Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dyshade There are two main possibilities. One, that something is seriously wrong within the Bush White House's national security operations. That seems difficult to believe. The other is that the president has deliberately misled the nation, and the world. |
Nice that he brushes aside the more likely explanation -- that the US intel groups are not doing a good job -- as "difficult to believe." Is that really so difficult to believe. Does Dean think the POTUS went to Iraq himself and gathered the intel personally? If not, he finds it easier to believe that the POTUS invented the intel rather than took what was given him by the CIA et al?
Once again, we see the sad gullibility of conspiracy theory mongers. They find it easy to believe great evil malfeasance by the POTUS, but completely fail to think the matter through to the end and see what other implications are implicit in their assumption -- then see whether the whole conspiracy theory is still believable once all the implications are known.
So, if we believe the POTUS invented the intel we have to also believe (at a minimum):
1. The same intel that Congress had and which agreed with the general broad consensus in Europe as well -- who invented that intel?
2. Bush started a war, knowing that no WMD would be found, thus guaranteeing a potentially election-losing embarrassment. In other words, we have to believe he was cunning and self serving enough to invent all that intel -- but not cunning enough to realize that the lack of WMD would mean no WMD would be found.
Of course the author is ignoring a third, likely, possibility: that the intel was right and there were indeed WMD, but in the interminable time leading up the invasion, as Iraq's sock puppet Chirac stonewalled and stalled and bought time for Saddam, the WMD were simply moved out of Iraq into some neighbor.
Quote:
|
New York Times columnist, Paul Krugman, has taken Bush sharply to task, asserting that it is "long past time for this administration to be held accountable." "The public was told that Saddam posed an imminent threat," Krugman argued.
|
Great -- an avowed partisan hack like Krugman is touted as some impartial observer.
Right off the bat we see that Krugman is STILL to this day retailing the long since exploded lie that Bush ever claimed Iraq was an "imminent threat." That lie has been refuted at least a thousand times. By now, everyone in the world musty know that Bush explicitly stated we have to act BEFORE the Iraqi threat becomes imminent, i.e., exactly the opposite. Everyone knows this, except those still confined to the insular partisan world of the NYT.
Quote:
|
But, as Time magazine reported, the leads are running out. According to Time, the Marine general in charge explained that "[w]e've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad," and remarked flatly, "They're simply not there."
|
Except we just saw how an unmarked missile head contained sarin components.
Quote:
|
Perhaps most troubling, the president has failed to provide any explanation of how he could have made his very specific statements, yet now be unable to back them up with supporting evidence.
|
Gee -- the CIA were wrong...that doesn't occur to him?
Quote:
|
One is that [the WMDs] were spirited out of Iraq, which maybe is the worst of all possibilities,
|
Indeed. But that option fails to satisfy the need for a conspiracy theory to retail, so let's not go there.