Still, his skill at mendacity is lacking. Were he truly skilled, he could have evaded the point of the question as gracefully as a master bullfighter evades the horns executing a perfect veronica. Instead, he waggles the cape in front of himself and says “I dare you!”.
He claims to have been reluctantly dragged to war. Shades of Lincoln, to imagine The Leader agonizing over his grim duty, compelled against his better nature to war, having no recourse. Even as reasonable and open to compromise as he was, Saddam’s stubborn refusal to give up what he didn’t have left him with no option but war.
WTF? No, seriously, WTF?
Can anyone point to an action, statement, or suggestion that he ever actually entertained any other course? He suggests his mission to the United Natterers is evidence of such reluctance. He pretends to a somber respect for UN opinion, and drapes their legitimacy over his own shoulders. Why, yes, indeed, he did go to the UN to offer them the opportunity for fawning obedience. When this generous offer was spurned, he got rather shirty about it all, as I recall. Remember all that crapola about how he was determined to have “everybody’s cards on the table.”? Remember how long that lasted? Poof! Gone, never happened, down the memory hole.
Is he seriously trying to suggest that he carefully weighed UN opinion? He endlessly heaped scorn on the efforts of the UN inspection team, and when he ran out of scorn, he reached for the contempt. Is this the behavior of a man who gives due consideration to doubt? Or is it the behavior of a man on a set and determined course?
Remember the story from Woodward’s book? How GeeDubya leaned into Condi Rice’s and said “Fuck Saddam, we’re taking him out!” (Hearing The Leader say “Fuck” may be as close to an orgasmic experience as poor Condi has ever had, but I digress…)
The WH never denied it. Why? Because they liked it! They liked how it portrayed The Leader as gruff, manly, take charge kind of guy! So of course they didn’t deny it, hell, they loved it!
But now we are given to believe in a mournful and Lincolnesque G-dub, coerced by undeniable facts and stern duty. And Lord love a duck, he expects to get away with it!
If he was reluctantly dragged to war, then, pray, at what point did he regard the towering pile of half-truths, implausible conjectures and innuendo as incontrovertible proof? Was it after Colin Powell served a bullshit shit soufflé to the Security Council? It might well have been a convincing argument, if any of it were true. As well, there is abundant testimony from insiders that the trajectory towards war was set very early on, perhaps even before 9-11 realigned the Universal Nature of Reality.
And what about that last-minute offer from Saddam, by way of Richard Perle? The Mother of All Cave-ins, he offered to accept inspections by Americans, and just about everything else short of blowing a pig in Macy’s window. And this offer was spurned as being “not credible”. Was there some kind of risk in postponing the festivities for a few more days to be sure? Was Saddam trying to distract our attention while he unleased his horde of nuclear-anthrax armed unicorns? After months of this crap, its not like GW was launching a surprise attack. Maybe the offer was not credible, but a paltry gamble might have saved thousands of lives.
Yet he stands there, flat-footed and bare-faced, and tells us of his grave reluctance to shed the blood of the innocent (luckily, a mere 30,000. Or so. Hard to get reliable numbers, dontcha know? You could pile up all the arms and legs blown off and divide by four, but still….)
He’s either wholly mendacious, or he really believes the crap he says. I leave it to you which is the more terrifying prospect.