Why They’re Called “Lies”

When we talk of Bush “lying us into war” we look to articles like this one, which is in the Washington Post today. It is about the dubious intelligence that the White House relied upon in making their case for war. As the rational world knows, making the case to the American people (and the voting politicians) was essential to waging this war. Without it, where might we be? At peace? Or fighting an actual war on terrorists?

If the intelligence did not say what they wanted it to say, then who knows, maybe all those weak-kneed Democrats would not have voted to authorize Mr. Bush to go to war with Iraq. But to say they, and we, were misled, is obvious and understated; it appears to be more like flat-out lies:

…former undersecretary of defense Douglas J. Feith’s office “was predisposed to finding a significant relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda” that supported the political views of senior administration officials rather than the conclusions of the intelligence community.

How can anyone defend this war with Iraq? 

The Libby trial may put all of these pieces together in a nice package. I haven’t been following it too closely but it appears that Fitzgerald is leading somewhere with all of this. Which would be nice. As my number one source these days, Andrew Sullivan, says:

This is a huge deal for one single reason: if true, it means that the White House acted in bad faith in making the case for war. There is no graver charge than that. In fact, if true, it’s impeachable.

Um, yeah. This Libby trial may yet get the job done. Of course, I won’t hold my breath.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *