http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/opinions/ci_7679719
It turns out Ahmadinejad was the truthful one
By Robert Scheer
Article Launched: 12/09/2007 10:08:46 PM PST
BUSH is such a liar. Or is he just out to lunch on the most important
issue that he faces? In October, he charged that Iran's nuclear
weapons program was bringing the world to the precipice of World War
III, even though the White House had been informed at least a month
earlier that Iran had no such program and had stopped efforts to
develop one back in 2003.
Is it conceivable that Bush was telling the truth at his press
conference Tuesday when he stated that he learned of the National
Intelligence Estimate report, which contained that inconvenient fact,
only last week? Even if Bush read the NIE report, he clearly doesn't
respect it, for at his press conference he said "the NIE doesn't do
anything to change my opinion about the danger Iran poses to the world
- quite the contrary." Not that he has anything against the NIE, whose
directors he handpicked. "I want to compliment the intelligence
community for their good work. Right after the failure of intelligence
in Iraq, we reformed the intelligence community."
But whether or not the intelligence agencies are reformed, the
president still ignores them. He didn't listen when they told him he
was wrong in claiming that Iraq had purchased yellow cake uranium from
Niger, and he doesn't listen now when they tell him his alarms about
Iran are without factual foundation. The difference this time around
is that because Bush is a discredited lame duck, the intelligence
chiefs were a bit more forthcoming with their findings in a report
that has, in part, been made available to the public.
The whole episode shows that our democratic system retains at least
some essential checks and balances, but it also is depressing to see
that, in this instance at least, the fanatical leader of a theocracy
seems to have a higher regard for truth than does the president of the
world's greatest experiment in representative democracy.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who took office as Iran's president in August
2005, two years after Iran's nuclear weapons program ended, has now
been vindicated in his claims that Iran has abandoned the
weaponization program. Not so Bush, who has summarily dismissed the
intelligence community's findings and, using his favorite tactic in
dealing with debacles, is sticking to his original story. A story, as
in the case of the earlier Iraq threat inflation, that too many in the
mass media and Congress, including some leading Democrats, have
bought.
Take Hillary Clinton, who said that "Iran is seeking nuclear weapons,
and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard is in the forefront of that" by
way of defending her vote for a resolution that, like the one she
voted for before the Iraq war, blindly supports rather than seriously
questions the president's case for war. Democratic presidential
candidate Barack Obama was absolutely correct in calling candidate
Clinton out on that vote and challenging her lame excuse that she had
not read the full intelligence report before her Iraq war vote.
"Members of Congress," Obama cautioned, "must carefully read the
intelligence before giving the president any justification to use
military force."
Not a bad idea. In the case of Iraq's non-nukes, the intelligence
evidence supporting Bush was flimsy at best, when it did not directly
contradict his key assertions. In the case of Iran, it is now publicly
understood that there is no such evidence, flimsy or otherwise. But
don't count on that to stop the bipartisan coalition of invasion hawks
from pushing on.
Once again, they will attack the United Nations' experts, who have
been proved right in Iran as they were in Iraq. A spokesman for the
International Atomic Energy Agency pointed out that the NIE report
supports the agency's view that there is "no evidence" of an
undeclared nuclear weapon program in Iran and "validates the
assessments of (International Atomic Energy Agency Director General)
Mohamed El Baradei, who continuously said in his public statements
that he saw no clear and public danger, and that therefore that there
was plenty of time for negotiations."
Can we get El Baradei to run in the Iowa Caucuses? Why are our leading
presidential candidates so easily fooled?
It's humiliating to all of us who believe in a free press, separation
of powers and individual liberty that a system of government designed
by its founders to hold leaders accountable can be so easily
manipulated by an unremarkable loser who has been rewarded throughout
his life for screwing up. It is hoped that this time around the truth
will catch up with him before he gets us in yet another bloody war,
just to show he can.
rscheer@truthdig.com
=================
hooroo
uncle wally
---00---
.
|
