Quote:
Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
We could argue past each other for days, so I'll try to hone it to a simpler point...
I used to do crim work. I had clients come in and tell me variations of a story, and it made me cringe. I knew that if your story changed, even slightly, you were probably guilty. And juries seemed to recognize that very quickly. In both civil and criminal courts, man who changes his explanation or offers 10 disparate reasons for his innocence usually finds himself a judgment creditor or behind bars.
I know that Bush had good inetntions in manipulating, remaining willfully ignorant and probably lying to get us into Iraq. Its pretty opbvious his admin cooked the intell. And that his supporters keep changing his basis for going all but proves their culpability. Everyone knows it, but his admin isn't prosecuted because nobody can stomacch another Clinton/Lewinsky mess, and everyone is afraid of pushing the Republic toward turmoil during a "war on terror." We all went along with Iraq. We knew he couldn't sell the real reason for the war (reshaping the middle east) so we all played ostrich while the pretext was built from tortured facts. I'm not some idiot who believes we went there for oil. I understand thaat it was a bold and daring reaction, and might still change the world for the better. So I don't call for Bush's impeachment.
BUT, what I can't stomach are those who refuse to call a lie/manipulation/cooking of intell for what it is. Its just embarrassing to suggest that Bush wasn't forcing us into Iraq under a pretext. Its as obvious as the nose on your face that that is exactly what happened. Perhaps history will judge his manipulation necessary, possibly visionary.
But it was a manipulation. There is no doubt about that. And every oddball fact you scavange from dusty UN reports, and every disparate new tortured justification you offer to create a legitimate basis just helps to prove my point.
|
Your premise is, well, just wrong. Bush had 5-6 reasons for going to Iraq from the start. And he expressed them on numerous occassions pre-war. In fact, the NYT actually ran a story in which they chastised him for having so many reasons instead of just one. All of this happended before Powell went to the UN. The justification was paired down to WMD leading up to Powell's presentation because it was thought to be the strongest argument and the one most appropriate for the audience.
So with the exception of the flypaper rationale, he has been singing the same tune for 3 years now.
