Of Bush's Mea Culpa and Jellyfish
It seems as though Bush's Iraq Speech Series© has been given a 'thumbs up' by the majority of the MSM, and yes, the invertebrates in Congress(even some Dems.) because of his acceptance of 'responsibility' for taking us into war based on flawed intelligence.
If you've been following along, Bush has had TWO YEARS to utter these words. This is what passes for as leadership in this issue? In the private sector, this sort of BS would have you at the unemployment line faster than(ya know, something really fast, a speeding bullet, a runaway train, a White House smearing of a political foe, maybe a sexual harassment allegation?)
Look, the guy said, "It is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong." But there is plenty of evidence to the contrary, showing that pre-war intelligence that did not validate the use of force in Iraq - which has been a neo-con dream for over a decade - was merely pushed aside.
For more color on this issue see Seymour Hersh's excellent The Stovepipe.
In this WaPo piece no mention is given to the now voluminous amounts of material that questioned the White House's own intelligence gathering apparratus, the White House Iraq Group. The WHIG members read like a who's who on Prosecutor Fitzgerald's indictment trail.
I don't think it necessary to elucidate the statements made by former White House officials, Richard A. Clarke(picked by four presidents for anti-terrorism roles) and Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, who when famously interviewed on 60 Minutes said about the Bush Administration:
But, had all the intelligence been properly vetted - especially the nuclear weapons reconstitution program intelligence - then the case for an invasion would most likely have never been deferred to the President by Congress.
I'm not even going to include the statements of pet Iraqi exiles such as Ahmed Chalabi, or the admissions wrought from Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi under what is now apparently tortuous conditions.
Yes, Mr. Bush. The intelligence was bad. What you need to do is level with the American people, and tell us why the intelligence was bad. Spill the beans.
I know that you and your handlers are justifiably fearful of letting some nasty facts enter the public consciousness, but after all that you've put us through the last five years, it is the least that you can do.
I don't expect much from the media, but how about both Repubs. and Dems. demanding the whole truth, not some rubber-stamped milquetoast non-admission by BushCo.
Get me some vertebrates. Stat!
I hope that from the tone of this entry that it is not viewed as political humor. Although it was great fun in the penning of this piece. It is still a serious matter that needs to be truly addressed.
By the way, I'll give you a buck if you promise to hold your breath waiting for a full White House disclosure ;)
If you've been following along, Bush has had TWO YEARS to utter these words. This is what passes for as leadership in this issue? In the private sector, this sort of BS would have you at the unemployment line faster than(ya know, something really fast, a speeding bullet, a runaway train, a White House smearing of a political foe, maybe a sexual harassment allegation?)
Look, the guy said, "It is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong." But there is plenty of evidence to the contrary, showing that pre-war intelligence that did not validate the use of force in Iraq - which has been a neo-con dream for over a decade - was merely pushed aside.
For more color on this issue see Seymour Hersh's excellent The Stovepipe.
In this WaPo piece no mention is given to the now voluminous amounts of material that questioned the White House's own intelligence gathering apparratus, the White House Iraq Group. The WHIG members read like a who's who on Prosecutor Fitzgerald's indictment trail.
I don't think it necessary to elucidate the statements made by former White House officials, Richard A. Clarke(picked by four presidents for anti-terrorism roles) and Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, who when famously interviewed on 60 Minutes said about the Bush Administration:
"From the very beginning[of Bush's first term], there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go."Was the intelligence bad? Absolutely.
But, had all the intelligence been properly vetted - especially the nuclear weapons reconstitution program intelligence - then the case for an invasion would most likely have never been deferred to the President by Congress.
I'm not even going to include the statements of pet Iraqi exiles such as Ahmed Chalabi, or the admissions wrought from Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi under what is now apparently tortuous conditions.
Yes, Mr. Bush. The intelligence was bad. What you need to do is level with the American people, and tell us why the intelligence was bad. Spill the beans.
I know that you and your handlers are justifiably fearful of letting some nasty facts enter the public consciousness, but after all that you've put us through the last five years, it is the least that you can do.
I don't expect much from the media, but how about both Repubs. and Dems. demanding the whole truth, not some rubber-stamped milquetoast non-admission by BushCo.
Get me some vertebrates. Stat!
I hope that from the tone of this entry that it is not viewed as political humor. Although it was great fun in the penning of this piece. It is still a serious matter that needs to be truly addressed.
By the way, I'll give you a buck if you promise to hold your breath waiting for a full White House disclosure ;)
No comments :
Post a Comment