture was approved from the very top levels of the U.S. government, yet the latest revelations about knowledge from the president himself and authorization from his top advisers only confirms our worst fears.

According to an article published in 2008 by ABC News, “Bush told ABC News White House correspondent Martha Raddatz. ‘And yes, I’m aware our national security team met on this issue. And I approved.’”

4. “She was a member of the Bush Administration and simply did her job in carrying out what she was told to do.”

Irrelevant.

Principle II of the Principles of International Law Recognized in the Charter of the Nüremberg Tribunal and in the Judgment of the Tribunal, 1950 clearly states:

The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law.

The concept of command responsibility is officially codified as an aspect of international law in Article 86(2) of the Additional Protocol of 1977 to the Third Geneva Convention of 1949, which states:

The fact that a breach of the Conventions or of this Protocol was committed by a subordinate does not absolve his superiors from penal or disciplinary responsibility, as the case may be, if they knew, or had information which should have enabled them to conclude in the circumstances at the time, that he was committing or was going to commit such a breach and if they did not take all feasible measures within their power to prevent or repress the breach.

5. “The idea of WMDs in Iraq, and the information that they had at the time was something that they fundamentally believed was present; information which they thought was actually legitimate. Now we have come to find out that it was not so, but that does not mean that they falsely sent forth information to the American public.”

False.

The Iraq on the Record report from 2004 shows that even after accounting for all of the potential unknowns at the time, the top 5 officials in the Bush Administration (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, and Rice) still made a total of 237 false or misleading statements to the public in support of invading Iraq. Of those 237 statements, 10 were categorically false. Of those 10 false statements, Rice was responsible for 8 of them — more than any of the other officials.

6. “They seem to say that Dr. Rice was complicit in her role in the Iraq War. Well, we say that she was carrying her duty out in the Bush Administration. She was listening to the policies and carrying them out, and not actually enacting the policies and enacting the change that we saw.”

False.

As the National Security Adviser to the President, her job is to advise the President on national security. This means that she was ultimately the source of and the authority behind the adminstration’s national security policies. Therefore she could not have simply been “listening to the policies.” Furthermore, “carrying them out” and “actually enacting the policies” are essentially the same thing.

Also, see Principle II of the Principles of International Law Recognized in the Charter of the Nüremberg Tribunal and in the Judgment of the Tribunal, 1950 (above).

7. “They seem to talk about more techniques such as waterboarding. . . We say that advanced [sic] interrogation techniques and protecting American liberties is very important in order to secure our national security.”

False.

See the “2004 report by the inspector general and two memos from 2004 and 2005 on intelligence gained from detainees” all of which “fail to show that the techniques stopped even a single imminent threat of terrorism.”

8. “Today, we see that Saddam Hussein is out of power.”

[caption id=”attachment_3771" align=”alignright” width=”319"]

Shaking Hands: Iraqi President Saddam Hussein greets Donald Rumsfeld, then special envoy of President Ronald Reagan, in Baghdad on December 20, 1983. (Credit: Wikimedia Commons)[/caption]

True.

Although there are plenty of arguments to be made about the legality of and the manner in which Saddam Hussein was removed from power, this article is simply about fact-checking and this one is actually true. However, it’s also important to remember who put Saddam Hussein in power in the first place (and kept him in power while he repeatedly used chemical weapons against the Kurds and the Iranians).

9. “We see that there is no war or tyranny in Iraq.”

False.

According to a 2013 article in the Washington Post:

A rejuvenated al-Qaeda-affiliated force asserted control over the western Iraqi city of Fallujah on Friday, raising its flag over government buildings and declaring an Islamic state in one of the most crucial areas that U.S. troops fought to pacify before withdrawing from Iraq two years ago. The capture of Fallujah came amid an explosion of violence across the western desert province of Anbar in which local tribes, Iraqi security forces and al-Qaeda-affiliated militants have been fighting one another for days in a confusingly chaotic three-way war. In the past year, al-Qaeda has bounced back, launching a vicious campaign of bombings that killed more than 8,000 people in 2013, according to the United Nations. Sectarian tensions between Iraq’s Sunnis and the Shiite-led government have been further inflamed by the war in Syria, where the majority Sunni population has been engaged in a nearly three-year-old struggle to dislodge President Bashar al-Assad, a member of the Shiite Alawite minority.

According to an article from the Associated Press:

The United Nations said Wednesday that violence claimed the lives of 7,818 civilians in Iraq in 2013, the highest annual death toll in years. Over eight months of escalated violence has sparked fears that the country may be returning to the widespread bloodshed of 2004–2007 that saw tens of thousands killed each year. Death tolls dipped following a U.S. troop surge and an alliance of Sunni militias with U.S. forces against al-Qaida, but soaring sectarian distrust appears to be allowing the extremist network to rebuild.

10. “I want you to think of one US President who has never brought this country into any kind of armed conflict, any kind of violence, anything like that…Can’t think of any? That’s because there isn’t one.”

False.

Aside from it being largely irrelevant in terms of the overal discussion (it essentially boils down to “all the other kids are doing it”) this statemtent is also false. Herbert Hoover was actually one of the last peaceful presidents. Hoover was in office from 1929 to 1933. Despite the fact that the United States faced several provocations from other nations and international actors, President Hoover did not respond militarily, choosing instead to employ economic sanctions and various forms of political pressure to achieve his foreign policy goals. In general, Hoover’s presidency was marked by neutrality in foreign affairs.

Although, the argument could be made that Jimmy Carter fits this criterion as well. The only military deaths that occurred during his presidency were the 8 men who died during Operation Eagle Claw, a failed rescue attempt during the Iran hostage crisis. Technically, however, Carter did reign during a time of war, since we never officially signed a peace treaty ending the war with North Korea, even though there have been no US military deaths in North Korea since major combat operations ended.

Arguments in support of rescinding Dr. Rice’s invitation to speak at commencement:

1. “The Iraq Body Count project estimates that total number of deaths from direct combat in the Iraq War at 115,000, including thousands of Americans.”

True.

From the Iraq Body Count website:

[caption id=”attachment_3793" align=”aligncenter” width=”788"]

Source: www.iraqbodycount.org[/caption]

Here is an MIT report from 2006 titled “The Human Cost of the War in Iraq: A Mortality Study, 2002–2006.” The following quote is from the report’s “Key Findings” section:

We estimate that through July 2006, there have been 654,965 “excess deaths” — fatalities above the pre-invasion death rate — in Iraq as a consequence of the war. Of post-invasion deaths, 601,027 were due to violent causes. Non-violent deaths rose above the pre-invasion level only in 2006. Since March 2003, an additional 2.5% of Iraq’s population have died above what would have occurred without conflict.

2. “Condoleezza Rice personally continued to push the narrative that weapons of mass destruction were being developed in Iraq.”

True.

CNN’s Wolf Blitzer wrote an article in 2003 describing an interview with then-National Security Adviser Rice:

“We know that he has the infrastructure, nuclear scientists to make a nuclear weapon,” she told me. “And we know that when the inspectors assessed this after the Gulf War, he was far, far closer to a crude nuclear device than anybody thought — maybe six months from a crude nuclear device.”

3. “She appeared on CNN with the controversial statement that the smoking gun should not be a mushroom cloud, and pushed the war narrative through multi-faceted testimony, which depicted Iraq as a growing and powerful threat in the Middle East.”

True.

In that same CNN interview from 2003, she said:

“The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.”

On November 8, 2001, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice gave a press conference about the Presidential Trip to the United Nations. In the video below she reiterates, “The Iraqis are trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction. That’s the only explanation for why Saddam does not want inspectors in from the UN.”

In this clip from April 2, 2002, Dr. Rice discusses the long term effects of 9/11 on US foreign policy and warns of nuclear proliferation by North Korea, Iran, and Iraq. She clearly associates 9/11, international terrorism, and nuclear proliferation with Iraq and declares that Iraq is “determined to acquire weapons of mass destruction.”

According to the 2004 report by the House Committee on Government Oversight and Reform, Iraq on the Record (above):

President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary Powell, and National Security Advisor Rice made 10 misleading statements in 9 public appearances about the significance of the aluminum tubes. For example, Ms. Rice stated on September 8, 2002: “We do know that there have been shipments going into . . . Iraq . . . of aluminum tubes that . . . are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs.”

4. “Now we know that Iraq’s nuclear program had been dead for a decade, ladies and gentlemen, and that the capacity to develop said weapons was constantly dwindling ever since.”

True.

[caption id=”attachment_3794" align=”aligncenter” width=”618"]

Source: USA Today[/caption]

In an interview with Amy Goodman on Democracy Now! the director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei revealed that a key piece of evidence used by the United States was faked:

After a careful investigation, UN and independent experts concluded that documents purportedly showing Iraqi officials tried to buy uranium in Africa two years ago were not authentic. The Bush administration was using the documents to claim Iraq is developing a nuclear weapons program.

5. “Ultimately, we understand that in 2002 Dr. Rice was privy to CIA intelligence which denied the existence of a WMD program in Iraq. CIA director George Tenet personally approached President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and Dr. Rice, the National Security Adviser at the time, with evidence coming explicitly from Saddam’s inner circle.”

True.

Paul R. Pillar, the national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia from 2000–2005 said, “Official intelligence on Iraqi weapons programs was flawed, but even with its flaws, it was not what led to the war.” The Washington Post article continues:

Instead, he asserted, the administration “went to war without requesting — and evidently without being influenced by — any strategic-level intelligence assessments on any aspect of Iraq.” “It has become clear that official intelligence was not relied on in making even the most significant national security decisions, that intelligence was misused publicly to justify decisions already made, that damaging ill will developed between [Bush] policymakers and intelligence officers, and that the intelligence community’s own work was politicized,” Pillar wrote.

6. “Her administration ignored the United Nations when declaring war.”

True.

The Bush Administration not only violated the UN Charter, they also ignored the findings of UN arms inspectors on Iraq’s WMD capabilities.

7. “Dr. Rice was also directly complicit in the condoning of waterboarding as an interrogation technique.”

True.

[caption id=”attachment_3800" align=”aligncenter” width=”424"]

Source: The Guardian[/caption]

There were plenty of other statements made throughout the debate that were either misleading or downright false, but I think you get the picture. If you want to see the RUDU debate along with the subsequent RUSA debate and vote in its entirety, you can watch it here:

For more information on Rice’s role in the invasion of Iraq, read this article.

In the end, I feel like watching the RUDU members make such obviously false claims without a fact-checker in sight has given me a better idea of how we got tricked into this mess in the first place.