Wednesday, November 09, 2005

Finally! The Bush Defense!

UPDATE: 11/11/05 - President Bush has responded to his critics with a strong statement against their revisionist histrionics... Here's where it all began - The Podhoretz essay:

Yes, it's WMD time again... and this time...


It's POLITICS!

And as ususal, it stinks. Norman Podhoretz has analyzed the statements by eveyone involved, reviewed the timeline and has come to the following conclusion. EVERYONE who is smearing Bush today was WITH Bush in the runup to the Iraq War. His thesis:

Among the many distortions, misrepresentations, and outright falsifications that have emerged from the debate over Iraq, one in particular stands out above all others. This is the charge that George W. Bush misled us into an immoral and/or unnecessary war in Iraq by telling a series of lies that have now been definitively exposed.

What makes this charge so special is the amazing success it has enjoyed in getting itself established as a self-evident truth even though it has been refuted and discredited over and over again by evidence and argument alike. In this it resembles nothing so much as those animated cartoon characters who, after being flattened, blown up, or pushed over a cliff, always spring back to life with their bodies perfectly intact. Perhaps, like those cartoon characters, this allegation simply cannot be killed off, no matter what

Nevertheless, I want to take one more shot at exposing it for the lie that it itself really is. Although doing so will require going over ground that I and many others have covered before, I hope that revisiting this well-trodden terrain may also serve to refresh memories that have grown dim, to clarify thoughts that have grown confused, and to revive outrage that has grown commensurately dulled.

Here's a mild sample, referencing Joe Wilson...
...The liar here, then, was not Bush but Wilson. And Wilson also lied when he told the Washington Post that he had unmasked as forgeries certain documents given to American intelligence (by whom it is not yet clear) that supposedly contained additional evidence of Saddam's efforts to buy uranium from Niger...

...To top all this off, just as Cheney had nothing to do with the choice of Wilson for the mission to Niger, neither was it true that, as Wilson "confirmed" for a credulous New Republic reporter, "the CIA circulated [his] report to the Vice President's office, "thereby supposedly proving that Cheney and his staff "knew the Niger story was a flatout lie."

Yet - the mind reels - if Cheney had actually been briefed on Wilson's oral report to the CIA (which he was not), he would, like the CIA itself, have been more inclined to believe that Saddam had tried to buy yellowcake uranium from Niger.

So much for the author of the best-selling and much acclaimed book whose title alone - The Politics of Truth: Inside the Lies that Led to War and Betrayed My Wife's CIA Identity - has set a new record for chutzpah...
"WHO IS LYING ABOUT IRAQ?" Read the whole thing...

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Can anyone be so blind, deaf and dumb as to believe that the administration was speaking the whole truth when it claimed it had definitive proof of WMDs in Iraq? Of course Iraq had WMDs. It had the ones we sold them and the ones they developed but Iraq had nothing of consequence when Bush ordered the war to start. Worse yet, the administration knew that. Why else would it guard only the agency that dealt with oil while ignoring everything else in the country? It kept an eye on the prize, the prize it came to get. No one was sent out to guard all of those facilities that Cheney knew for a fact existed around Baghdad. Rumsfeld knew there was nothing there, Cheney knew there was nothing there. GW Bush as usual barely knew how to read his teleprompter and not much else.

Anonymous said...

Do you get paid to suck Bush Cock or do you do it for free?