« I'm just a girl... | Main | Don't believe your lying eyes »

June 01, 2005

The I word(s).

In January of 2003, John Dean (I=ironic..give the recent revelation of Deep Throat) wrote an article for FindLaw that was picked up by CNN entitled Is lying about the reason for a war an impeachable offense?(I=impeachable/impeach)

Dean's piece outlines specific charges made by Bush that we know to be untrue:

Readers may not recall exactly what President Bush said about weapons of mass destruction; I certainly didn't. Thus, I have compiled these statements below. In reviewing them, I saw that he had, indeed, been as explicit and declarative as I had recalled.

Bush's statements, in chronological order, were:

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."

United Nations address, September 12, 2002

"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."

"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."

Radio address, October 5, 2002

"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."

"We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."

"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."

"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" -- his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."

Cincinnati, Ohio speech, October 7, 2002

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."

State of the Union Address, January 28, 2003

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

Address to the nation, March 17, 2003

At the time, Dean tries to give Bush the benefit of the doubt. He notes the seriousness of the charges leveled by the White House against Iraq. He also reminds of the careful and regulated statements from previous administrations when it came to making the case for war. Dean reminds us of the sober duties of the President and his staff..and how seriously and deliberately actions like this are taken.

But he also renders a caveat:

So where is all that? And how can we reconcile the White House's unequivocal statements with the fact that they may not exist?

There are two main possibilities. One, that something is seriously wrong within the Bush White House's national security operations. That seems difficult to believe. The other is that the president has deliberately misled the nation, and the world.(emphasis Carla)

"..the president has deliberately misled the nation, and the world" to war is the most serious of charges. And yesterday in the Boston Globe, Ralph Nader and Kevin Zeese outline the Downing Street Memo, alledging Bush manipulated intelligence to justify war with Iraq.

So as Dean says..if it wasn't an incompetent White House and incompetent intelligence (after all..how do you award the Medal of Freedom to the head of an incompetent agency?), what's left?

Did the President of the United States deliberately mislead the American people and the "Coalition of the Willing" into a war with Iraq?

Is our Congress too partisan and so willing to allow subversion of the Constitution to conduct an investigation?

Posted by Kevin at June 1, 2005 03:24 PM