Powered by TypePad

« Who Will Bomb The Google-Bombers? | Main | Huge News On Unscam »

June 18, 2004


Ignatius Byrd

This is great stuff on how we need to be careful about assumptions and assigning motives when it comes to government statements and behavior, but it's not necessary if all you want to do is debunk the "Whopper" piece.

It's wrong on its face. Bush's statement explicitly reaches further than the 9/11 perpetrators and the Whopper piece is interpreting that statement to be limited to the 9/11 conspirators. It's not just lazyness, it's flat out lying.

Recently, an interesting idea was floating around the net that I think makes a lot of sense--the left-wing Bush critics' insistence that Bush is a liar is primarily an attempt to innoculate themselves against accusations of lying--of which they do plenty.


Adesnick should be sent to Darfur for a few weeks, so he will understand the nature of a true outrage. I doubt if he is "up" for that.

Jon Cast

The resolution and Bush's finding both say `consistent with'. Not `implied by'. Why would Bush here not simply be saying he has considered the argument that you can't go after Saddam and Bin Laden simultaneously, and rejected it?


Indeed, I'm pretty sure everybody at the time understood exactly what it meant, which is that it is possible to go after the perpetrators of 9/11 and Iraq at the same time, nothing more. If the White House was arguing that Saddam was responsible for 9/11, the whole public debate at the time would have been about that, since, if he was, the decision to invade Iraq would have been automatic. However, some of us do actually remember what was going on at the time, and the debate was clearly about WMD's, degrees of immanence, containment, preemption, spreading democracy, human rights, etc.

Ah, but now it's time to move the goalposts, so we can just forget about that.


apparently, if the republican controlled congress agrees with the republican president says (which he requested that they do, so in reality bush was agreeing with the Republican congress agreeing with him. Imagine that) it absolves both parties of all responsibility for what they say. it's Republogic :>


You can read, right, Soul?

Then read - and discover the language in question was inserted at the request of Dick Gephardt, who wanted a representation that Iraq would not detract from the overall war.

Such a representation is, of course, a matter of opinion because it pertains to future events which cannot be predicted.

Given Saddam's past and the crumbling sanctions regime, leaving Saddam alone in Iraq would have eventually resulted in the lifting of sanctions & the resumption of Saddam's terror weapon programs.

In a post 9/11 world, the potential that he'd supply them to al Qaeda or some similar organization for use against our interests is far too high to accept.

Which, by the way, has been the concern from the start.


Additionally in May 02 congress was split. The Senate was controlled by Democrats.

The comments to this entry are closed.