by Charley Reese
It is now about as clear as it's going to get that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction. Secretary of State Colin Powell even contradicted himself (in his U.N. speech) by admitting recently that there is no evidence of any link between Saddam and al-Qaida.
Prior to the Iraq War, the Bush administration asserted as fact that Saddam had huge quantities of chemical and biological weapons and was actively pursuing nuclear weapons. Administration members ridiculed people who expressed any doubts. Today, after spending millions of dollars looking for the weapons, they haven't found anything. And every Iraqi official captured, none of whom has any reason at all to lie, has said the same thing: There are no weapons of mass destruction.
In fact, the Iraqis had been saying that for years, and the Bush administration replied, "You're lying." Now we have this situation. The facts on the ground prove that the Iraqis, whom President Bush called liars, were telling the truth. What does that make Bush? It makes Bush either very badly mistaken or a liar.
It seems to me that if Bush were merely mistaken, he would admit it. He would say to the American people: "Look, I thought Iraq had those weapons based on intelligence, but apparently the intelligence was wrong. I apologize for misleading you." But the president will not do that. He gets huffy and defensive when asked about weapons of mass destruction. Before the war, he never opened his mouth without talking about weapons of mass destruction. It might be that there is simply an arrogant gene in the Bush family. It might be that he was just lying.
More......
http://antiwar.com/reese/?articleid=1717It seems that dimson has even got the libertarians annoyed. All we need now is for a righty third party to run someone against the village idiot in November.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
