Supercritical Irony Concentration: Cheney on Reprehensible Behavior
VP Cheney addressed the American Enterprise Institute today.
What is not legitimate - and what I will again say is dishonest and reprehensible - is the suggestion by some U. S. senators that the President of the United States or any member of his administration purposely misled the American people on pre-war intelligence.
Let's review:
What Cheney and Bush did - "purposefully misleading the American people on pre-war intelligence" - is dishonest and reprehensible. That congressmen suggest that they did so is not.
Does anyone not believe that in early 2003 the White House had decided that an invasion of Iraq was necessary and inevitable? Does anyone not believe that the White House's efforts in early 2003 were to convince Congress and the public of the necessity of war, rather than deciding whether the war was necessary? Does anyone not believe that in early 2003 the White House would have admitted that Iraq presented no threat if presented with credible evidence instead of attacking the evidence and the person who offered it?
The burden of proof was entirely on the dictator of Iraq -- not on the U.N. or the United States or anyone else. And he repeatedly refused to comply throughout the course of the decade.
He did refuse to comply "throughout the course of the decade", but not at the end. In the end Saddam caved. He even allowed inspectors into his royal palaces which he had never permitted before. Bush pulled weapons inspectors out of Iraq and invaded anyway.
ps; Language laywers, I'm wondering whether it's more accurate to call "discussing my reprehensible dishonesty is dishonest and reprehensible" Irony or Chutzpah. Opinions?
What is not legitimate - and what I will again say is dishonest and reprehensible - is the suggestion by some U. S. senators that the President of the United States or any member of his administration purposely misled the American people on pre-war intelligence.
Let's review:
- The Downing Street Memos claimed that "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
- The Niger yellowcake forgeries, which Joseph Wilson revealed and for which his wife Valerie Plame was exposed by the Vice President's chief of staff.
- Claims by "Curveball" that fell apart when examined, and other claims that went deliberately unexamined.
- The Office of Special Plans, which "lied and manipulated intelligence to further its agenda of removing Saddam" according to former CIA officer Larry Johnson.
- Confessions obtained by torturing al-Libi, known false and used anyway.
- Repeating that Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi leaders Prague in April 2001 even after learning that Mohammed Atta was in the United States in April 2001.
What Cheney and Bush did - "purposefully misleading the American people on pre-war intelligence" - is dishonest and reprehensible. That congressmen suggest that they did so is not.
Does anyone not believe that in early 2003 the White House had decided that an invasion of Iraq was necessary and inevitable? Does anyone not believe that the White House's efforts in early 2003 were to convince Congress and the public of the necessity of war, rather than deciding whether the war was necessary? Does anyone not believe that in early 2003 the White House would have admitted that Iraq presented no threat if presented with credible evidence instead of attacking the evidence and the person who offered it?
The burden of proof was entirely on the dictator of Iraq -- not on the U.N. or the United States or anyone else. And he repeatedly refused to comply throughout the course of the decade.
He did refuse to comply "throughout the course of the decade", but not at the end. In the end Saddam caved. He even allowed inspectors into his royal palaces which he had never permitted before. Bush pulled weapons inspectors out of Iraq and invaded anyway.
ps; Language laywers, I'm wondering whether it's more accurate to call "discussing my reprehensible dishonesty is dishonest and reprehensible" Irony or Chutzpah. Opinions?