'Weapons of Mass Destruction' As Adjective

White House Report

Oh, my gosh. Listen to the president's own words in his State of the Union message Tuesday night:

"For diplomacy to be effective, words must be credible. No one can now doubt the words of America."

Sorry, Mr. President. Your words are not credible and countless millions worldwide doubt the words of America very much.

In last year's State of the Union and in countless speeches by Bush and his cabinet officials before and after, leading up to the invasion of Iraq last March, words were spoken of an urgent need to act in the face of an imminent threat posed by Saddam Hussein's "weapons of mass destruction."

The quotes are there in the public record, a daily mantra, for anyone to document. This was the single, overriding cause celebre for the invasion.

Hear how Bush put it this Tuesday in conceding that there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. All that a year's worth of invasion, death and hunting found was, in Bush's own words Tuesday, "Dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities."

"Program activities?" That sounds like something that goes on at the local community center.

Diagram the sentence the way you learned it in high school English, if it helps make the point. "Weapons of mass destruction" has gone from being the subject of the sentence, as it was in all the Bush administration diatribes a year ago, to being part of an adjectival phrase describing something else.

The something else is this elusive, non-descript term, "program activities."

So, Bush pulled a lame linguistic trick, attempting to use a sleight-of-tongue to slip in a reference to last year's claim of WMDs while, in fact, the same words, if carefully understood, meant the exact opposite of the impression they were intended to make.

Bush's speechwriters used the same sophistry (a verbal smoke and mirrors) on the issue of jobs. In reciting a litany of evidences for a recovery from the recession, he often used statistics to make his case in each economic category, except for the last one, which referred to jobs.

No statistics in that phrase. Only, "And jobs are on the rise!"

On the rise? Oh, yeah, up by exactly 1,000 in December. That paltry number fell so far below the Bush administration's own projections and expectations that it set off alarm bells throughout the GOP body politic.

Of course, his references to low interest rates and expanded exports as positive evidence of recovery are interpreted by many as exactly the opposite. Interest rates are low not because of a robust economy, but because of almost alarmist actions by the Federal Reserve Board attempting to insulate the economy from a dangerous deflationary trend. Exports are booming because the value of the U.S. dollar is nose-diving abroad, another sign of danger, not of a healthy economy.

Tuesday's State of the Union atmosphere was one of the most acrimonious in history. The air was crackling with open hostility between the White House and leading Democrats. There was no talk from the podium as in so many messages in the past of bi-partisanship and unity of purpose.

The true State of the Union, therefore, was not in the carefully manicured distortions the president uttered, but in the "body language" of everyone in the room. The nation is angry and divided. The Republicans are determined to use their majority in Congress and the White House to bully their way, without apology, give tax breaks to the rich, to trample civil liberties, bash sexual minorities and sanction bigoted religious institutions by providing them with access to taxpayer dollars.

But on the other side came frowns and folded arms, a resolute silence, heads shaking slowly in disgust, and even boos. There were no false soap opera graces this time. The anger and the hatred are real, and it showed.

The national unity the president rode in the wake of 9/11 has evaporated. The patience with administration lies and deceptions has worn out. Even when President Clinton delivered his State of the Union messages in the height of the Lewinsky scandal and impeachment proceedings, it was nothing like this.

I am convinced that if this president were not protected by Republican majorities in Congress, his lies about "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq would have more than qualified him for impeachment by now.