On May 29, 2003, 50 days after the fall of Baghdad, President Bush proclaimed a fresh victory for his administration in Iraq: Two small trailers captured by U.S. and Kurdish troops had turned out to be long-sought mobile "biological laboratories." He declared, "We have found the weapons of mass destruction."
The claim, repeated by top administration officials for months afterward, was hailed at the time as a vindication of the decision to go to war. But even as Bush spoke, U.S. intelligence officials possessed powerful evidence that it was not true.
A secret fact-finding mission to Iraq -- not made public until now -- had already concluded that the trailers had nothing to do with biological weapons. Leaders of the Pentagon-sponsored mission transmitted their unanimous findings to Washington in a field report on May 27, 2003, two days before the president's statement.
...
Throughout the summer and fall of 2003, the trailers became simply "mobile biological laboratories" in speeches and press statements by administration officials. In late June, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell declared that the "confidence level is increasing" that the trailers were intended for biowarfare. In September, Vice President Cheney pronounced the trailers to be "mobile biological facilities," and said they could have been used to produce anthrax or smallpox.
Ok, so these are the facts. Bush and his cronies claimed that mobile biolabs had been found, despite the existence of a comprehensive intel report that said those trailers WERE NOT and COULD NOT BE biolabs.
So, what is handydouche's defense of Bush? He says, since we can't prove Bush knew what was in that report, you technically can't say he lied. Really. So, handydouche, your defense of Bush is that he didn't lie because he was too incompetent and lazy to bother to know the facts before making claims that weren't true?
He's not a liar because he's a fuck-up.
Ok, dude, whatever you say...
UPDATE - I just got into this with Brutelogic, and wouldn't you know, he used exactly the same argument as handy. According to Brutie, Bush was not responsible for not knowing what was in tha intel report. Some underling obviously failed to give it to him. That's right, kids. If Bush fucks up, it isn't his fault. Bush cannot fail, he can only BE failed. Conservaitves don't expect or require their leaders to be competent. The mind boggles.
JC
Posts
2 comments:
I find that you are so absorbed in proving Bush wrong that you will allow any and all kinds of attacks, even if it means an attack on your own home. Where is your reason? Where is your logic? If you prove Bush wrong, what have we gained? Your attitude only helps to drive the insurgent terrorists in Iraq. IF you were to prove that Bush lied, what have you gained? All the while you have created a worse situation in Iraq. Do you not think insurgents thrive on hearing your bastardly discourse? Yes, you use "unreasonable logic."
You make no sense. The insurgents are not going to be affected appreciably by what happens here. And your logic is actually flawed. You are using a base, mercenary logic here. Is Bush wrong? Is he a liar? You don't care about the answers to those questions. You only care about the effects. And you don't even have a valid measure of whether Bush is making us safer. By all appearances, it is the opposite. So, by your logic, Bush should be allowed to do literally anything he wants, right or not, honest or not, if you can be convinced that it is helping in a nebulous way. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to rely on your gullibility to determine what kind of leadership we have.
Post a Comment