One of the most notable effects of the current polarization of American politics is the readiness of President Bush's opponents to charge that he has "lied." That's a pretty serious accusation, though certainly not unprecedented. We all remember "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky."
But in President Bush's case, the charges center on various things he is supposed to have said in order to build support for the invasion of Iraq. "Bush lied -- people died" is probably the simplest form of the accusation. It doesn't bother to level a specific charge, let alone offer evidence to support it. Many people are willing to settle for an accusation that vague, because their belief in Bush's villainy is so overwhelming that it doesn't need specificity.
But that still leaves plenty of people who are reluctant to call the president a liar without a certain amount of evidence. Well, then, how about those famous weapons of mass destruction? Bush certainly declared that Saddam Hussein had them, didn't he? -- and, what's more, that they were the main reason we had to attack him. Yet no such weapons were ever found. Isn't it possible that Bush knew Saddam didn't have them, and simply lied in charging that he did?
The trouble is that it's impossible to believe Bush would make such a charge, and use it as the principle justification of the invasion of Iraq, if he knew that it was false and would be proved false within a matter of weeks. A truly accomplished liar will cover himself better than that.
So the critics have turned to smaller but arguably better-supported charges of lying. One of the most durable has been the matter of the alleged yellowcake. This is a predecessor of the uranium used in nuclear weapons, and the administration had cited, as evidence of Saddam's intentions, reports that he had been trying to buy this material from the African nation of Niger. The reports have subsequently been denounced as false, and based on forged documents planted on British intelligence. The British nevertheless insist that the reports are true, but they are certainly under a cloud and we will assume, hereinafter, that they are false.
There is no doubt that President Bush cited these reports in support of his case against Saddam. But, for his doing so to have been a "lie," he would have to have known the reports were false. And, once again, it is preposterous to think that, in building his case against Saddam, Bush would deliberately insert a false charge that could only (and did) damage the case.
William Rusher is a Distinguished Fellow of the Claremont Institute for the Study of Statesmanship and Political Philosophy and author of How to Win Arguments .
Be the first to read William Rusher's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.
Iranian Exiles Have Suffered as We Have Ignored Tehran’s Expanding Influence in Iraq | Leo McCloskey