The President of the United States has gone on the offense in challenging his Iraq war critics and stating unequivocally that he did not lie this country into war. Starting with a Veteran’s Day Speech and continuing on Monday, November 14 in remarks before leaving for Asia, the President has begun addressing this issue after ignoring it for over two years. The fact that he is talking about it signals his burgeoning political weakness in the aftermath of indictments of Dick Cheney’s chief-of-staff I. Lewis Libby, Bush’s indifferent response to the tragedies of Hurricane Katrina, and the indictment of Republican House Majority Whip Tom Delay for criminal conspiracy.

White House political advisors must be convinced that the presidency is facing a crisis or they would not dare bring up the fact that in 2002 and 2003 Bush, Cheney and White House officials repeatedly claimed they possessed classified, secret overwhelming evidence that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Donald Rumsfeld famously said on television on March 30, 2003 roughly two weeks into the war that he knew exactly where WMDs were: “The area... that coalition forces control... happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."

History shows nothing has been found. Following a similar pattern, the administration’s repeated 2005 mantra that America is in Iraq to establish democracy has the effect of making WMD a distant, almost forgotten justification for the war.

The administration’s focus on WMD in 2002 and 2003 to justify the war, and starting in 2004 on ‘building democracy’ to justify remaining in Iraq for the foreseeable future shows that Bush’s political advisors believe that feel-good justifications are necessary for success. If they did not think so, they would not waste so much time promulgating them. Autumn 2005 polling data and newspaper reports stating that the average America, who likely only pays glancing attention to national politics, is beginning to doubt the veracity of the White House is sounding Republican alarms. Those against the war must use this expanding window to document in the media, and especially online, the mendacious practices of this nefarious cabal.

It is important this happens now because, judging from past administration behavior, the Bush administration’s initial words concerning their 2002 and 2003 assertions that Iraq possessed “tons” of biological and chemical weapons—as well as a nuclear weapons program—is just the beginning of a PR campaign to pave over recent history so it conforms with a more war-friendly script. If reporters, advocates, and independent journalists fail to publish (and republish) this news, a forthcoming PR-directed information superhighway soon will pave over how this second Iraq war was started.

Journalists have an obligation to investigate and re-investigate whether or not this administration made WMD statements that were misuses of secret intelligence or even total fabrications. Unfortunately today there is a political theory in use stating that repeating something, whether true to not, will win over the public if it is not continuously challenged. This political theory or propaganda technique has shown enough recent success to be taken at least, in the short term, as self-justified. Bush’s WMD campaign before the Iraq war is a successful example of this repetitious technique, while Bush’s still-mysterious privatizing Social Security plan is an example of this technique failing when rebuffed by equally repetitious criticism.

Another rule of political theory at work today seems to be a theory of political psychology that states that societies must maintain cognitive unity, or that society will fray. One idea taken for granted in American society today is that the U.S. promotes democracy at home and abroad. The fact the administration continues to assert this goal for Iraq shows how important this assertion is for political success. Likewise, these constant assertions point to an Achilles’ heel, an insecurity about their being proven untrue. If the administration lied about WMD, it likely will test many ‘red state’ assumptions about the Bush presidency. Cognitive dissonance in society will affect social order, economic productivity, and military recruiting. I wager the White House is aware of this.

It is time now to begin a tedious yet important documentation of recent history. What did the administration say about WMD? What was it based on? Who put these reports together? What are the exact quotes and what mainstreams sources have documented it?

The time is now.



Notes:

(1)The President’s Veteran’s Day 2005 speech: “President Bush Delivers Remarks on the War on Terrorism.” Washington Post Online. 11 Nov. 2005. www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/11/AR2005111100987.html.

(2) Other comments: "Bush Takes Fresh Shot at Iraq War Critics." Hunt, Terrence. Associated Press. 14 Nov. 2005.

(3) Compiled WMD statements: "Iraq: WMD." Rotton.com. 14 Nov. 2005. 64.233.161.104/search

(4) Compiled WMD statements: "Is Lying About the Reason for War an Impeachable Offense?" Dean, John W. FineLaw.com via CNN Online. 6 June 2003.

www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/06/findlaw.analysis.dean.wmd/