————————————————————-

Oh, for cryin’ in yer beer. Bush and Blair just did a joint news conference at The White House. Bush was asked point-blank if he took personal responsibility for the State of the Union statement on uranium. He danced like a Country Bear at Disney. He talked about how he took responsibility for the decision to go to war, etc. But he never even came close to addressing the direct question. Blair then took a shot, and at least had the courage to acknowledge the question. He did say that Brittain stood behind the evidence and that he still believed it to be credible. This despite solid evidence that the documents on which the claims were based have been acknowledged by the CIA to be forgeries. Blair at least admits that not finding the WMD is a possibility, although he still firmly believes. Bush won’t even concede the possibility that he was wrong. He is adament the weapons are there somewhere.

I beginning to think it’s all for the best if he continues to paint himself into that narrowing corner.

——————————————————————

Okay, I know I said I was going to get off the political bandwagon and get on with my life, but I’m a bit of a dog on a bone here. CIA Director George Tenet is trying to take the bullet for Bush’s claims about Saddam going after uranium in Africa. (Look here if you need the background.) This is wrong on so many levels I’m about to explode.

First, Bush can’t expect to have a lackey take the fall for something he said in his most important speech of the year. To abdicate responsibility for the content of his State of the Union Address is tantamount to a confession that he is not in control of the words, ideas, and (by implication) the policies which emanate from The White House. It’s an admission that he’s no more than the mouthpiece of a behind-the-scenes person or group, and that he really is the intellectual lightweight he appeared to be prior to his 9/11 rebirth. Yet Bush is staying comparatively silent, and (inconceivably) no one is calling him on it! C’mon George. You’ve been full of testosterone-laden rhetoric for 18 months. Is it all bluster, or are you really man enough to be accountable?

Second, Tenet admits that the information was known to not be credible, but claims someone at The White House (presumably either Bush or the aforementioned “men behind the curtain”) insisted it but put in the speech anyway. The motivation was clearly to create a case for a war he/they had already decided to fight. He/they lied to us to gain support for their agenda. It’s that simple. And this is the same political faction that demanded Clinton’s impeachment for lying to the American people, right? I’m sorry, but Clinton told a lie damn near any of us would have told given that we’d been accused of a similar transgression. His lie did not cost the taxpayers billions of dollars and hundreds of citizens their lives.

Which brings us to point three. There is no evidence for WMDs after the fact. The pre-war evidence was at least partially fabricated and probably exaggerated in whole. The stated motivation for the war was to remove the imminent threat Saddam posed to U.S. citizens, soil, and interests overseas. (Claims about spreading freedom and liberating the oppressed are merely emotional posturing. Were that a reason for military action, the Marines would never sleep.) In essence then, the motivations for the war were fabrications. This leaves a huge hanging question: Why then did we attack Iraq? Enquiring minds want to know.

There are two obvious answers. One is that the motivation was simply for the Son-of-a-Bush to finish the job his daddy started. If true, it would mean that a vast portion of the political machinery of this country is malleable enough to be formed to the narrow agenda of a handful of emotionally insecure radicals. I find that unlikely. If the structure were that weak, the government would not be so paralyzed over so many other issues. Power is not that easy to wield. Politicians have repeatedly demonstrated that they are capable of being immensely self-serving, and are not likely to align behind an emotionally driven plan.

The alternate obvious answer is that the war was motivated by the financial interests of the industrially oriented oligarchy. That this was about oil and all the downstream old-money families and companies which would benefit from its cheap and plentiful availability. Occam’s Razor leads us to the cold reality that this is the most likely truth. If it is, this makes Bush’s posturing about fusion, fuel cells, and future alternate fuels all the more disingenuous. Moreover, it makes the ethical blunderings on Enron, WorldCom, et. al. executives look all the more pale by comparison. If their acts were criminal, I’m thinking the beltway insiders should be looking at being fit for striped suits – and I ain’t talkin’ pinstripes.

Let’s face it, if Clinton was in the Oval Office, and this situation developed, there would be special investigators falling over each other’s commissions to get the first indictment. I’m not advocating tit-for-tat witch hunts here. But do think a little accountability is in order. In fairness, there may be an alternate explanation. I’m all ears George.