Washington Week: Student Voices (O)

N.Y. Rep. scrutinizes Bush, Sept. 11, the Iraq War at Cornell U.
By Jessica Liebman
Cornell Daily Sun (Cornell U.)
02/14/2006

(U-WIRE) ITHACA, N.Y. — "Not to be critical of this administration is the most unpatriotic act anyone can commit," said U.S. Representative Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y., 22nd District) yesterday during his lecture, "No Checks, No Balances, No Problems: President Bush's Assault on the U.S. Constitution" in Cornell University's Myron Taylor Hall. He urged students, faculty and Ithaca, N.Y., residents not to be intimidated by the Bush administration, claiming that it is an administration that has failed to uphold the Constitution.

"[Hinchey] was one of the first and most outspoken opponents of the war in Iraq," said Sarah Graygert, vice president of the Cornell Law Democrats, the group that organized the event. "He has also traveled extensively to the world's hot spots in order to personally educate himself on the issues that face us today."

Hinchey began his discussion with the war in Iraq; he feels that there are very important issues going on in Washington in ways that are unchecked.

"We have a monolithic government. The very important divisions of responsibilities which were laid down so carefully by the men and women who founded this country are gradually being put aside," said Hinchey.

This lack of checks and balances becomes clear when one examines the government's treatment of the war in Iraq, according to Hinchey; the term "war" is a misnomer that the administration uses to spread uncertainty and fear. Through this culture of fear the administration forces citizens and government officials to relinquish rights and freedoms.

"This is an administration that came into office with its own agenda," he said, acknowledging that this statement holds true for most administrations. However, according to Hinchey, Bush's agenda has been focused entirely on Iraq right from the start.

"The idea of attacking Iraq and changing the government in Iraq was the primary motivation for the Bush administration," he said.

According to Hinchey, this fact became obvious during the initial meeting of the National Security Council. During this meeting, Bush made it clear that his goal was to get involved with Iraq.

"National Security Advisers told the president that the most difficult problem that he and the administration were going to face over the course of the next four years was the Al Qaeda network and international terrorism," said Hinchey, who believes that the administration used Sept. 11 to put their Iraq plans into motion.

It was after Sept. 11 that the administration began to draw a relationship between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.

"They were told over and over by the CIA that there was no connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Nevertheless, the administration continued to pursue that line of reasoning," he said.

This was where weapons of mass destruction came in, explained Hinchey. The administration began spreading the idea that Iraq needed to be attacked for their possession weapons of mass destruction; all disproving evidence from intelligence agencies was ignored.

"There were weapons in Iraq, and they had been there through the 1980s. But those chemical and biological weapons had been taken out, and there was no evidence that there was any kind of a nuclear weapons program existing in Iraq at all," said Hinchey.

Despite a lack of evidence, the government continued to infuse the country with the idea that weapons existed, hoping to stimulate fear among citizens and intimidate Congress to support an attack on Iraq, according to Hinchey.

Hinchey believes that governmental action became illegal when the administration began to reach out to other countries to help produce evidence to support the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

"At a certain point, documents from the Nazeer embassy in Rome were provided to governments of the United States, Great Britain and a short time later, the governments of France and Germany," he said.

According to Hinchey, the documents alleged that enriched yellowcake uranium was being exported from Nazeer into Iraq; the administration used the information to prove the argument's validity.

"The CIA informed the administration that they couldn't rely on those documents," said Hinchey.

The intelligence agency was able to show that the documents were both stolen and falsified and sent Ambassador Wilson to Iraq to investigate further. When Wilson came back with no evidence of weapons of mass destruction, the U.S. administration capitalized on the fact that the British government had not yet read Wilson's documents.

During the 2003 State of the Union address, Bush told the country that the British government had learned that Saddam Hussein was hoarding yellowcake Uranium from Nazeer. According to Hinchey, this misconstrued statement was what caused a majority of Congress members to vote to give Bush power to attack Iraq.

"All of that was based upon misinformation, and it was a violation both of the constitution and United States law for the executive branch to mislead the legislative branch, particularly when it is seeking some action by the legislative branch based upon that information," said Hinchey.

Congressman Hinchey concluded by saying that the current administration will go down in history as being the most corrupt. With a president who wanted to attack Iraq for personal reasons and a government with no checks or balances, Hinchey explained that U.S. security is in jeopardy. The country has engaged in military activity and an occupation that has proven to be a disaster.

"If we had a responsible leadership in the House of Representatives, an impeachment procedure of this administration would have begun long ago. If not complete, it would be well underway," said Hinchey.

[ Back to Student Voices ]