When we don't mind when a politician lies

Here's the thing. Former Senator Bob Graham, Democrat of Florida, voted against the war, and explains why in an article he wrote for The Washington Post.

At a meeting of the Senate intelligence committee on Sept. 5, 2002, CIA Director George Tenet was asked what the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) provided as the rationale for a preemptive war in Iraq. An NIE is the product of the entire intelligence community, and its most comprehensive assessment. I was stunned when Tenet said that no NIE had been requested by the White House and none had been prepared. Invoking our rarely used senatorial authority, I directed the completion of an NIE.

Tenet objected, saying that his people were too committed to other assignments to analyze Saddam Hussein's capabilities and will to use chemical, biological and possibly nuclear weapons. We insisted, and three weeks later the community produced a classified NIE.

There were troubling aspects to this 90-page document. While slanted toward the conclusion that Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction stored or produced at 550 sites, it contained vigorous dissents on key parts of the information, especially by the departments of State and Energy. Particular skepticism was raised about aluminum tubes that were offered as evidence Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program. As to Hussein's will to use whatever weapons he might have, the estimate indicated he would not do so unless he was first attacked.

Under questioning, Tenet added that the information in the NIE had not been independently verified by an operative responsible to the United States. In fact, no such person was inside Iraq. Most of the alleged intelligence came from Iraqi exiles or third countries, all of which had an interest in the United States' removing Hussein, by force if necessary.

There's more, but I think that's the heart of it. Now, an anti-Bush blog with the Muppety name of uggabugga expands on Graham's article a bit, saying:

That's a key argument against Bush. That there was no information about Iraq's alleged WMD threat (or al Qaeda threat), which had been "independently verified by an operative responsible to the United States." As Larry O'Donnel said over a year ago:

Since when do we go to war based on another country's intelligence?

In September 2003, Max Cleland wrote in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

If you adopt the strategy of pre-emptive war, your intelligence must be not just "darn good," as the president has said; it must be "bulletproof," as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld claimed the administration's was against Saddam Hussein. Anything short of that saps credibility.

Meanwhile, over in the Republican PowerLine land, Graham is a hypocrite, because at the time, he said:

From St. Petersburg Times, Oct. 20, 2002: excerpting from his Senate Floor Statement:

"But tonight I have to vote no on this resolution. The reason is that this resolution is too timid. It is too limited. It is too weak. This resolution fails to recognize the new reality of the era of terrorism.

"Now, there are good reasons for considering attacking today's Italy, meaning Iraq. Saddam Hussein's regime has chemical and biological weapons and is trying to get nuclear capacity. But the briefings I have received have shown that trying to block him and any necessary nuclear materials have been largely successful, as evidenced by the recent intercept of centrifuge tubes. And he is years away from having nuclear capability. So why does it make sense to attack this era's Italy, and not Germany, especially when by attacking Italy, we are making Germany a more probable adversary?"

Now, why would he have said that at the time? Wild guess? He was lying to protect his ass. But there's something people like the Power Line Republicans either don't know or pretend not to as they equate lying about a personal affair with impeachable offenses.

I think most people know that any politician is going to lie to them, either a little or a lot. It's just the nature of the beast, the way the game is played. George Carlin said the reason we re-elected Clinton is because Americans like their bullshit right up front, where they can get a good solid whiff of it. Dole tried to cover it up, Clinton said "Hi there, I'm fulla shit, and how do you like that?"

I think most people ask themselves, not "Will this politician lie to me?" But rather, "How will this politician lie to me, and what will he or she lie to me about?

My point is, I think most Americans can tell the difference in scale between a lie calculated to help you save face with your constituients, a lie to cover up an extra-marital affair, and a lie that condemns thousands of young people to death.

That's why the Republicans keep trying to make it personal, digging up dirt on Cindy Sheehan or Congressman Murtha or Bob Graham. Because, if they can make Americans suspicious of their motives, maybe the public won't notice the answers they're not getting.

It's not about Cindy Sheehan being a nice woman or not, it doesn't matter whether Murtha is an entirely ethical man or not, it doesn't matter if Bob Graham is a hypocrite. The Republicans cannot answer their questions. They can only attack the questioners.

And the stakes are so high, and the cost has already been so much, that people have finally started to notice that no concise answers are forthcoming. Their act is no longer working.

And that, finally, is why this incarnation of the Republican party looks doomed right now.