Which President Lied About Weapons of Mass Destruction

President George W. Bush is quoted as saying in his January 2003 State of the Union Address that “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” CIA Director George Tenet said even though officials of his agency had concurred that the text was factually correct, those “16 words should never have been included in the text written for the President.” The controversy about whether “Bush lied” in exaggerating or inventing that Iraq had, or had planned to make, weapons of mass destruction consumed American politics and news reports for years.

Iraq did have a history of interest in development of nuclear weapons. A BBC report describes how an air attack by Israel destroyed a French-built nuclear reactor near Baghdad, “saying they believed it was designed to make nuclear weapons to destroy Israel.” The reactor “…was near completion but had not been stocked with nuclear fuel…” Iraq also had more than a theoretical interest in chemical weapons. A Department of Defense report details use of chemical agents numerous times against Iranian forces in the1980s and again in 1988 in attacks that killed thousands of Kurds in Hussein’s own country.

With that history it isn’t a surprise that President Bush and leaders of both political parties almost universally believed that Saddam Hussein probably had retained chemical agents and was willing to use them. But now we arrive at the really interesting part about who lied. There are numerous articles on the Internet about the interrogation of Saddam Hussein by George L. Piro, but I will focus on a “60 Minute” report.

It took five months of interrogation for Piro to gain the trust and respect of Hussein before he admitted why he had led the world to believe Iraq had chemical weapons while the United States was threatening invasion. Hussein admitted he miscalculated President Bush. He expected an air campaign that he could survive. He believed that Iraq’s major enemy was Iran, and that eventually there could be a security agreement with the United States that would prevent the Iranians from annexing southern Iraq. He also believed that he could not survive an inevitable attack from Iran “without the perception that he had weapons of mass destruction.” He told his generals that he would order the use of chemical weapons if Iraq was attacked, and he did that to hold Iran at bay. Saddam Hussein lied, and Bush and his advisors believed the lie.

 

 

 
 
 

 

Pearls Before Swine

A reader inquired about this expression and I’m once again relying on the Phrase Finder for the origin. It means “items of quality offered to those who aren’t cultured enough to appreciate them.” The expression may have originated in France in the early 1400s.   In appeared in Matthew 7:6 of Tyndale’s Bible, in 1526, “Nether caste ye youre pearles before swyne.” “The biblical text is generally interpreted to be a warning by Jesus to his followers that they should not offer biblical doctrine to those who were unable to value and appreciate it.”

What is the Origin of “Tempest in a Teapot”?

I was recently asked about this expression. Wikipedia lists several versions of the term used around the world; nine countries use “storm in a glass of water.”  The expression is used to describe a small event exaggerated out of proportion, or making a fuss over a trivial matter. The Phrase Finder proposes that the phrase probably derives from the writing of Cicero in about 52 BC, “He was stirring up billows in a ladle. “The Duke of Ormond’s wrote in a letter in 1678, “Our skirmish seems to be come to a period, and compared with the great things now on foot, is but a storm in a cream bowl.” The Gentleman’s Magazine in 1830 included the description, “Each campaign, compared with those of Europe, has been only…, a storm in a wash-hand basin.” The American “tempest in a teapot” is used in very few other countries, but apparently has a Scottish origin. Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine in 1825 demeaned a poet by writing, “What is the tempest raging o’er the realms of Ice? A tempest in a teapot!”

What is the Origin of “Lame Duck?”

The term, “Lame Duck,” is being mentioned frequently in the news about Congress. The term is used to describe elected officials still serving in office, but are not slated to continue. It is frequently believed that the officials are in a weaker position, but there is another contention that a politician can make stronger decisions because they are no longer posturing for the next election. According to blurtit, the term was coined in the early 18th century to describe a broker on the London stock exchange who defaulted on his debts. “Horace Walpole is said to be the first man to have originally used the words in writing about the broker.in 1761, and the line was…”Do you know what a Bull and a Bear and Lame Duck are?”

Out of Sorts

I’ve heard this expression many times, and understood it to mean someone was frustrated or not feeling well. However, I asked myself “what is a sort, and why would someone find themselves out of them?” I found a detailed explanation in World Wide Words.

“The most common story about this phrase refers to the printer’s word sorts for the individual metal characters in his boxes of type, so called because they have been arranged, each into its own compartment, with all of one kind together. It would obviously be a substantial inconvenience if a printer were to run out of a sort during composition. The problem with this story is that the figurative expression out of sorts is recorded much earlier than the printers’ term.” A second idea is that the saying came from saying that a pack of playing cards hadn’t been shuffled. The author isn’t convinced about this origin, and instead thinks the origin derives from Latin. “The Latin original of our word sort was applied to a piece of wood that was used for drawing lots…it developed into the idea of one’s fate, fortune or condition…It survived until shortly after Shakespeare’s time, until about the point that out of sorts is first found.

Out of Bondage: The Story of Elizabeth Bentley

Published by The Devin-Adair Company, New York, 1951
(Buy this book on Amazon.com.)

Elizabeth Terrill Bentley was an American who served as a courier for Soviet espionage cells who became disillusioned, and like Whitaker Chambers (see the “Witness” review), went to the FBI.  Bentley was a well educated liberal who became concerned about Fascism during a year in Italy and became a Communist when she had trouble finding work after she returned to the United States.  Her intelligence and dedication attracted the attention of members of the Russian Secret Police.    One was a woman named Juliet Glazer (actual name Juliet Poyntz) who scared her.  Glazer was liquidated by her Soviet handlers not long after meeting Bentley.  Over the next few years Bentley would work with others who would suffer the same fate as Glazer (Poyntz).

Elizabeth called herself a “steeled Bolshevik” by the time she went to work for a man called “Timmy,” and she was told to cut off contact with all her Communist friends to go deep under cover.  “Timmy,” who she later called “Yasha,” was Jacob Golos, chief of Soviet espionage operations in the United States.    Elizabeth, whose Venona code name was “Clever Girl,” served as courier for Golos, and the two became lovers against orders from the Soviets and despite the fact he had a wife in Lithuania and a mistress in Manhattan.

Germany attacked the Soviet Union, and orders came to Golos to get as many comrades as possible into the U.S. government.  Bentley assumed the name of “Miss Wise,” and she found a job in the United States Services and Shipping Corporation.  Bentley was surprised at how easy it was for hard core Communists to be hired into sensitive U.S. government jobs.  There were so many agents that she and Golos worried that American intelligence would “trip over one of them.”  So much information was stolen that it was difficult to keep up with the microfilming.  The information included plane production data, planned destinations, and performance data.  “Besides this purely military information, we had a steady flow of political reports from the Treasury…the Office of Strategic services, the Navy, the Army, and…the Department of Justice.  We knew what was going on in the inner chambers of the United States Government.” Continue reading