's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions

Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )

WMD's - Bush finally admits he was wrong(5 posts)

WMD's - Bush finally admits he was wrongMJ
Feb 2, 2004 4:09 AM
so everyone who's not a rabid neo-con halfwit already knew this - how are you on the right gonna hold Bush responsbile?

Bush has lately found many of his rationales for the war in Iraq being challenged. Just as Kay has undermined the WMD rationale, a report published by the Army War College challenged the notion that the war in Iraq was part of the overall war on terrorism, while the group Human Rights Watch has disputed Bush's notion that the Iraq war was a humanitarian mission. Vice President Cheney has implicitly acknowledged that the Iraq war has not spurred peace in the Middle East, saying peace is not possible while Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat remains in power.

To all of these challenges, though, there is a simple solution for Bush: If the on-the-ground situation improves in Iraq, with violence abating and U.S. troops returning home, the American public will almost certainly forgive any flaws in the rationale for going to war. Discussing the weapons dilemma, Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.), who backs the president on Iraq, sees it this way: "If people feel things are under control in Iraq, the WMD issue doesn't have traction. If things go badly, then it does have traction."

Also, the alternative for Bush -- admitting an error in the prewar allegations -- has not worked well for him in the past. Administration officials now say it was a mistake to acknowledge that Bush should not have included in last year's State of the Union address an allegation that Iraq tried to buy nuclear material in Africa. The admission of error, they say, made Bush appear weak and encouraged more skeptical coverage than if the White House had refused to budge.
He saw Tony Blair get off , maybe he thinksRoyGBiv
Feb 2, 2004 5:59 AM
there'll be a big white wash and everyone will forget about it.
American "intelligence" has a long track for being bogus. like duiring the Cold War and the Pentagon would always go to Congress asking for more funds to counter that great military juggernaut, the Soviet Union. But then when the Iron Curtain came down we found a country that was a basket case.
just a way for the administration to manage the investigationrufus
Feb 2, 2004 7:42 AM
much like the "independent" counsel looking into the valerie plame thing, who reports right to ashcroft.

by calling for and backing an "independent" investigation, bush controls who gets appointed and the rules under which they investigate. and as was stated in the article, it allows any potential news harmful to him to be delayed long past the date of the election.

what i find really interesting is this passage: . On Wednesday, for example, Bush suggested that war came because Saddam Hussein did not let inspectors into Iraq, when in fact it was the United States that called for inspections to end. "It was his choice to make, and he did not let us in," Bush said.

he said this on wednesday? can't this administration say anything that's truthful, or do they have to lie and spin everything? inspectors were back in, and were finding a few caches here and there that were destroyed. they were doing the job effectively, and would only continue so if bush hadn't pulled them out because he needed to get his war on before the iraqi summer season started.

by saying what he did, he continues to obfuscate the relevant events to a gullible american public.
Yeah--this way he stalls it until after the electionCory
Feb 2, 2004 9:05 AM
They did their best to make this go away, but it wouldn't. Now he controls the makeup of the committee and the timing of the investigation, so nothing gets out until it won't make any difference.
If you haven't already done so, take a look at some foreign news sites for the reaction to this whole deal in other countries. It pretty much swings back and forth between anger and ridicule. Our local kneejerk reactionary congressman took a fact-finding tour not long ago and said he was "surprised" that other countries aren't backing us. Well, duh, man. Where've you been?
there but for the grace of george go them.rufus
Feb 2, 2004 10:27 AM
all it takes is georgie to make up some kind of intel about "imminent threat" from nepal, or bangalor, or marzipan, and the "pre-emptive war doctrine" goes into full effect.

people in these countries all probably figure they could be next. i'd be especially worried if i was france.