I saw a couple of remarkable things on television recently.

On the evening newscast coming from the CBS affiliate in Boston, I saw CBS get off the George Bush cheerleader bandwagon where it has been for the past year of the war on Iraq, and practice some downright dangerous journalism, nailing the President and Commander-in-Chief as a damn liar who led his nation into an unwinnable war through the practice of lies and deceit.

The newscast did it in simple but devastating fashion: it merely re -broadcast what George Bush said on the eve of war about “weapons of mass destruction” and the “imminent threat to the people of America” as his rationale for sending in the aircraft and tanks and live bodies.

As we now know, there were no weapons of mass destruction; there was no “imminent threat.” The curious thing, as it turns out, is that the FBI and the CIA knew that as well, and at the same time as Bush was deceiving his countrymen. So did a man named Richard Clarke, serving Bush as Senior Adviser, as he had served President Clinton, and the first Mr. Bush to hold the office.

Clarke quit his job a year ago after 30 years in public service as an expert on terrorism. Since then he has been collating his experiences into a book, which has now gone public.

On the newscast, Clarke told of a meeting the day after 9/11 when the Bush brain trust gathered to determine what response the American government could make to the threat of al-Qaeda.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld startled the meeting by insisting that the only proper response was a bombing of Iraq. Clarke recalls pointing out to Rumsfeld that the attack on the twin towers had come from al-Qaeda, that al-Qaeda was holed up in Afghanistan, and that there was not a shred of intelligence to indicate that Saddam Hussein was helping or harbouring al-Qaeda in Iraq.

That indicated to Clarke that any bombing effort should take place over Afghanistan, not Iraq where Saddam Hussein had actually been hostile to al-Qaeda, because of its Islamic fundamentalism, perceived by Saddam as a threat to his secular state.

No matter, Rumsfeld was insistent Iraq should be bombed because — are you ready for this? — Iraq had better bombing targets than Afghanistan.

And so it was, that America, Great Britain and Spain went to war on Iraq, with a loss of hundreds of military lives — not to mention German, Canadian and Spanish civilians as well as others from several countries, and thousands upon thousands of Iraqis.

And so it was that the much publicized “war on terror” was effectively hi-jacked to destroy an admittedly unpleasant dictator at a cost of 85 billion dollars and still climbing.

For those who worry about such things, the world is no safer now than when Bush unleashed his technologically superior forces. Several hundred Spanish families— among others — can attest to that and large parts of Iraq may just be the most perilous places on earth.

Richard Clarke’s appearance on that CBS newscast was really a promo for his detailed interview on the program 60 minutes. It was one of the most riveting pieces of television I have ever seen.

Clarke laid Bush and his circle of advisers out in the most delicate shade of lavender. Repeatedly, in the calmest of tones, he answered the aggressive questioning of interviewer Lesley Stahl with accounts of the goings-on inside the White House made even more hair-raising by his calm demeanour.

He recounted an incident the day after 9/11, when Bush pulled him aside, and in front of a few aides, ordered him to once again investigate the non-existent connection of Saddam Hussein to al-Qaeda.

“But Mr. President, al-Qaeda did this,” replies Clarke.

The President is insistent.

“I know, I know, but see if Saddam is involved. Just look. I want to know any shred.”

Clarke reminds Bush that the CIA, the FBI and Bush’s own White House Staff could find no such link.

The President of the United States of America and self appointed “Leader of the Free World” is getting testy. “Look into Iraqâe¦Saddam,” he says as Clarke departs.

Two weeks later Clarke sends the White House a memorandum re-iterating that no linkage is present between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.

The memorandum is “bounced back” as unacceptable.

“Wrong answer,” was Clarke’s interpretation.

The revelations of this trusted senior bureaucrat in three government administrations are a major bombshell in themselves, coming as they do as President Bush begins mounting a re-election campaign based on his record as a fearless and peerless leader who has made America safe.

So quite expectedly, the Bush people have launched an offensive in which they accuse Clarke of being in the camp of Senator John Kerry, the adversary for the President’s office.

Said Clarke during the 60 Minutes interview: “Yes, I expect they’ll launch their dogs on me.”

But Richard Clarke’s revelations are neither political nor self serving. They have the ring of truth about them, and they are verifiable by a long list of people present at the time, who can be called, as Clarke has been called to testify before an independent commission investigating the events surrounding the attacks of September 11.

And if Bill Clinton could be summoned to impeachment for his casual sexual dalliance with a consenting female intern, what then can be said about a President who willingly practiced the deceit that led his nation into an expensive and unnecessary war responsible for the sacrifice of tens of thousands of lives, and even thousands more lives ruined forever by the trauma of war?

What does this say about the values of a political party, a government and a nation that could excuse such deceit at the very core of its professed democratic ideals?

Does it not occur to people that a professed rationale for the Iraq war as a way to bring democracy to the Islamic world, crumbles to dust when the very precepts of democratic government — the trust between elected and the electorate — are knowingly and willingly violated with deceit?