Feith explained that the situation regarding Iran, now, is dramatically different from the facts on the ground in Libya in 2003, because every safeguard which critics of the Iran Deal complained were absent, were present in Libya.
The Americans were allowed to inspect every suspected facility in Libya, British and American engineers were invited in to dismantle Libya’s programs and facilities and to remove the equipment out of the country, and the Libyans provided a great deal of information which was not previously reported or even suspected.
The open, public manner in which Qadafi unconditionally renounced his Weapons of Mass Destruction program gave America the confidence that he was serious about permanently ending Libya’s program. “His words were clear and categorical and his actions were consistent with his words,” Feith testified.
IRAN’S PRE-BROKEN PROMISE
But wait, didn’t the Iranian regime “reaffirm[] that under no circumstances will Iran ever seek, develop or acquire any nuclear weapons”? Aha. Feith’s answer: yes, but that is simply a restatement of Iran’s pre-existing obligation under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
It has never admitted that they violate the Non-Proliferation Treaty. It has never apologized for them and doesn’t, in the nuclear deal, promise to end them permanently. So Iran’s new reaffirmation that it won’t seek to develop or acquire nuclear weapons is not valuable. Just as some clothing stores sell “pre-torn jeans,” the Iranians have sold President Obama a pre-broken promise.
Feith then continued with the litany of deceptive acts and omissions engaged in by Iran throughout and following the JCPOA negotiating process, including the non-open inspections, the self-inspections, the insistence on secretive and private steps Iran is permitted to take. And, of course, Iran’s continued open endorsement and support for terrorism and genocide.
Anyone who has ever watched a committee hearing in which there is a hotly contested, strongly partisan issue at stake knows that, at least for the members of Congress grilling the witnesses, the gloves are off, often with a vengeance.
Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-NY-14), who represents parts of the Bronx and Queens, apparently decided that there was no point in discussing whether it was permissible or advisable for the administration to waive terrorism sanctions on Iran. Instead, he decided to lay into a witness for reasons that had nothing to do with the matter at hand.
Crowley was incensed that Feith, a former member of the George W. Bush administration, would dare to testify about a matter relating to the Middle East.
Crowley, jabbing his fingers and practically spitting out his words, asked Feith, “Why should we have any confidence that you have any ability to accurately assess the situation in the Middle East today, given your track record in advocating maybe the biggest strategic blunder the U.S. has ever made, why should any American ever follow your advice?”
Unwilling to address the matter at hand, Crowley solely focused on what he insisted was Feith’s terrible judgment in supporting the war in Iraq.
Feith never lost his composure, calmly repeating to the Congressman that his office acted on the same intelligence relied upon by the Clinton administration. He might also, had he lost control of his manners, asked Crowley why he was being taken to task for a decision which his party’s leading candidate for president, Hillary Clinton, supported.
Oh, and by the way – Crowley also voted in favor of the Iraq war.