2.  The Shame on No Conservative Shame
    by Todd Andrew Barnett
    libertarianman{at}comcast.net

Special to TLE

If CIA Director George Tenet's recent confession of the agency's approval
of the erroneous statement used by President Bush for his January 28th
State of the Union Address doesn't meet the requirements for a public
condemnation from the American people, I don't know what will. However,
considering that many conservative collectivists have no shame on this
matter, as evidenced by statements coming from the Bush administration and
conservative properties like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and
Debbie Schlussel, it should be obvious to any rational, free-thinking
individual that they are willing to bury this entire matter as if it never
happened. And this is coming from a group of so-called "strict
constitutionalists" who claim that Bush's election to the White House
has brought "integrity" and "ethics" back into the
White House.

Let's examine the uproarious 16-word statement that has caught a great deal
of attention of the press in recent days: "The British government has
learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of
uranium from Africa." This statement was used in Bush's speech.

But if one took a further look at the statement, one would realize that the
statement is actually carefully constructed to be a half-truth. A
half-truth is a statement that is technically true but is crafted to lull
people into accepting a false impression.

How is Bush's statement a half-truth, you ask? It's quite simple: prior to
the televised speech, the federal government received warnings which urged
the administration not to trust the reports because they were a forgery.
Never mind the fact that the White House recently acknowledged that the
statement was a complete fabrication -- that is, after reports were
published, indicating that Tenet had admitted that the document were false.
I suppose that, in the eyes of many Bush supporters, it doesn't matter that
Tenet admitted that the inclusion of the statement in the speech "was
a mistake."

Not surprisingly, Bush and his stalwarts knew that the documents were
fraudulent, but in order to escape accountability as well as the knowledge
of their deception, they decided to assign blame to Tenet in case the
entire ruckus blew up in their faces. But it wouldn't stop there.

Recall Condoleeza Rice's appearance on Fox News Sunday. Standing before the
audience, Rice said, "The statement that (Bush) made was indeed
accurate. The British government did say that. Not only was the statement
accurate, there were statements of this kind in the National Intelligence
Estimate." If that is the case, then why did Tenet "take the
blame" before the cameras and reporters by stating that the uranium
yellowcake ore statement should not have been included in the president's
speech? Why did Bush, Rice, and Rumsfeld attempt to snooker the American
people into an immediate media circus by commenting that Bush's assertion
was not accurate and then saying that it was after all?

The answer, although not obvious to the American people, is this -- it was
a desperate attempt to initiate damage control, due to the scathing nature
of the controversy. It is typical of one's government to eliminate
dissension and skepticism by lulling people into accepting their version of
the truth. This serves both as a great advantage to the government and a
great disadvantage to the constituency.

At the same time Joseph C. Wilson, a former U.S. ambassador, was dispatched
to Niger by the CIA under the guidance of Vice President Dick Cheney to
conduct an official investigation of the reports of the purported uranium
yellowcake ore sale transaction between Niger and Iraq. The reason for this
inquiry was largely due to Cheney's interest in an intelligence report
about Iraq's attempt to purchase the ore.

In an editorial he published in the June 6th edition of the New York Times,
Wilson wrote, "Based on my experience with the administration in the
months leading up to the war, I have little choice but to conclude that
some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was
twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat." Then he writes, "I spent
the next eight days drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of
people: current government officials, former government officials, people
associated with the country's uranium business. It did not take long to
conclude that it was highly doubtful
that any such transaction took place." Wow! That's a powerful,
scathing indictment of the administration's claims.

Wilson even notes that he met with U.S. Ambassador to Niger Barbro
Owens-Kirkpatrick who was not surprised with his findings (she had been
aware of the allegations of the attempted uranium purchase for some time)
and had rebutted the rumor when she submitted her reports to Washington. He
then writes, "In early March [2002], I arrived in Washington and
promptly provided a detailed briefing to the C.I.A. I later shared my
conclusions with the State Department African Bureau. There was nothing
secret or earth-shattering in my report, just as there was nothing secret
about my trip."

When he heard that Prime Minister Tony Blair referred to the purported
transaction six months later and Bush had done the same ten months later,
he was stunned. "If my information was deemed inaccurate, I understand
(though I would be very interested to know why)," said Wilson.
"If, however, the information was ignored because it did not fit
certain preconceptions about Iraq, then a legitimate argument can be made
that we went to war under false pretenses."

In response to the editorial, federal officials claimed that the White
House never received his written conclusions. But are we really supposed to
believe that? How could a copy of Wilson's report not reach Cheney's desk
when the vice president was the one who sent him on that mission in the
first place?

The sad truth is that the president embroiled the United States into a war
by successfully frightening and lulling Americans into believing that
Saddam Hussein was a threat to the nation and to the world. His intent was
to scare the people into accepting the great lie of all time -- one which
states that Hussein had the means and the intent to launch nukes at some
American city either now or tomorrow. In order to launch a counterstrike
against the Iraqi despot, he had to amass public support for his military
invasion and occupation of the country. One way or another he was going to
get it, and he got it fast. And he succeeded.

However, the uranium lie wasn't the only thing that Bush used at his
disposal. The president had remarked more than once that the International
Atomic Energy Agency had stated that Hussein would get his hands on nukes
within six months. But the agency denied making such a contention. That
surely didn't prevent Bush from repeating it. The rightists would surely
jump at the chance of saying that he acted on ignorance if the subject were
broached. Should we expect anything to be different?

The administration's failure to find their smoking gun -- Iraq's weapons of
mass destruction -- has proven to be a costly, major embarrassment. Bush
supporters, however, are imploring the people to give Bush more time and
grant him the benefit of the doubt. However, when one expresses criticisms
of bad faith in the presidency, the president's defensive lapdogs condemns
them as "politics." Nevertheless, the collectivists should have
realized that defenses of their president are just as political as the
denunciations.

So why should the president receive the benefit of the doubt? He's lied to
the people on this matter twice. Such lies can neither be justified nor
explained innocently. Let's not forget that there have been no signs of
chemical and biological weapons at all. But the American people have been
fooled into going into a war that has led to the deaths of approximately
6,000 innocent Iraqi citizens.

When former President Clinton lied about his foolhardy dalliance with an
intern, at least it had nothing to do with national security (although the
Republican sharks were sniffing for Democratic blood). But Bush's lies make
Clinton look like a Boy Scout in comparison. The unfortunate thing is that
conservative collectivists had no shame then, and they have no shame now.
And that is a shame indeed.

--
Copyright (cd) 2003 by Todd Andrew Barnett. All Rights Reserved. Permission
to reprint any portion of or the entire article is hereby granted, provided
that the author's name and credentials are included.

---