As the controversy builds over allegations that the White House misled the American people into waging war against Iraq, the latest line of defence seems to be that the deception wasn’t that serious — it was, after all, only 16 words long.

“Just 16 little words,” as one media commentator described them, apparently trying to trivialize the controversy over a forged document that threatens to engulf George W. Bush’s presidency.

But the 16 little words — “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa” — weren’t just a casual, off-hand comment.

Rather, they were a key part of a tightly-scripted speech aimed at making the administration’s case that Saddam posed a nuclear threat, and they were delivered by the president at no less an event than the State of the Union address, watched on TV by millions around the world.

Are 16 words enough to cause a scandal? Depends on the words.

What if Bush had said the following 16 words in his State of the Union address: “The constitution is null and void. I’m now king. If anyone contests this, bring him on.”

There were other misleading statements in that State of the Union address; we’ll focus here only on the statement known to be based on a forgery.

CIA director George Tenet has been offered up as the fall guy. After the White House pinned the blame on him, he accepted responsibility for not vetting the false statement from the address. Although, God knows, he tried.

In secret testimony last week to the Senate Intelligence Committee, Tenet made clear he had discouraged the use of the false statement, but that an official from the White House insisted it be included.

So who is that mystery White House official?

Tenet named the official, according to Senator Dick Durbin, who said confidentiality rules prevent him from revealing it. Fair enough.

But no rules prevent George Bush from revealing it. For that matter, isn’t Bush hopping mad at this underling who played fast and loose with his presidential credibility — unless, of course, the underling is that overling, Vice President Dick Cheney. In which case Bush is probably too scared to raise the matter. (It’s also possible that Bush knew about the forgery too.)

Cheney took an unusually keen interest in intelligence about Iraq, paying several visits to the CIA to demand a more “forward-leaning” interpretation of the threat Saddam posed, the London Guardian reported last week. When Cheney wasn’t pressuring the CIA personally, his chief of staff, Lewis Libby, was. The Guardian noted that the vice president’s hands-on involvement in intelligence was “unprecedented” in recent times.

Cheney also worked closely with a shadow intelligence unit, called the Office of Special Plans, which was set up by Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and staffed mostly by right-wingers with no background in intelligence work.

The Guardian noted that, while the CIA’s policy is to sort through raw intelligence data from agents and informants around the world and weed out anything unsubstantiated, the shadow intelligence unit was encouraged to hold onto everything, no matter how far-fetched. Intelligence on Iraq was of particular interest.

White House supporters are trying to suggest this is just a case of a minor error slipping through a big bureaucracy, that the administration is, at worst, guilty of sloppiness. But there’s nothing insignificant or haphazard about what happened. Somebody deliberately forged a document and, despite warnings from the head of the CIA, it ended up as a key piece of evidence supporting the president’s case for war.

Who did the forgery? Was forgery part of the bag of tricks adopted by the ideologues in the shadow intelligence unit, in their zeal to deliver the more “forward-leaning” interpretation of Saddam’s intentions that the vice president so clearly wanted?

Let’s not forget that this administration was hell-bent on invading Iraq, even after U.N. inspectors had scoured the country for months, unable to find evidence of a weapons program.

Brushing aside the inspectors, the United Nations and most of the world, the White House insisted the danger Saddam posed was so great that immediate action was required, and it launched a full military attack on what turned out to be an unarmed country. Thousands died; more are still dying over there.

What we’ve seen is a lie of staggering import. Or to put it another way: Sixteen little words, my eye.

I wrote last week that George Bush made a campaign stop during his 2000 leadership bid at Bob Jones University, where interracial dating was then banned. I’ve been informed that the ban has since been lifted.

Linda McQuaig

Journalist and best-selling author Linda McQuaig has developed a reputation for challenging the establishment. As a reporter for The Globe and Mail, she won a National Newspaper Award in 1989...