Iraq Scandal
Washington Post reporter Joel Achenbach wrote an article examining whether the 16-word gaffe in Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address amounted to a scandal. Why does everyone act as though those 16 words are the only concern? The scandal is not the Africa uranium claim in the State of the Union. Rather, it is the cumulation of exaggerated and false claims the Bush administration made in its rush to war.
The Bush administration made several assertions to the public, to congress, and to the United Nations, using language that suggested all the facts were in. Yet on July 27, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz hit the airwaves and described the pre-war intelligence on Iraq as "murky." Indeed, Donald Rumsfeld recently said that there had been no "new intelligence" in the intervening years since the weapons inspectors left Iraq.
Someone should add all the words various members of the Bush administration used to describe the aluminum tubes, reconstituted nuclear weapons programs, assertions of an Iraq-Al Qaeda link, and the extent of exaggeration regarding WMD claims. Polls show a number of Americans believe Iraq was behind 9/11 and that a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda has been proven. There is only one place from whence they could have derived these misimpressions, and it is located on Pennsylvania Avenue.
Although Rumsfeld claimed that after September 11, the administration evaluated Saddam anew, Bush's statements during the second and third debates suggest war in Iraq was already on Bush's "Things to Do If I Get Elected" list.
From Debate II:
BUSH: And that's going to be particularly important in dealing not only with situations such as now occurring in Israel, but with Saddam Hussein. The coalition against Saddam has fallen apart, or it's unraveling, let's put
it that way. The sanctions are being -- are being violated. There's -- we don't know whether he's developing weapons of mass destruction. He better not be, or there's going to be a consequence should I be the president.
MR. LEHRER: People watching here tonight very interested in Middle East policy, and they're so interested that they want to make a -- they want to base their vote on differences between the two of you, as president -- how you would handle Middle East policy. Is there any difference?
VICE PRESIDENT GORE: I haven't heard a big difference right -- in the last few exchanges.
BUSH: Well, I think -- it's hard to tell. I think that -- you know, I would hope to be able to convince people I could handle the Iraqi situation better. I mean, we don't -
MR. LEHRER: With Saddam Hussein, you mean?
GOV. BUSH: Yes, and --
MR. LEHRER: You could get him out of there?
GOV. BUSH: I'd like to, of course, and I presume this administration would as well. But we don't know -- there's no inspectors now in Iraq. The coalition that was in place isn't as strong as it used to be. He is a danger; we don't want him fishing in troubled waters in the Middle East And it's going to be hard to -- it's going to be important to rebuild that coalition to keep the pressure on him.
From Debate III (after a question about Middle East policy):
BUSH:
...Saddam Hussein still is a threat in the Middle East. Our coalition against Saddam is unraveling. Sanctions are loosened. I -- the man who may be developing weapons of mass destruction, we don't know because inspectors
aren't in.
_________________________________________
Note the similarities in wording between Debates II and III. Bush was not speaking off the cuff. This was a rehearsed effort and his first attempt to convine Americans that Iraq had "weapons of mass destruction" and presented a risk to national security.
The debate regarding UN Resolution 1441, which vaguely authorized 'serious' consequences should Hussein fail to comply with earlier disarmament resolutions, along with the administration's assurances to world governments that 1441 would not be used to justify war against Iraq and that inspectors would be given ample time, were clearly superfluous. As many non-supporters of the war suspected, there was never any intention by this administration to allow inspectors time to complete their mission. One could hardly say they were unsuccessful during their short stay, yet Bush & Co. continued to paint the inspections as just that and to push for war.
It would be interesting to see the minutes of Cheney's meetings with oil executives--the ones he's fighting so hard to keep private--and learn whether any of the executives who said they needed access to Libya's oil also expressed a desire for access to Iraqi oil. His failure to turn these notes over suggests that this scandal encompasses far more than the administration's public claims on Iraq.
This administration has engaged in a deliberate and ongoing effort to keep the American people from learning the truth about the information it acquires and what it plans to do with that information. It operates on a level of secrecy unparalleled by previous administrations. And this secrecy extends beyond the issue of Iraq.
According to Slate, the administration no longer issues certain economic reports that were regularly produced under previous administrations. The administration has attributed the failure to produce the reports on 'budget cuts'. Given the state of the economy, it's clear that most of these reports wouldn't contain good news for the administration and whenever the government releases a report, the press reports on it. The excuse of budget cuts is dubious, at best. One might conclude that the real intent is to leave the American people as much in the dark as possible about the true state of the economy.
Then there was the EPA report, in which the White House replaced references and language to widely accepted studies about global warming with quotes from a single study that cast doubts on global warming issued by the petroleum industry. Indeed, the White House even substituted 'climate change' for the more familiar and thus ominous sounding term 'global warming.'
The committee that was assigned to investigate 9/11 stated that the White House and the NSA's office refused to release key documents relating to intelligence preceding the events of 9/11. These included daily intelligence briefings and correspondence received/issued by NSA.
Further, does anyone doubt that Americans never would have learned about the CIA memos to National Security Deputy Advisor Stephen Hadley and Rice regarding the uranium claim if someone in the CIA hadn't informed the White House that these documents existed and could be 'leaked?' This forced the White House to acknowledge that they had received them and proved that the CIA had questioned the entire uranium claim--not just technical nuances. If the State Department and the CIA questioned the uranium claim, why did Rice seem to believe this was a valid claim? Where did Rice get the sense that this information was credible--other than from the British, who had not shared their intelligence with us? The whole issue is no doubt particularly painful for Rice, since one can only conclude that she is either a liar or incompetent.
It is bizarre that the White House has not demanded her resignation. Apparently, in order to be asked to resign, one need only disagree with White House policy--no matter how incorrect it may be. The president doesn't seem to regard failure to read thoroughly national security documents and memos on key issues and failure to report that information to him as a derilection of duty for his National Security Advisor.
The Republicans errored in castigating Bill Clinton over a lie concerning a non-material issue in a civil case and in particular for harping on the way he 'misled the American people.' The subsequent impeachment for misleading the grand jury and obstructing justice lowered the bar for what Americans consider impeachable. Thus, it is difficult for them to defend Bush without being perceived as hypocritical, when his attempts to 'mislead the American people' exceed the single remark for which Clinton was impeached.
At the very least, the George W. Bush administration should be investigated by an independent counsel. That one has not been appointed is due only to the extreme partisanship that Bush has continued to promulgate to his advantage in Washington DC. If a single honest Republican were left in Washington, he/she would be standing beside the Democrats calling for an investigation. While the scandal that is the Bush administration may or may not rise to the level of impeachment, it certainly warrants investigation before it can be assumed this is not the case.
11:02:33 PM 
|
