Supercritical Irony Concentration, Part 4
Interesting comments from George Bush this Veterans' Day:
While it's perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began. (Applause.)
Apparently it's "deeply irresponsible" to argue that we invaded Iraq to find WMDs until no WMDs are found, then argue that it was to prevent cooperation with Al Qaeda until no Al Qaeda ties were uncovered, then argue that it was to shut down "torture chambers and rape rooms" until our own torture chambers and rape rooms were discovered, then argue that it was to strike a blow against "Iranian Islamofascists" and radical muslims until realizing that we'd removed a secular leader and installed an Iran-backed government, then argue that it was for its "flypaper effect" until terrorists attacked London, Spain, and Jordan, then argue that it was a lesson to Lybia and Syria until Syria assasinated Minister Rafi and Lybia was caught trying to assasinate the Saudi royal family, before finally deciding in 2004 that it was to stop the oil-for-food scandal.
And as long as I'm nitpicking, let's look at his next sentence:
These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs.
While saying this Bush *must* be "fully aware" that the Silbermann/Robb Commission was specifically not authorized to examine that question. That was the whole point of the Democrats' congressional shutdown stunt last week: to force the investigation of that issue.
Aw, heck, next paragraph:
many of these critics supported my opponent during the last election, who explained his position to support the resolution in the Congress this way: "When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security." That's why more than a hundred Democrats in the House and the Senate -- who had access to the same intelligence -- voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power. (Applause.)
Check the October 11, 2002 vote or the text of the resolution. The vote was not to "remove Saddam Hussein from power", the vote was to provide consequences if Saddam Hussein did not accept the return of UN weapons inspectors, which he did, and then we withdrew the inspectors invaded anyway. Kerry's comment which Bush cites clearly discusses "disarming Saddam Hussein", not "removing Saddam Hussein from power".
While it's perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began. (Applause.)
Apparently it's "deeply irresponsible" to argue that we invaded Iraq to find WMDs until no WMDs are found, then argue that it was to prevent cooperation with Al Qaeda until no Al Qaeda ties were uncovered, then argue that it was to shut down "torture chambers and rape rooms" until our own torture chambers and rape rooms were discovered, then argue that it was to strike a blow against "Iranian Islamofascists" and radical muslims until realizing that we'd removed a secular leader and installed an Iran-backed government, then argue that it was for its "flypaper effect" until terrorists attacked London, Spain, and Jordan, then argue that it was a lesson to Lybia and Syria until Syria assasinated Minister Rafi and Lybia was caught trying to assasinate the Saudi royal family, before finally deciding in 2004 that it was to stop the oil-for-food scandal.
And as long as I'm nitpicking, let's look at his next sentence:
These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs.
While saying this Bush *must* be "fully aware" that the Silbermann/Robb Commission was specifically not authorized to examine that question. That was the whole point of the Democrats' congressional shutdown stunt last week: to force the investigation of that issue.
Aw, heck, next paragraph:
many of these critics supported my opponent during the last election, who explained his position to support the resolution in the Congress this way: "When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security." That's why more than a hundred Democrats in the House and the Senate -- who had access to the same intelligence -- voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power. (Applause.)
Check the October 11, 2002 vote or the text of the resolution. The vote was not to "remove Saddam Hussein from power", the vote was to provide consequences if Saddam Hussein did not accept the return of UN weapons inspectors, which he did, and then we withdrew the inspectors invaded anyway. Kerry's comment which Bush cites clearly discusses "disarming Saddam Hussein", not "removing Saddam Hussein from power".