<font color=red>It's not the WMD; it's the betrayal of the American people</font>
Thursday, June 12 @ 10:06:21 EDT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Carla Binion
According to an Associated Press report, "majority Republicans in Congress brushed aside Democratic pleas for a formal investigation into the handling of intelligence on Iraq's weapons programs, saying Wednesday that routine oversight should suffice."
Just when we thought the Bush team's ongoing rape of America couldn't get more savage, we learn the GOP doesn't want a proper investigation into whether the administration deceived the country to war. If our Democratic leaders remain as craven and ethically amorphous as usual, they probably won't put up a fight, and we the people will then be handed a cover-up disguised as "routine oversight." In addition to calling for a mythical investigation, the administration's supporters spin the issue of Bush's misleading the nation to war as a question of "intelligence failures," or simply failing to finding weapons of mass destruction.
However, as former CIA analyst Ray Close notes in an article for CounterPunch, the question of the mere existence of WMD in Iraq should be eliminated from the debate. Instead, says Close, the issue should be framed around:
1. The fact that the Bush administration claimed it had absolute proof Saddam possessed WMD; that he was likely an imminent threat to the U.S.; and that this justified our preemptive (or preventive) attack on Iraq.
2. The fact that this preemptive war was carried out based on intelligence information represented to Congress, the American public and the world as "incontrovertible proof" when, in fact, our leaders likely knew the information was false. (Today the administration has lowered the standard to "a preponderance of the evidence.")
A few TV reporters and politicians have said if WMD are found, it will mean the Bush supporters were right all along and that their critics were mistaken. That's not the case. Instead, the administration would also need to prove Saddam had both the intention and capability of delivering WMD in a way that constituted an imminent threat. After all, that's what the Bush team repeatedly implied, and it's how they sold their case for war.
If it should turn out Bush knew he was giving false information to justify war, it would mean he misused the American military and obviously lied to U.S. soldiers and their families. Even if WMD are found some day, those lies won't be erased.
In a June 10, 2003 letter to Condoleezza Rice, Congressman Henry Waxman asks: "Why did President Bush cite forged evidence about Iraq's nuclear capabilities in his State of the Union address?" Waxman points out that Rice's efforts to explain the notorious forged Niger documents haven't lined up with facts. Unless it can be cleared up, that issue alone shows the Bush administration deliberately misled the nation.
Geov Parrish writes if Bush lied to the United Nations, the American people and Congress to gain support for war, his "witting effort to put American soldiers in harm's way, guaranteeing the deaths of some," is arguably an impeachable offense.
We need to re-frame the debate to focus on the points former CIA analyst Ray Close proposed. If we limit the discussion only to WMD, it will be too easy for the Bush administration to eventually find those weapons and pretend they "won" without addressing the most substantial questions.
It's not the WMD. It's the pattern of deliberate deception, the lying to Congress and the outrageous abuse and betrayal of the American people. |
