|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Congress To Look Into "Iraqgate"?Democrats push, Republicans resist investigating Bush lies
Earlier in the year, President Bush had impressed upon Congress and the rest of the country that Saddam Hussein had "weapons of mass destruction" that could be turned on America in a matter of minutes. For this reason, Bush claimed the U.S. couldn't wait for the U.N. weapons inspectors to conclude their inspections but had to immediately intervene and "take out" Hussein. Now, it appears that there are no weapons of mass destruction and probably never were. Further, mounting evidence suggests that the White House knew that Iraq wasn't as much of a threat as the President led Congress and the public to believe. Democrats have demanded public hearings and an independent investigation.
The reference to Kenneth Starr's investigation of President Clinton caused some Republican leaders to wince. Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tennessee) tried to distinguish the two cases. "On one hand," said Frist, "you had a President who lied to the country, and on the other hand you have maybe a little deception. There's a fine line there but one that we shouldn't overlook. Clinton definitely lied. Bush may be guilty of exaggerating the facts." Frist's argument was lost on Democratic Presidential hopeful Howard Dean. The former Vermont governor said, "One man's lie covered up a stain on a blue dress, while the other's lie led to the deaths of almost 200 servicemen and thousands of innocent civilians. I'd say there's a big difference." The difference that may make ultimately matter, however, may have little to do with who told the bigger lie. During the Clinton years, Republicans held majorities in Congress, as they do now. It is highly unlikely that a Republican-controlled Congress would investigate even the most egregious of offenses by a Republican president. "This will all be swept under the carpet," said a disgusted Senator Kennedy. "We'll have an investigation," countered Frist. "We've already scheduled it between motions to reopen the Starr investigation into Clinton's improprieties and the debate over a House bill that would completely repeal the Bill of Rights."
"We're out of money," said Frist in defense of the brevity to be afforded the inquiry. "We can't afford to spend $75 million on every little investigation that comes along. For all we know, we might uncover some things about Senator Hillary Clinton that require independent investigation." For now, the Democrats will have to placate themselves with the knowledge that they'll have thirty to forty-five minutes to investigate President Bush's lies. Some are already calling it the "Whitewash" investigation in an attempt to invoke the fruitless "Whitewater" scandal the Republicans tried to pin on the Clintons. "Integrity takes a back seat where the Republicans are concerned," said Governor Dean. "Nothing should be surprising anymore." |
Congressional Democrats are in a fury over what they are calling
"misrepresentations" and "distortions" of the reasons America
went to war with Iraq. 
"This is far more important than the $75 million investigation
the Republicans waged against Bill Clinton," said Senator Edward
Kennedy. "Innocent lives were lost, and almost 200 of America's
bravest died."
The investigation into whether the Congress and the country
were misled by President Bush is expected to last anywhere from
thirty to forty-five minutes, according to the Senate's calendar.