Illustration by Arnie Bermudez

Whoever controls the present controls the past. No, it's not 1984. It's 2004. But the Bush administration is drawing a closer parallel to George Orwell's dystopia every day. The war on terrorism continues with no end in sight; in order to preserve peace, we must prepare for war. Bush uses polarizing terms - simplistic language to drain the colors of the world into a binary scheme of black and white. Or, as he says, "Either you're with us, or you're against us."

What is most frightening is Bush's pathetic attempt to justify the war in Iraq. With the general election encroaching, Bush can't seem to spin the news fast enough.

Jennifer Kursman Columnist

Most recently, during Sunday's interview on "Meet the Press," Bush claimed he based his decision to go to war on "the best intelligence possible."

Yet The Washington Post reported Saturday that Bush's claim concerning Iraq's chemical weapons was made two months after the CIA determined that there was "no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons."

Also, Bush said that Iraq purchased aluminum tubes in order to manufacture nuclear weapons; the Post found that assertion was made three months after the Department of Energy warned that the tubes weren't being used for such malicious purposes.

The kicker: Three months prior to Bush's infamous "Saddam Hussein sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" speech, two memos were sent to Bush by the CIA expressing "strong doubts" about said uranium. So, Bush didn't just mistate himself once; he obscured the facts several times. Thus, who in his right mind would agree that these distortions amount to "the best intelligence possible?"

A clear pattern is emerging. Whenever a lie of his is exposed by mainstream media, our president attempts to rewrite history. No, it's not "Men In Black," but Bush hopes that by continually repeating falsehoods (repetition is a key element of propaganda) our memories will fade and we will eventually begin to believe him.

Case in point: Originally, Bush said the war would rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. After numerous exposŽs, he decided to don a military uniform and jump aboard a jet, declaring he only meant to free the Iraqis (never mind the irony of using the uniform to imply his "military service"). What? If Bush is so committed to human rights, why don't we invade India and liberate the untouchables? How about China? Democracy is alive and well now that Mao's dead, right? Oh, I forgot, they don't have as much oil.

History primer: When foreign companies reap the profits of another nation's most valuable resources, it's called colonialism, not democracy.

If the changing-gears tactic doesn't work, Bush tries to shift the blame to another source. It wasn't his fault; it was his intelligence. Oh wait, not that intelligence - the other intelligence ...

During the Bay of Pigs fiasco, President Kennedy told the National Security Council, "We're not going to have any search for scapegoats. ... The final responsibilities of any failure is mine, and mine alone." Bush would do well to take a page from the great JFK and quit passing the buck.

As the leader of the most powerful nation on Earth, our president should be a paradigm of positive leadership qualities - namely, responsibility and honesty. Since when does the personification of these values involve changing the reasons the United States went to war, manipulating language and refusing to own up to one's own mistakes?

The way that Orwell's grand party controlled the public was by keeping people in a constant state of fear. Now that Bush's mask is being pulled off, weapons of mass destruction and uranium stockpiles don't seem so scary anymore. Will we voice our disgust and oust him? Or will we continue to lap up his drivel?

Jennifer Kursman is a biochemistry freshman. She can be contacted at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.