Might Bush's Blank Check for War Bounce If
He Deceived Congress?
Posted September 22, 2003 thepeoplesvoice.org
by Thom
Hartmann
On Tuesday, September 16, 2003, George W. Bush said what virtually
every other senior member of his administration had been going out of
their way to refute.
"We've had no evidence,"
he told CNN's John King, "that Saddam Hussein was involved with
the September the eleventh. No."
This came as a shock to the 70 percent of
Americans who support the invasion and occupation of Iraq because they
believed Saddam was a mastermind of 9/11 or that Iraqis were among the
pilots who hijacked our planes.
But the bigger shock may be to members of
Congress, who, hearing that, may now conclude that Bush just admitted he
had explicitly misled them.
It started in the months leading up to the
2002 elections. In many parts of the nation Democrats were doing well in
the polls, and it looked like Republicans may lose control of the House
along with the Senate control they'd lost earlier when Jim Jeffords left
the party in disgust.
An October Surprise was needed to turn 9/11
into a partisan issue the Republicans could exploit, some partisans
suggest, so congressional allies of the Bush Administration trotted out
Public Law 107-243, "A Joint Resolution to authorize the use of
United States Armed Forces against Iraq."
The law specified that:
"Whereas Iraq both poses a
continuing threat to the national security of the United States...by,
among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant
chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear
weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist
organizations. ..."
"Whereas members of al Qaida, an
organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States,
its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on
September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
"Whereas Iraq continues to aid and
harbor other international terrorist organizations, including
organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States
citizens;
"Whereas the attacks on the United
States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat
posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international
terrorist organizations;
"... the risk that the current Iraqi
regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack
against the United States ... and the extreme magnitude of harm that
would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack,
combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;...
"Whereas Congress has taken steps to
pursue vigorously the war on terrorism ... requested by the President 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, or harbored such persons or
organizations;..." that the President could use force against the
perpetrators of terrorism, implicitly, of 9/11.
Thus, the President was given a blank check
to "defend the national security of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq;" a nation whose Air Force had been
destroyed and who UN inspectors had just said was almost certainly lacking
any major (WMD) offensive or defensive weapons.
The law further required that Bush notify
the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate (the Vice
President of the U.S.) before exercising the war powers that were being
handed him, and to justify his actions at that time.
The passage of Public Law 107-243 on
October 16, 2002 caused a national uproar, and enabled the Republicans to
paint the Democrats as war-wimps, weak on defense, and only grudgingly
willing to go along with efforts to get the guy who, as Public Law 107-243
said, "aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11,
2001..."
It was one of Karl Rove's shining moments:
the Republicans swept the elections a month later. The corporate
aristocracy was on the move, quickly staking out more and more of the
public commons of America as its own territory.
By March 2003, however, things were
starting to turn against the Republicans again. Dick Cheney was under
investigation for Halliburton dealings, and on March 5th an FBI agent who
said the Bush administration had thwarted his efforts to investigate 9/11
made the headlines by refusing to speak out on TV "for fear of his
job" according to Judicial Watch, who represented him.
On March 9th, Reuters reported that
Halliburton had been awarded a contract to fight oil well fires in Iraq.
On March 11th, a GOP consultant was named in an Enron investigation. On
March 12th the Washington Post revealed that GOP consultant Ralph Reed had
received $300,000 from Enron before its collapse; and the same day saw the
Inquirer newspaper in London drop a bombshell that, "[Halliburton]
payments, which appear on Mr. Cheney's 2001 financial disclosure
statement, are in the form of 'deferred compensation' of up to $1m a
year."
Things weren't going well.
On March 18th, George W. Bush wrote to the
Speaker of the House (Hastert) and the President of the Senate (Cheney)
invoking the powers granted him by Public Law 107-243. Initiating the
invasion of Iraq, he wrote:
"...I determine that:... [Declaring
war on Iraq and] 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."
Thus the invasion of Iraq and seizure of
its oil fields, was, according to George W. Bush, legally justified by
9/11.
But now he says there's no connection
between Iraq and 9/11.
Which will inevitably raise the question
for many in Congress: Did George Bush deceive them and the nation in
October of 2002 and March of 2003, and, in response to a reporter's
question, inadvertently blurt out an admission of that deception on
September 16, 2003?
And, if so, how will Congress respond?
-###-
Thom Hartmann (thom
at thomhartmann.com) is the award-winning, best-selling author of over a
dozen books, and the host of a syndicated daily talk show that runs opposite
Rush Limbaugh in cities from coast to coast. www.thomhartmann.com
His most recent book (September 2003) is "The Edison Gene." This
article is copyright by Thom Hartmann, but permission is granted for reprint
in print, email, blog, or web media so long as this credit is attached and
the title is unchanged.
|