The Nation.



The White House Criminal Conspiracy

By Elizabeth de la Vega

This article appeared in the November 14, 2005 edition of The Nation.

October 26, 2005

Ironically, Bush's key defense against charges of intentional misrepresentation actually incriminates him further. As Bob Woodward reported in his book Plan of Attack, Tenet said that the case for Iraq's possession of nuclear weapons was a "slam dunk" in response to Bush's question, "This is the best we've got?" Obviously, then, Bush himself thought the evidence was weak. But he did not investigate further or correct past misstatements. Instead, knowing that his claims were unsupported, he continued to assert that Iraq posed an urgent threat and was aggressively pursuing nuclear weapons. That is fraud.

More Info

This article is being shared with TomDispatch.com.

» More

It can hardly be disputed, finally, that the Bush Administration's intentional misrepresentations were designed to interfere with the lawful governmental function of Congress. They presented a complex deceit about Iraq to both the public and to Congress in order to manipulate Congress into authorizing foreign action. Legally, it doesn't matter whether anyone was deceived, although many were. The focus is on the perpetrators' state of mind, not that of those they intentionally set about to mislead.

The evidence shows, then, that from early 2002 to at least March 2003, the President and his aides conspired to defraud the United States by intentionally misrepresenting intelligence about Iraq to persuade Congress to authorize force, thereby interfering with Congress's lawful functions of overseeing foreign affairs and making appropriations, all of which violates Title 18, United States Code, Section 371.

To what standards should we hold our government officials? Certainly standards as high as those Bush articulated for corporate officials. Higher, one would think. The President and Vice President and their appointees take an oath to defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States. If they fail to leave their campaign tactics and deceits behind--if they use the Oval Office to trick the public and Congress into supporting a war--we must hold them accountable. It's not a question of politics. It's a question of law.

About Elizabeth de la Vega

Elizabeth de la Vega is a former federal prosecutor with more than twenty years of experience. During her tenure, she was a member of the Organized Crime Strike Force and Chief of the San Jose Branch of the US Attorney's Office for the Northern District of California. Her pieces have appeared in The Nation, the Los Angeles Times and Salon. She writes regularly for Tomdispatch. more...

Popular Topics
Most Searched

Issues »

Most Emailed

Issues »

Blogs

» Campaign 08

Witnessing Republican Disaster in Mississippi | I traveled to Mississippi to probe the impact of a million-dollar Republican attack ad campaign that linked an insurgent Democratic candidate to Barack Obama and Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
Max Blumenthal

» J Street

Friday Capitol Letter | This week's round-up from Washington.
Te-Ping Chen

» ActNow!

No European Star Wars | Czech hunger strikers challenge Bush plan to deploy missile defense system in their homeland.
Peter Rothberg

» Editor's Cut

Pentagon, Pimps & Propaganda (continued) | The incestuous relationship between the government, the networks and so-called “independent” military analysts reveals the essence of a new military-media-industrial complex.
Katrina vanden Heuvel

» The Beat

California Decision Makes Same-Sex Marriage a 2008 Issue | Democrats need to recognize that social issues will be a part of the debate. And they need to get this one right.
John Nichols

» The Notion

Internet Gurus Flock to Harvard Conference | Blogging from the most important Internet gathering in the country.
Ari Melber

» Passing Through

The Disappearing Upper Class | Our focus on the "working class" vote highlights how oddly we use language to describe class in American politics.
Zephyr Teachout

» And Another Thing

Preachers and Politics | Secularism looks better and better.
Katha Pollitt