A letter to Salon today has an interesting perspective on the WMD/lying issue:

"I believe that going after Bush about the missing WMD would be disastrous for Democrats.
America eliminated a monstrous dictator; the American people feel that we fought a just war, even if it was for all the wrong reasons. From the start, progressives and liberals against the war have refused to deal squarely with the sadism of Saddam Hussein's regime. Progressives and liberals end up looking like a bunch of pacifist sissies and America-haters willing to let innocent people get tortured and murdered because they don't want to get their hands dirty.
I think a Democratic campaign that speaks truth about America's role in creating misery and anti-Americanism around the world, and that calls America to the task of waging peace as aggressively as we wage war, would resonate with Americans. But not a battle about the correctness of the war with Iraq."

I think the writer has a point. Based on my workplace anecdotal (sample of one) survey, it's extremely hard to overcome the view of the swing voter that the war was a great success. The only thing that might is if Iraq turns visibly disastrous. (But this creates the other dilemma of the Dems of appearing to be hoping for the worst -- remember the beginning of the war?)

I respect Steve's strategy of undercutting Bush by revealing him as a liar. And I agree with the John Dean view that lying to start a war is impeachable. I just think that cognitive dissonance resolution by swing voters on the war is going to be very hard to overcome.

"Dear. Mr. Russert,

"Contrary to what Rice said over the weekend, the White House did in fact know that the Niger uranium story was never proved when George W. Bush repeated it in his 2003 State of the Union speech." [linked]

Landay, KnightRidder. [linked]

Lumpkin, Associated Press. [linked]

It may seem strange to you, Mr. Russert, but in the world I live in people don't lie. About anything. For any reason.

They know that to be caught is the end of their reputation--and thus their usefulness and their career.

They know the easy mental freedom in being plain straight. There's enough burdens in this world without having to worry about your lies.

Yet you seem to live in some world, Mr. Russert, where reality no longer applies. Where the principles of Truth, Honesty, Equality, and Justice have no meaning.

I can assure you that in the real world of the working stiff I live in lying would soon be a fatal mistake. I use character and ethics to live well, not because I'm supposed to.

Pretty soon the average viewer is going to start looking at you as just another rich cheater, laughing along each week with all the lying while the real people play by the rules.

I'm sorry, sir, but by then it will be far too late. The creeping panic that surely invades Condi's heart this very moment will be your own.

Good luck, Mr. Russert.

~Paradox

Just how long are the American people going to remain blissfully ignorant about the corporate war criminals who are ruining the world in their quest to rule it? There are growing numbers of articles in the mainstream media calling for the impeachment of George W Bush, so how long is it going to take before the American people awaken? Are they going to have to relive the experience of Rev. Niemuller before they come to their senses?

Paradox:

Excellent letter/email.

Claudius:

You are correct about the dangers of trying to force folks into challenging their notion that this was a good war. But I think this is the price the Dems have to pay for laying down like sheep in the Summer and Fall of 2002. If we lose in 2004 for applying the same standards of character and integrity to Bush and the GOP that the GOP and media applied to Clinton and his administrations, so be it.

But I will sleep better at night knowing that we at least tried to tell the voters why it was important to care about the fact that they are being lied to. If we did not do this, and it goes to hell for the country in a second term, I would feel somewhat responsible for it, knowing what I knew but feeling afraid or politically hesistant to make the case.

I really think that this particular lie is going to be a little hard for the public to follow; I really doubt that this lie will be the 'tipping point.'

But there are plenty of other lies that will be coming to light. At a certain point, the sheer number of the lies will overcome the public's fear of complex narratives. The only narrative that will survive? Bush lied; soldiers died.

Or maybe I just had too much hope in my morning coffee.

Bush is learning the lesson the hard way that you don't screw around with the spooks. These guys are smart and they have a tendency to keep detailed records. Look at Britain, where the intelligence people are apparently holding a "smoking gun" to Blair's head. There is no way Tenent & Co. are going to take a fall for Bush and his thugs. As the son of an ex-CIA director, Bush should know better, but when has he ever learned from his father?

Steve,

I agree wholeheartedly. I recall thinking at the time of Clinton's impeachment that people didn't realize the damage that was being done to the nation. The republicans turned impeachment into a political tool in an attempt to circumvent the will of the people. It is only now, as the corruption and hypocracy of the Bush administration is held up to the light, that the utter calamity that was the Clinton impeachment can be understood. This light must continue to shine. It may be that the democrats will doom themselves in 2004 by pushing this issue but so be it. I will speak and vote with a clean conscience. Should Bush get reelected God help us, but I will sleep easy at night.

Walter Pincus writes a front page story for the WAPO headlined CIA Did Not Share Doubt on Iraq Data & full of anonymous quotes about how the CIA deceived the naive, trustful Bushies. The CIA also does not admit it hoodwinked the Bushies in the article despite the title. Does the WAPO check its own archives(full of AP clippings) or Lexus- Nexus before running with this? Apparently not. Is it going to print a retraction, an apology, an editorial taking Condi & the Bushies to task for lying, or even a chiding of it self from the Ombudsman? Not F**king likely.

Condi lied to Fat Tim. Is he going to get as angry with her as he was with the Clenis(TM) about parsing that blowjob? Not f**king likely. He will not mention this to Condi next time on MTP because they will be too busy discussing how the Bills look in the preseason & how she's going to become governor of Calif once Gray Davis is recalled. He won't mention this to Cheney & Rummy because their d**ks are bigger than his.

I'm sure next Sunday, fat Tim, Safire, Broder, Novak & any other wealthy old white guy not at Nantucket will be on the roundtable discussing how Hilary lied about the exact nanosecond she found out Monica was trimming Bill's Cuban.

Interesting. The previous Sunday, Rice and Powell made the TV rounds trying to explain that the intellugence was fine, and had not been "cooked." (My comments here and here.)

Now they're saying "it wasn't cooked, it said we were wrong, but we just didn't see it."

I absolutely diasagree that the Democrats can't attack Bush for lying about WMD. It si the first issue that the Dems have had the slightest bit of traction with on his handling of terrorism and what better one? the man led us -- forced us -- into an unnecessary war that cost and is costing American and Iraqi lives. He might as well have stabbed and shot Pvt. Lynch himself (I'm sorry, I'm vague about the actual injuries she suffered -- I'm just relying on the press).

Leading the country into war on a false pretense is a gross abuse of power -- and may even be a "high crime or misdemeanor" properly underlying impeachment (as opposed to playing with a cigar and an intern -- not necessarily in that order).

There are signs that Amercia is waking up. Let's make sure we keep sounding the alarm.

I read the warbloggers attempts at saying we're full of shit and just shake my head. They continue to believe everything spun by ShrubCo, refusing to believe that this goes beyond the pale.

Bush Lied, People Died.

You're right, Steve. But in the spirit of your "truth squad" posts last week the "lie" theme should be in the context of lies on everything.

Also -- the lies on WMD theme could work if it's somehow connected to real failures in security (e.g., lack of chemical plant protection).

I think that despite the difficulty of making the argument, it is still a crucial argument to make. Hard, maybe, but look at the magnitude of the sin, for God's sake. Thousands of people dead because Rove wanted an issue to beat the Dems about the head with for the offseason elections. And because our pinheaded president has an anger management problem.

This is about turning justifiable homicide into premeditated murder.

If we aren't going to make some noise about this, then what?

-marku

Claudius,

I agree with your points. This isn't a good issue for the left if they simply hammer the point home about this war being a bad decision. That ship has sailed and regardless of whether the left is correct, it just doesn't look good to the majority of the American people. The missing (or non-existent) WMD's must be connected to the larger themes of 1) money spent in Iraq is money not spent here at home on homeland security and 2) the credibility of this President.

"Walter Pincus writes a front page story for the WAPO headlined CIA Did Not Share Doubt on Iraq Data & full of anonymous quotes about how the CIA deceived the naive, trustful Bushies."

So, why is GWB busy in Maine falling off a Segway instead taking care of the peoples business in DC and calling for the heads of those who misled him and took us to war?

"Mr. Kristoff:

Why do you bother to lay out a clear case of deception, then make the following assertion: "I don't believe that the president deliberately lied to the public in an attempt to scare Americans into supporting his war."? What could be more deliberate than the administration's searching out the truth surrounding the uranium documents, then reporting results that flatly contradict their findings? You yourself state: "That was not just a case of hyping intelligence, but of asserting something that had already been flatly discredited by an envoy investigating at the behest of the office of Vice President Dick Cheney." Until you, and people like you, are willing to call the President on his lies to the American people, he will rightly feel he can get away with them.

--Tap"

Why was Pincus' story, the CIA lied to the Bushies, on page A! & the CIA rebuttal story on page A16? The WAPO isn't very fair & balanced.

Marie; you raise a good point, why is Bush on vacation, but why is he always on vacation? I expect he will be on an extended vacation 7/4 & at Crawford for a month in July no matter what is happening in the USA or in the world.

I think the Dems need to make a huge deal out of the WMD story and the false pretense for war (sorry, Claudius). This is about the credibility of United States foreign policy and there is more at stake than the next election.

As to the swing voters, I read on a blog somewhere yesterday that the Dems are always worried about the swing voters, while the Repugs are always concerned about their base. Perhaps we should follow the GOP playbook. The 2002 election debacle can at least partially be blamed on the Democratic base not showing up on election day. We were/are pissed off about everything that Bush does, and no one (until Howard Dean) has adequately expressed our views.

Hoosiercat - actually my point was that BushCo's actions frequently refute their cover story. It was all about the imminent threat from WMD until the bombing of the bunker that wasn't and then it was about Iraqi Freedom. It was about WMD but they only rushed to secure the oil wells. When WMD didn't surface, they didn't panic as they would have had they really believed that they were there. If BushCo had been misled at they now suggest, they would be screaming at those responsible.

Didn't the Republicans impeach a president recently for lying? About a blow job no less. Hmmmmm. . . .

Seems like we should be pushing impeachment. This is pretty clear and convincing evidence that Bush lied in his SOTU.