Sooner or later, the real story behind the Iraq war will come out and bury the dubya/ head/rove/Repug administration in eternal infamy as one of the most lying, cynical, destructive administrations ever.

They are already down there with Tricky , not accidentally another Repug, in the Hall of (Repug) Shame.

=========================

A Compelling Story
By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Friday, March 31, 2006; 10:54 AM


Slowly but surely, investigative reporter Murray Waas has been putting together a compelling narrative about how President Bush and his top aides contrived their bogus case for war in Iraq; how they succeeded in keeping charges of deception from becoming a major issue in the 2004 election; and how they continue to keep most of the press off the trail to this day.

What emerges in Waas's stories is a consistent White House modus operandi: That time and time again, Bush and his aides have selectively leaked or declassified secret intelligence findings that served their political agenda -- while aggressively asserting the need to keep secret the information that would tend to discredit them.

The latest entry in Waas's saga came yesterday in the highly respected National Journal. Waas writes: "Karl Rove, President Bush's chief political adviser, cautioned other White House aides in the summer of 2003 that Bush's 2004 re-election prospects would be severely damaged if it was publicly disclosed that he had been personally warned that a key rationale for going to war had been challenged within the administration."

This happened, Waas writes, after "then-Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen J. Hadley determined that Bush had been specifically advised that claims he later made in his 2003 State of the Union address -- that Iraq was procuring high-strength aluminum tubes to build a nuclear weapon -- might not be true."

The aluminum-tube allegation was perhaps the strongest, most concrete piece of evidence the White House had in its campaign to drive the American public into the proper frame of mind to go to war against a country that had never before been seen as a threat to the national security.

In a March 2 story, Waas do ented how Bush had been explicitly informed that the aluminum-tube allegation might not be true well before his State of the Union Address.

Yesterday's new twist is that Rove apparently understood that if American voters found out how Bush had intentionally misled them, the election might be lost. He was intent on not letting that happen.

Waas's narrative also helps explain why the White House felt so compelled to discredit former ambassador Joseph Wilson's charge in May 2003 that another key justification for war was manifestly false.

More of Waas's stories can be found here.

The blogosphere is abuzz with Waas's latest revelation. The Booman Tribune blog explains how it is in fact Waas's "magnum opus on the Plame Affair."

But in the traditional media, the reaction has been utter and complete silence -- both after Waas's well-do ented March 2 story, and again today. There's not one word about it in a single major outlet this morning.

( ... more "proof" the (liberal) media is out to get dubya/ head/Reugs )

And that's just not acceptable. Waas's fellow reporters at major news operations should either acknowledge and try to follow up his stories -- or debunk them. It's not okay to just leave them hanging out there. They're too important.

........ snip ........


Straw Man Watch
A reader who prefers to remain anonymous e-mails me to point out that Bush's argument Wednesday that sectarian rivalries in Iraq are not his fault is, in fact, based on a straw-man argument.

I wrote about Bush's assertion in yesterday's column, Don't Blame Me.

"Today, some Americans ask whether removing Saddam caused the divisions and instability we're now seeing. In fact, much of the animosity and violence we now see is the legacy of Saddam Hussein," Bush said.

But my reader points out that nobody is saying Bush is responsible for the sectarian animosity. "They are saying he is responsible for not having a plan to deal with it, [for failing] to put in place a secure government in a timely manner to prevent us from becoming an unpopular occupying force that further aggravates the situation, and for making the region a magnet for foreign fighters and terrorists who throw more gasoline on the situation."

.................

Repeating It Doesn't Make It So
Joe Conason writes in Salon: "President Bush persists in blatantly falsifying the war's origins -- perhaps because, even now, he still gets away with it."

Conason takes issue with Bush's statement in his press conference last week that Saddam Hussein "chose to deny inspectors . . . chose not to disclose."

Writes Conason: "For the third time since the war began three years ago, Bush had falsely claimed that Saddam refused the U.N. weapons inspections mandated by the Security Council. For the third time, he had denied a reality witnessed by the entire world during the four months when those inspectors, under the direction of Hans Blix, traveled Iraq searching fruitlessly for weapons of mass destruction that, as we now know for certain, were not there."

The first time, Conasan writes, came in a July 2003 photo op .

The following day, Dana Priest and Dana Milbank wrote in The Washington Post: "The president's assertion that the war began because Iraq did not admit inspectors appeared to contradict the events leading up to war this spring: Hussein had, in fact, admitted the inspectors and Bush had opposed extending their work because he did not believe them effective."

But since then, Conason writes that the "lazy and intimidated press corps" has let Bush get away with a bald-faced lie.

"Historians will wonder someday how a free press permitted the world's most important official to say such things without contradiction."

© 2006 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive