Go Back to the B3 Home Page
Complaints, compliments, arguments? Email me.
[<< "Lenny Bruce pardoned. WTF?"] [Archive Index] [>>"Comic Relief"]
12/24/2003 Archived Entry: "Doublespeak from Scowcroft"
Doublespeak from Scowcroft
Okay, so Bush's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board has concluded that Bush made a 'questionable claim' regarding Iraq's nuclear ambitions in the State of the Union speech (duh). But the way it's excused has got me scratching my head here.
After reviewing the matter for several months, the intelligence board -- chaired by former national security adviser Brent Scowcroft -- has determined that there was "no deliberate effort to fabricate" a story, the source said. Instead, the source said, the board believes the White House was so anxious "to grab onto something affirmative" about Hussein's nuclear ambitions that it disregarded warnings from the intelligence community that the claim was questionable.
'Scuse me for asking, but doesn't disregarding warnings that the story was fake in order to bolster the case for war fall under the definition of a 'deliberate effort to fabricate?'
Friendly reminder: Bush making a false claim in the State of the Union address - where he is, by a broad definition 'testifying before Congress' - is an impeachable offense. You have to wonder where all those 'Rule of Law' Republicans went...
Replies: 7 people speak up
You've been around the block, Editor - you should know by now that playing by the rules only applies to Democrats; for Republicans, its 'the ends justify the means.' Like the Junkie, for example: he needed all those pills to work up the lather to preach the 'truth' the American people, so it's okay to let him get away with it. Or, as another example, Newt Gingrich: he's the voice of Morality, so we can forgive him all his infidelities and divorces because he says all the right things. So what if Bush outright, with deliberation and forethought (and the help of his staff - conspiracy, anyone?), lied to the American people during the State of the Union address? Saddam is gone, and that's what matters. (Does that sound more like being brainwashed, having no sense of decency, or being psychopathic? I can't decide.)
Posted by Mixer @ 12/24/2003 12:49 PM NY
Hell, if Brent Scowcroft says that Bush is as pure as the driven snow, that's good enough for me. [Switch brain off]
Mixer,
You forgot to mention the Republican Moses of Morality: William J. Bennett. He actually penned a book titled "BOOK OF VIRTUES." Who ever said irony was dead? Certainly not I!
Posted by Metropolitan99 @ 12/24/2003 01:19 PM NY
They are busy looking for campaign contributions while children not their own look for snipes... err WMD because the man who refuses to read newspapers says they are there....
Kind of reminds me of a good flash ani I saw recently...
Posted by Old Fashioned Patriot @ 12/24/2003 01:21 PM NY
The intelligence community did not say the claim was fake, merely 'questionable,' that means that they were not 100% certain of its truth. That is all. The administration played the odds that it was true. By the way, there are no real doubts as to Iraqi 'intentions' to get or have nuclear weapons program--they definately wanted both of those things. The question is how far did they get, and were they enough of a threat at the time to justify going to war.
Posted by gregglory @ 12/24/2003 02:08 PM NY
Gregglory,
Thanks for that clarification. It's always reassuring to read that warfare can be predicated on suppositions. I mean, it's not like war has any unpleasant consequences.
Imagine if you have a dispute with your next-door neighbor, and you suspect he might do you harm. Only a fool would sit around and wait for him to attack your family. The prudent thing to do would be to grab your shotgun and blow him away. You'd also want to kill the whole family because they'll come after you for revenge.
It would be naive at best to assume that Iraq was not in our gunsights long before 9-11. Unfortunately, the US appears to suffer from the “Maginot Line” syndrome. We act as if we’re still fighting the Nazis or the Soviets: large, powerful nation-states with massive armed forces and large, targetable infrastructures. The problem is we don’t want to fight a War on Terror. We’ve never done it before, we don’t have the tools, we don’t have the patience. So, in our anger and confusion, we fall back on the modalities of previous wars: Blow shit up. Iraq was the perfect target: evil dictator, strategic resource, critical geography, past aggressions, etc.
Meanwhile, Osama, Mullah Omar, et. al., are still at large and the US is running around like a chicken without a head, bullying its allies, squandering its wealth, and sticking its face into a hornet’s nest. It’s a sad way for a superpower to behave.
Posted by Metropolitan99 @ 12/24/2003 03:23 PM NY
Gregglory,
Back in the Clinton days, people used to call what you wrote 'parsing words.'
What's the current euphemism? Because Lawd knows that conservatives have too much moral clarity to stoop to parsing.
So what do you call it? I'm curious.
Posted by editor @ 12/24/2003 04:44 PM NY
Gregglory,
You're several memos behind in defending the "Saddam has WMD" justification for the war. Bush punted on that one after trying unsuccessfully to re-interpret what he said in the SOTU as "Saddam tried to acquire WMD", disbanded the team that was hunting for them, shifted through "bring democracy to the Iraqis" and we're now on to "Saddam was a bad man". Please try to keep up.
Posted by melior @ 12/26/2003 02:44 AM NY
