Bush's own words and the timeline below convince me that Frank Rich's assertion
here
that instigation of "a conspiracy that was not at all petty: the one that took us on false premises into a reckless and wasteful war in Iraq" and the trashing of Mr. Wilson and his wife "to protect that larger plot" involved none other than Bush himself.
Judge for yourself on the flip...
If there are any doubts of Bush's involvement in the Wilson/Plame affair, one has only to examine how Bush presented the war in Iraq to the American people in the earliest days of the invasion to conclude he very likely knew. I propose that his radio addresses to the Nation, all conveniently available at the White House website offer up the clues that expose his involvement.
Bush's justification to the Nation for invading Iraq began, of course, with hype of the existence of WMDs within its borders. His reliance on this rationale is borne out in his radio addresses devoted to the topic of Iraq after Baghdad fell on 4/9/03:
"We have begun the search for hidden chemical and biological weapons at hundreds of locations." (5/3/03 Radio Address) here
"With the liberation of Iraq and Afghanistan, we have removed allies of al Qaeda, cut off sources of terrorist funding, and made certain that no terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from Saddam Hussein's regime." (5/17/03 Radio Address)here
No departure, thus far, is evident between these words and the adamant manner in which Bush presented his case for a preemptive strike on Iraq to the American people.
After 5/17/03, the next radio address that mentions Iraq occurs over a month later on 6/21/03:
"As we establish order and justice in Iraq, we also continue to pursue Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. Military and intelligence officials are interviewing scientists with knowledge of Saddam Hussein's weapons programs and are poring over hundreds of thousands of documents.
For more than a decade, Saddam Hussein went to great lengths to hide his weapons from the world. And in the regime's final days, documents and suspected weapons sites were looted and burned. Yet all who know the dictator's history agree that he possessed chemical and biological weapons and that he used chemical weapons in the past.
The intelligence services of many nations concluded that he had illegal weapons and the regime refused to provide evidence they had been destroyed. We are determined to discover the true extent of Saddam Hussein's weapons programs, no matter how long it takes." (6/21/03 Radio Address)here
Excuse me, but doesn't Bush waver a bit here? The first paragraph seems to bear out his assertions regarding the existence of WMDs, but the remainder obviously seeks to implicate the global community in any notion that WMDs might still exist within Iraq at that time, or to suggest that the WMDs may even have been destroyed! What caused Bush to hedge at this point in time?
The next radio address devoted to Iraq did not occur until 8/9/03. In the interim, Bush traveled to Africa (hoping to scare up some REAL stationery?) and he devoted his radio addresses to wishing us a happy Independence Day, reminding us of the 13th anniversary of the Americans With Disabilities Act, and pitching his fantasy version of a stunning economy (twice!). Not a mention of WMDs in the radio addresses during this interval, however - and apparently no mention in any of his speeches at the time, either, because an observant reporter (!) actually questioned McClellan about this omission at a WH press conference on 7/25/03:
Q Scott, in the last couple of days, I've done features on Iraq. The President hasn't mentioned weapons of mass destruction. Why is that?
MR. McCLELLAN: I think the President has always spoken out about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. And, obviously, in those speeches I think you're referring to, there were a lot of issues he covered.
Q But why not weapons of mass destruction?
MR. McCLELLAN: We're confident that we will uncover the full extent of the weapons of mass destruction programs.
Q Any intelligence agency urged him not to make reference to weapons of mass destruction?
MR. McCLELLAN: No. (7/25/03 Press Conference)here
Although Card claims "You don't launch a new product in August," by 8/9/03 an entirely new and radically different rationale for being in Iraq had been invented and was being spun by Bush:
"We're keeping our word to the Iraqi people by helping them to make their country an example of democracy and prosperity throughout the region." (8/9/03 Radio Address) (BTW, in this address he also had the audacity to proclaim, "Life is returning to normal for the Iraqi people..." )!!here
And there you have it - presto change-o, WMDs gone! I found only one radio address thereafter in 2003 in which Bush mentions Iraqi WMDs, and you will notice he used past tense and stressed the "promoting democracy" theme:
"In Iraq, we defeated a regime that sponsored terror, possessed and used weapons of mass destruction, and defied the United Nations Security Council for 12 years. We have helped to liberate people from oppression and fear. Today, with our help, the people of Iraq are working to create a free, functioning and prosperous society." (9/13/03 Radio Address)here
Are we to believe that in the three short months between May, 2003 when WMDs were still his rationale, and August, 2003 when he had begun touting "promoting democracy" and spoke of WMDs in the past tense, an exhaustive search for WMDs had been accomplished in all of Iraq? Impossible!
Are we to believe his handlers changed the story, wrote his radio addresses and let him utter them without providing him with an explanation for the omission of WMDs? Well, we know he's incurious George, but still quite highly unlikely!
Did the Nation inadvertently miss news from the WH that there actually were no WMDs? No, the Nation didn't officially learn until a year later on 10/7/04 that "Saddam Hussein did not possess stockpiles of illicit weapons at the time of the U.S. invasion in March 2003 and had not begun any program to produce them." here
So... why should Bush's reason for invading Iraq morph from WMDs into "promoting democracy" at this particular juncture? The explanation is evident by examining some other events that occurred during this time period. We now know:
Bush hedged regarding WMDs in his radio address on 6/21/03;
Miller first met with Libby on 6/23/03;
Wilson was busy writing and publishing The Truth, after which the crap immediately hit the oscillator;
Plame's cover was blown;
Miller attended the Aspen Strategy Group Conference that took place 8/2-7/03, and met with Libby in Jackson Hole on 8/8/03; and
Bush pushed "promoting democracy" as the impetus for being in Iraq on 8/9/03.
Does it follow that Bush hedged on WMDs because he was being informed about the Plame/Wilson developments? Does it follow that Bush understood he could no longer propagate the WMDs pretense because he knew what Wilson wrote was true and that all his justification to our Nation about WMDs hinged on forged documents/fake intel? Does it follow that by 8/9/03, "the Aspens had turned" by collusion and necessity to a different hypothesis for our continued presence in Iraq? Does it follow that our reasons for invading Iraq were based entirely on contrivances promoted by Bush himself? Would you agree that regarding Wilson/Plame, Bush knew?