The debate about going to war with Iraq has basically boiled down to this: Bush and his chickenhawk brigade insist we have to go to war because Hussein has weapons of mass destruction. Or will. The opposing argument? Prove it. Just give us the evidence that you so clearly possess that convinces the nation and the world that it is time to put our soldiers at risk in a dangerous urban war zone in downtown Baghdad.
The best Bush can manage in response to this most reasonable of requests is an outright lie that even the mainstream press could ferret out. In a report by NBC,
In his meeting with Blair, Bush cited a satellite photograph and a report by the U.N. atomic energy agency as evidence of Iraq's impending rearmament. However, in response to a report by NBC News, a senior administration official acknowledged Saturday night that the U.N. report drew no such conclusion, and a spokesman for the U.N. agency said the photograph had been misinterpreted.
Similarly, in the Washington Post:
The joint mention of a "new" report apparently referred to articles in Friday's New York Times and yesterday's British press. They noted that satellite photos obtained by the IAEA indicated new construction at several sites identified as nuclear-related and dismantled during pre-1998 inspections.
But a spokeswoman at IAEA headquarters said yesterday that the agency has issued no new report. She said the newspaper accounts referred to commercially available images the agency made available in July in a presentation that elicited little media interest.
"We didn't want to make a big deal of it, because we have no idea whether it means anything," spokeswoman Melissa Fleming said of the photos. "Construction of a building is one thing. Restarting a nuclear program is another."
So there you have it. In response to the only real opposition to sending our sons into harm's way, the best Bush can muster is a lie. Made up evidence. Fabrication.
When President Clinton lied about an inappropriate affair with an intern, I eventually forgave him. Why? Because, in the end, it wasn't our business. I thought he did an excellent job as president and the lie was not related to his official duties. Furthermore, the lie was essentially the result of a perjury trap, and we have to cut some slack for that. And finally, I deduced that his motivation was to conceal an embarrassing affair, and not anything malicious.
I won't be so forgiving with Bush.
First of all, this lie is completely our business. We fund the military, we supply the soldiers, we make the sacrifices. Second, Bush has not been a good president. He obtained the office by subverting our democratic process, after losing the popular vote. He then proceeded to implement a hard-right agenda with no mandate (if not for Senator Jeffords . . . thanks, Jim!). He owes us more justification for going to war than a real president would, not less.
And finally, what can his motivation be? Clearly, he wants to go to war, with a passion that only a man who has never experienced combat can muster. Possibly, he wants to avenge his father's mistake of ending the Gulf War too soon. Potentially, he wants to prop his poll numbers back up to post-9/11 levels. Or help fellow Republicans in the November elections. But if genuine worries about Saddam Hussein's weapon capabilities were the motivation for going to war, then those concerns would have to be based on hard evidence, and that evidence could be shared with the world. But he has shared only lies.
These are lies to justify the most important thing a president can do. These are not forgivable lies.
[On a related note, it is disappointing how buried these lies are when they should be the lead of the story. If you were to just read the headlines, you might get the impression that there actually was evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. So it goes with our worshipful press corp. At least NBC has a section heading with the euphemism, "President Misstates 'Facts'". Hey, NBC: a more concise heading would be "President Lies".]
7:20:42 AM 
|
|
