The release of the
inspector’s report concluding that Saddam Hussein did not possess stockpiles of WMD prior to the U.S. invasion has led to some strong allegations against the Bush administration. Senator Jay Rockefeller stated,
"Despite the efforts to focus on Saddam's desires and intentions, the bottom line is Iraq did not have either weapon stockpiles or active production capabilities at the time of the war,"
Senator Jane Harman
stated,
"The Duelfer report is yet another example that there really are two Americas... There's the one that exists in the Bush fantasy world, and then there's the real America. In the Bush fantasy world, they still claim that Iraq was an imminent threat with weapons of mass destruction."
The line of thinking seems to be that, prior to the invasion of Iraq, Bush
knew that Saddam did not have stockpiles of WMD. Despite that knowledge Bush, so the story goes, told the American people otherwise (i.e., he lied).
But if Bush knew that Saddam didn’t have the WMD, then he must have also known that we wouldn’t find any WMD. After all, how can you find something that, not only isn’t there, but that you know isn’t there?
Okay, if Bush knew there were no stockpiles of WMDs in Iraq, and he knew that none would be found, then he knew that eventually such information would be made public. How could such information possibly help his reelection? His only recourse would be to squelch or delay the release of the inspector’s report until after the election. Yet he didn't do that, and the release of this report couldn’t have come at a worse time for him.
The only reasonable explanation is that Bush is, in reality, a Kerry operative.
1 comment:
"And I'm really a badmitten croquet player disguised as a football player!"
All Calvin and Hobbes quotes aside, you certainly got that right. I mean, if Bush lied, surely he would have planted some WMD's by now. He's really not that stupid.
Post a Comment