Features > March 20, 2003

You Can’t Handle the Truth

George W. Bush, Liar-in-Chief

By Ian Williams

While not quite as bad as Pyongyang TV with its references to beloved leaders, it came close. As the president declared war on international law, CNN and other channels did not refer to George W. Bush by name: that might have reminded people of the all too frail humanity of the inarticulate Alfred E. Newman figure with perplexed, furrowed brows squinting at the teleprompter as he mouthed the lethal banalities of war.

No, in awed tones, the announcers referred to “the President of the United States,” often adding for reverential emphasis, “speaking from the Oval Office.” Along the bottom of the screen, the announcement was that the “disarmament of Iraq,” as the official euphemism du jour had it, was underway.

Whether by habit or by conscious design, the announcers thus distinguished Bush—the executioner general of Texas, who only won the election by staging riots in Florida to stop the recounts—from the awesome office of American head of state and commander-in-chief. A poll earlier this week showed that 20 percent of Americans supported the war because they had to support the president, and those deferent feelings run strong in the American people.

Such emotions may have helped them overlook some of the more inconvenient details. “On my orders, coalition forces have begun striking selected targets,” Bush said. Yet George II saw no need to consult his viceroys and governors. Bush’s devoted ally Blair was only told an hour before the shooting started.

The president alleged: “More than 35 countries are giving crucial support. … Every nation in this coalition has chosen to bear the duty and share the honor of serving in our common defense.” Some coalition! The president of Bulgaria, one so-called ally, said, “I do not accept this war,” denouncing it as illegal without U.N. approval. Many others expressed similar reservations. The president of Latvia explained disingenuously, “We wanted to join NATO.” The president of Turkey announced that unilateral U.S. action is wrong. And, of course, in every other country in the world except Kuwait and Israel, overwhelming majorities of the population also think that it is wrong.

Interestingly, Bush, unlike Blair, did not invoke the need to enforce U.N. resolutions, whether or not the United Nations wanted them enforced. He never believed the United Nations was worth dealing with anyway. The administration’s war rhetoric, and the war’s name itself, “Operation Iraqi Freedom,” suggests this is about restoring freedom and democracy, a moral if unlikely outcome of the proposed regime change, and thus illegal under international law.

———————

In his address, Bush told the world: “Our nation enters this conflict reluctantly. Yet our purpose is sure. The people of the United States and their friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder,” despite the complete failure of U.S. intelligence to prove the allegation.

The war, Bush said, was necessary “so that we do not have to meet it later with armies of fire fighters and police and doctors on the streets of our cities.” Here again, Bush evoked the terrorist connection—which not even Blair has had the gall to repeat at risk of being laughed off the front benches.

Interestingly though, the truth-challenged chad-churner’s letter to Congress repeated this outright lie, which makes the Gulf of Tonkin look jejune by comparison. Bush wrote to Congress on Wednesday: “Reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.” Yet France, for example, was offering a compromise of a few weeks’ delay for the inspectors to report.

Most flagrantly, Bush added: “Acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.”

There is no evidence whatsoever that Iraq “planned, authorized, committed, or aided” September 11. None of the anchors on network TV dared call George II on it.

Is this really the type of democracy we are proposing to introduce to the Middle East? Through a war in which the “President of the United States, speaking from the Oval Office” has conscripted 30 governments against the will of the majority of their peoples, to follow a country whose Congress has been lied to?

• subscribe to print magazine

  First Name Last Name Home Address City State Zip Code Email

  2-year, 24-issues, $44.95 1-year, 12-issue, $24.95

• stay in touch with our email newsletter

  Subscribe to our regular weekly e-mail newsletter. It's packed with updates on recent and upcoming stories, events, campaigns and things every progressive should be informed about.

   

• email this article to a friend

  Your Name Your Email Recipient Email

  Personal message Thought you might be interested in this article from In These Times.

   

  Please help us prevent spam by verifying the word you see in the image above

  Send to multiple recipients. Just separate each email address with a comma.

• Reader Comments

  Most flagrantly, Bush added: ìActing pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.î...maybe its just me but shouldn’t we be taking “necessary actions against” ourselves?  I mean it was our good ol’ U.S. of A. that gave money and weapons to who?  Oh, yes, i remember now, the al-quieda AND Saddam.  Well, i would consider that aiding terrorists attacks, so lets take action against our country, shall we?  Can we start with bush please?  Either George I or George II will work, but doing both in would be even better!

  Posted by Dave Sharer on Mar 21, 2003 at 1:34 AM

  Poor Blair, the dog hasn’t even got a bone to show for his efforts.  Bush and Cheney have already handed out all the contracts for ‘rebuilding Iraq’ to their cronies ie Halliburton etc.  How grateful the Iraqi public will be when we spend their oil money on ‘rebuilding’ by giving it to these vultures. 

  Posted by H Garse on Mar 21, 2003 at 9:31 AM

  I agree that the link between terrorism and Iraq is tenuous at best.  I also agree with our President that we need to remove Sadam from power.  I do not have to agree with everything he says to see the greater good in our Nation’s actions.  Don’t forget, Iraq agreed to inspections and they kicked out the inspectors until they had to allow them back to try and avert war.  They have fired at our planes in the no-fly-zone that they agreed to for the last decade.  They were required to show definitively that they destroyed all of their biological and chemical weapons, they didn’t.  Finally, they were not allowed to have missles that traveled over 90 miles. They have them, and they have now used them.  War is the last resort.  When do we say we’re at the “last?” Lest we forget, World War II started because we allowed a vanquished foe to ignore sanctions.  Now don’t get me wrong, I am not compairing Sadam to Hitler.  I am just pointing out that Sadam has attacked two of his neighbors and used chemical weapons against his own people.  Is it so inconceivable that he’ll do something similar in the future given the chance?  Perhaps we should be attacking him instead of our President.

  Posted by Joe Contreras on Mar 22, 2003 at 1:43 PM

  More than ever America needs truth in media-well done!

  Posted by Barb on Mar 22, 2003 at 3:58 PM

  Very imressive , but honestly I think the Congress should be impeached/replaced .  Most of them cashed in , and when I hear the word congress , I think of a bunch of Corporate cronies . 

  Posted by dano on Mar 23, 2003 at 2:02 AM

• extended discussion >>>Continued...

  Discussions with more than 5 comments are continued on our special discussion page to encourage continuity and ease of use. There are currently 51 posts.

Member Login

Username

Password

Forgot password?