SA, seriously, what do you, personally, have vested in this that it turns you into a veritable pretzel of quasi-logic, arguing, as you are against hard, cold facts? Facts that I might add have been provided and corroborated by insiders of the Bush Administration.
What is it, are you so vested in your own opinon that it’s beyond you to admit you were flat-out wrong in trusting this particularly toxic strand of your Party of choice?
You say – or words to that effect – that you’ve seen nothing here to “change your mind.” And I say if that’s how you really feel – beyond puerile face-saving – you’re living in an alternate reality. The one that has been created for you.
Wake up my good man. Or not. Really boils down to believing your own lying eyes…not the ones they’ve given you.
Good luck with that.
Yes, and that alternate reality is one that starts with not hating Bush and not accepting unquestioningly and wholeheartedly every random suggestion that he is/was up to no good.
I believe Bush is a good man doing the best he can to do what is best for the U.S. and protect its citizens. I also believe that when it comes to any government enterprise, and especially when it comes to war, it is not unusual for the left hand to not know what the right hand is doing.
Most of the so-called proof in this thread is nothing more than a collection of indiscrepancies, many of which could be attributable to timing. Some of it is hearsay and some of it is spoken by insiders with tunnel vision and apparently of the belief that if Bush didn’t hear something from them and them only, he must have made it up out of whole cloth.
Frankly, I would love to see these so-called proofs tested in court. Most would never see the light of day and there would be adequate opportunity for explanation and/or rebuttal with regard to the others.
As for myself, I have no idea whether Bush knowingly and deliberately lied about these things or not, but as I said upthread these are very serious charges and in my opinion they require strong proof. I would regard as proof memos or tapes or substantiated testimony from someone who was there that Bush stated his intention to lie to the country and claim that Iraq had WMD when he clearly knew otherwise, or some variation thereof.
The biggest difference between me and the “Bush lied” crowd is that I know what I don’t know.
So, all you require is a signed affidavit from God Almighty, countersigned by Gabriel, stapled to a complete confession from GW, signed in his own blood. At the point, you may entertain the possibility. At least, until some real proof comes along…
I would think that, given the scope and multitude of lies he’s alleged to have told, and the near-unanimous belief that the Iraq war is an unmitigated disaster, whistle-blowers would be exploding from the woodwork.
But no, it’s largely out-of-the-loop lefties who are spotting lies behind every Bush.
When did Scott McClellan become an out-of-the-loop lefty?
When did Richard Clarke become an out-of-the-loop lefty?
When did Larry Wilkerson become an out-of-the-loop lefty?
(We know, of course, when Joe Wilson became an out-of-the-loop lefty: it was about the time that the administration began a smear campaign against him, violating the law to “out” his wife as a CIA agent, because he refused to lie for them.)