WMD (W. Makes Dumb)

Read comments on this article, and add some feedback of your own

Article comments

Subscribe to comment RSS

• 1 - Michael Croft

  Jun 24, 2003 at 5:03 pm

  No, next we stop talking about it, because we're on to Iran. Or Burma. I hate it when I agree with George Will.

• 2 - Michael Croft

  Jun 24, 2003 at 5:04 pm

  George on WMD: http://www.sacbee.com/content/opinion/national/will/story/6887650p-7837314c.html

• 3 - Brian Flemming

  Jun 24, 2003 at 8:07 pm

  Paul Krugman today:
  
  

  ...some commentators have suggested that Mr. Bush should be let off the hook as long as there is some interpretation of his prewar statements that is technically true. Really? We're not talking about a business dispute that hinges on the fine print of the contract; we're talking about the most solemn decision a nation can make. If Mr. Bush's speeches gave the nation a misleading impression about the case for war, close textual analysis showing that he didn't literally say what he seemed to be saying is no excuse. On the contrary, it suggests that he knew that his case couldn't stand close scrutiny.
  
  Consider, for example, what Mr. Bush said in his "denial and deception" speech about the supposed Saddam-Osama link: that there were "high-level contacts that go back a decade." In fact, intelligence agencies knew of tentative contacts between Saddam and an infant Al Qaeda in the early 1990's, but found no good evidence of a continuing relationship. So Mr. Bush made what sounded like an assertion of an ongoing relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda, but phrased it cagily â€" suggesting that he or his speechwriter knew full well that his case was shaky.
  
  Other commentators suggest that Mr. Bush may have sincerely believed, despite the lack of evidence, that Saddam was working with Osama and developing nuclear weapons. Actually, that's unlikely: why did he use such evasive wording if he didn't know that he was improving on the truth? In any case, however, somebody was at fault. If top administration officials somehow failed to apprise Mr. Bush of intelligence reports refuting key pieces of his case against Iraq, they weren't doing their jobs. And Mr. Bush should be the first person to demand their resignations.

Add your comment, speak your mind

Personal attacks are NOT allowed.
Please read our comment policy.

Name:

URL:

Remember name and url?

Comment:

Please preview your comment.