Wednesday, April 7, 2004

Bush has misled nation into war

The ancients believed in omens: A wolf howling at the moment of a baby’s birth, a sudden change in the weather, the appearance of a raven, a comet or supernova lighting up the night sky. Many natural phenomena could portend either good or bad in the near future.

Was it merely coincidence then that there occurred such an unusual planetary alignment on the day of Richard Clarke’s appearance before the 9/11 Commission? I would like to think those ancients were on to something.

Mr. Clarke appeared before the commission and testified under oath. When people start to analyze the attacks on Mr. Clarke’s credibility that have already occurred and will continue from the Bush administration, they should keep that fact in mind. He said what I have been saying for over a year: That the war in Iraq was a drummed-up proposition; that the administration was fixated on Iraq even before the attacks on the World Trade Center; that Mr. Bush wanted to find a way to connect al Qaida and Iraq despite the proof to the contrary; that he and key members of his team deliberately ignored intelligence and proof to the contrary.

More disturbing was Mr. Clarke’s assertion that the war in Iraq has greatly damaged our war on terror by diverting troops from Afghanistan where the terrorists actually were, by inflaming the Moslem world, thus growing terrorists faster than we can kill them, and by using vast amounts of treasure in Iraq that might otherwise be used to harden potential targets here at home.

By itself, Mr. Clarke’s testimony under oath would be disturbing. However if we couple his testimony with that of Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski and former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill (neither under oath, but both conservatives with no love of Democrats) a pretty solid picture of deceit starts to form.

Lt. Col. Kwiatkowski appeared on television the other day, and spoke of the “Neo Conservatives,” led by Undersecretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, who invaded the Pentagon with the Bush administration. Kwiatkowski, as a mid-level officer in War Planning, was in a good place to observe the workings of these Neo-Cons. Her impressions match precisely the testimony of Mr. Clarke.

From the outset, the United States would plan and find a way to execute a war with Iraq, and any evidence to the contrary would be either suppressed or ignored. She also spoke of their seeming disdain for the whole Democratic process, as though once embarked upon, this war was a steamroller that would take place because they (the Neo-Cons) knew better than either the people or their representatives.

Mr. O’Neill, as a member of the cabinet, was certainly positioned to view the interaction of the President and his cabinet. Again his own words, as recorded by the author, confirm the testimony of Mr. Clarke. Bush intended to find a cassus belli with Iraq from the very beginning of his administration, and 9/11 offered up the perfect excuse.

Afterward he linked Iraq to the war on terror at every opportunity, despite a compete lack of evidence, and convinced a backbone-free Congress to give him the power to wage that false war.

Even today, when he makes a speech you’ll find Bush speaking of terrorists, the war on terror, and his war in Iraq in very linked sentences. He no longer says it directly, but the implication is always clear.

Now the defenders will spring to the fore. It doesn’t matter, they’ll say. We’ve deposed and captured Saddam. Look at all the good we’re doing. We even have servicemen writing from Iraq with a tear in their eye about the wonderful schools we’re building, and leaving the Democratic Party.

I guess if you believe the Founding Fathers reserved to the Congress the right to declare war only because they wanted to get the damn convention over with will you swallow this line of thinking. James Madison, Roger Sherman, Elbridge Gerry, Samuel Johnson, Luther Martin, Robert Morris, Charles Pinckney, George Washington, James Wilson, and the 46 others at the convention compromised on much, but all agreed that the power to make war is the most critical undertaking of a government, and therefore in need of vigorous, open debate.

As George Mason put it: “I am for clogging rather than facilitating war; but I am definitely for facilitating peace.” I do not wonder at Mason’s reaction to our current President’s tergiversation were he alive today. He would see a man who told Congress one thing to achieve his end, but in fact had something completely different in mind. George Mason and George Washington would refer us to Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution.

Now Mr. Bush is determined to run on his record as a strong and decisive wartime president, and he has $150 million in his pocket that says you’re going to believe him. He doesn’t need to convince more than about 20 percent of the electorate, as his voting base might reach up to 30 percent of the population.

Were this the revolutionary war, Sam Adams would recognize these people as the Tories, politically myopic, purposefully uninformed. These people believe in the King and it just doesn’t matter what he does, so you might as well leave your evidence at home. The 30 percent on the other side don’t like the king no matter what he does; they just don’t like kings. So the battle is fought in the middle 40 percent.

So for you in the middle, think of this: If George Bush has been so decisive, take a look at his decisions and whether they have improved our situation, or frittered away our resources.

In my view, George Bush decided about Iraq when he became president. He decided to expend hundreds of lives and billions of dollars invading a country that posed us no threat. He decided to do this against the advice of most of our key allies, wasting all the goodwill and sympathy generated by the attack on us.

He decided to lie about his reasoning, and to change it to suit his argument du jour. He decided that he and his Neo-Conservative elite know better than we, the great unwashed masses and our elected representatives who need to be lied to for our own good.

He decided he has enough money and vitriol to convince the American electorate that he is Winston Churchill (son of privilege and power, warrior, statesman, author, genius), when he is really only w (son of privilege and power, president by Supreme Court ruling).

The king is a tyrant and a fool, and I believe that despite his power, enough of our people will awaken to that fact by November. The ground is starting to tremble around him, and as Descartes noted: “Thou canst stir a flower, without troubling a star.”

Timothy J. Parker

Peachtree City, Ga.