Bush Lied, Kids Died, Part 2
Next, let’s examine the “Bush Lied, Kids Died” position that the White House lied about WMDs in Iraq:
1) The White House knew there were no WMDs in Iraq.
2) They wanted to invade Iraq anyway.
3) They decided to use WMDs as the reason to invade Iraq.
4) We invade Iraq.
There’s a glaring flaw to this reasoning.
1) If the White House knew there were no WMDs in Iraq, they also knew we would find no WMDs in Iraq.
2) Once we invaded and found no WMDs in Iraq, the White House would be exposed as liars.
Why would the White House want to pursue a course of action that would positively expose them as liars?
Obviously, they wouldn’t.
So let’s follow another line of reasoning:
1) The White House knew there were no WMDs in Iraq.
2) They decided to invade Iraq anyway.
3) They used WMDs as the reason to invade iraq.
4) They knew the military wouldn’t find any WMDs in Iraq.
5) The White House didn’t want to be exposed as liars.
In this case, wouldn’t the White House make sure that WMDs were found? Why didn’t they plant some?
Ironically, the fact that we found no WMDs in Iraq implies that the White House believed there were WMDs in Iraq. Otherwise, they would have planted some for us to find.
This is probably what happened:
1) The White House believed it was a “slam dunk” that we would find WMDs in Iraq.
2) They used WMDs as a reason to invade Iraq.
3) We invade Iraq.
4) No WMDs are found.
5) The White House has egg on its face.
Bush was wrong about WMDs in Iraq, but he did not lie.
posted by The Phantom Republican @ 4:36 PM
3 comments
3 Comments:
This is a alternate senario:
1. The wite house wants to invade Iraq.
2. They find a reason to do so.
3. They don not check the information they are given.
4. They invade.
I belive that they wanted a invasion so much so they never check if it was correkt information they were given.
I do not belive that I can do the same misstake which kills tousends of people and still have a work to go to.
Engineer for the pharmaceutical industry in Sweden.
As an engineer, I can appreciate Perhenric's comments about the responsibilities that come with our jobs. If we screw up, bridges fall into the water, planes fall out of the sky, etc.
However, the thing about the whole "WMD" issue is that the main reason the administration pushed it so much was because it was a good soundbite for the evening news. Something easier to say than a whole litany of other reasons why they thought they needed to invade. Or, should I say, it was easier to get the media to repeat it over and over again.
I would've been much happier if instead of WMD, Bush et al had made the case for going into Iraq rest on liberating millions of people, uncovering thousands buried in mass graves, removing a dictator who was a clear and present danger to the countries around him, and planting a seed of democracy in a part of that world that sorely needs it. Try getting the media talking heads to recite all of that.
The bush administration had plenty of reason to belive that there were wmd's in Iraq both the CIA in the united staes and British intelligence supported that. Saddam confirmed that he was TRYING to get WMD in iraq and we had evry reason to belive him. A man who used weapons against his own people wouldnt hesitate to break any agreement to get WMD in his country. Besides which i hardly see how getting a demacratic goverment sympethetic to US policy in the middle East is a bad thing anyway. Id rather have Iraq as a magnet to terrists then have to fight them on American soil. I think Iraq is going to be a great ally of the US in the futer even as Isreal is today.
Post a Comment
<< Home