by Michael Arvey
It's nearly astonishing to discover that a semblance of genuine reporting and truthfulness is beginning to seep through the mainstream press in the U.S. regarding the specious behavior of George W. Bush, whose WMD intelligence fiasco is finally unraveling and catching up to him. That's the sweet side; the sour side is that the obvious is still being ignored. However, we should take what we can get at this point, which is reflected in a February 9, 2004 NY Times editorial, "Mr. Bush's Version." It pinpoints Tim Russert's NBC interview with George Bush and the issue at hand:
"Right now, the questions the average Americans are asking about Iraq seem much clearer than the ones Mr. Bush is willing to confront. People want to know why American intelligence was so wrong about the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Mr. Bush didn't have a consistent position on this pivotal issue. At some points during his Oval Office interview, he seemed to be admitting that he had been completely wrong when he told the public that just before the war started that the intelligence left 'no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the lethal weapons ever devised.' At other moments he suggested the weapons might still be hidden somewhere, or that they may have been transported to another country. At times he depicted himself as having been misled by intelligence reports. Bush insisted that George Tenet, the director of central intelligence, was doing a good job and deserved to keep his job."
What's occurring is apparent: the president of the United States can't keep his story straight, and he exhibits the behavior of someone who is far less than a skilled liar. The Times editorial observes: "Average Americans are also asking themselves whether invading Iraq would have seemed like the right decision if we knew then what we know now." However, many of us did know that U.S. intelligence had corroborated the fact that Iraq's WMD were a fiction, and the Bush administration, and let's not mince words, knew that and lied anyway to promote its geopolitical agenda, which was articulated by hard-right think tanks long before the U.S. invaded Iraq.
Former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter, e.g., despite all his footwork and interviews detailing Iraq's phantom weapons situation, was discounted and dismissed. Interestingly, prior to the war he was debunked on a late-night radio talk show by another U.N. weapons inspector who insinuated Ritter had been bribed by Saddam Hussein. Simply put, what Ritter had to reveal wasn't what Washington wanted to to hear--the truth didn't fit their agenda.
In a previous editorial, February 7, 2004, "The Intelligence Commission," the Times nails down another problem. President Bush chose a commission limited in scope and credible personnel: "This group lacks the stature and name recognition that would give its findings commanding credibility. Worse yet, it looks as if Mr. Bush, who chose not to allow a truly independent panel, will limit its mandate to a review of intelligence gathering analysis." We've heard this before--e.g., a hand-picked 9-11 commission being directed to only investigate intelligence lapses rather than the major crime itself. Bush has consistently stonewalled even a token 9-11 commission from the onset.
The Times continues to observe that Bush's commission "looks more like an effort to deflect attention until after the election rather than a genuine attempt to get to the bottom of the Iraq fiasco." It would appear the Times is waking up. Bush's presidential word is looking overdone. Wasn't it Germany's Herr Goebbels who found that if you tell a lie often enough, people believe it?
The justice that the U.S. public deserves probably will not be seen on Bush's remaining watch, but his behavior in this issue looks identical to his behavior throughout his tenure as president. Real justice in the U.S. would entail a serious accounting of the 2000 election; of the 9-11 event, which deserves a major criminal investigation rather than taking Bush and his administration at their word regarding where the fault lies--there are far too many anomalies surrounding this event to ignore, which some commentators are calling staged; of the Valerie Plume outing and affair; of the WMD deception--why, as another editorial (www.buzzflash.com) asks, investigate what "Bush administration officials have already admitted?"; of voting machines and their vulnerability to being rigged or hacked.
Where are the committed investigations? What is Bush hiding in his 9-11 briefing memos? Why has there never been a forensic analysis of 9-11 evidence, the event that gave rise to all subsequent events? Why no real criminal investigation into the Valerie Plume outing, a treasonous act by any measure, considering her field of expertise was illegal WMDs? Why a WMD intelligence commission handpicked by the president himself?
It's time for serious investigations and for President Bush to come clean. Lots of luck.
Michael Arvey spiritmed@rocketmail.com is a free lance writer and author in Colorado.
