For the longest time, I was convinced that the administration was merely playing a big game of rope-a-dope, which it used to do very effectively.
Yet the lie is now truth. It was told often enough that "factual" nature of the mantra has settled with the American public. The damage is done, so it doesn't matter how much new evidence comes forth.
Even more perplexing is the fact that Bush contributed to the lie himself. One recalls the joke he played on himself at a Washington Press Club dinner (or some other event) where he went "looking" for the weapons while up on stage.
With this stunt, even the discovery of a cache of nuclear war-heads will barely provide the administration when any moral weight since the administration itself seems to have written off the "weapons" exist argument.
Perhaps there was a reason for this. If so, can somebody please explain?
Note that I'm not being critical. I'm seeking understanding.
Cuz if we found them we would have to point our finger in the direction they came from and we are not quite ready to confront Russia or China at this moment.
Perhaps there was a reason for this. If so, can somebody please explain?
The current repubs have to be the worst political machine ever. The Dems are kickin their arses simply repeating lies and even resorting to near treason.
Sure they've won elections but get defined on every issue. I watched the Dems all over the media this weekend projecting the new "Leakgate" story while the President's press team enjoys private time. They are killing him!
So .. as far as you're concerned, it's Bush's fault ..??
And .. does he have control of what the NYT or the WP print ..??
How many speeches has the President now given about the NSA program - how many polls have been taken showing the American public believes the NSA program is necessary and not "domestic spying".
However, just the other day at a speech in NC, the President was bombarded by some idiot still saying the NSA was illegal.
Maybe WE are the ones who need to do more. Maybe WE need to start bombarding our friends and relatives with all the good information we get here on FR ..?? Hmmmmm??
Just of the top of my head, maybe there is no mention from the white house on WMD, because we have lost them.
If they are out there we have no idea where they are, or who controls them, so it looks as if it suits both sides to not talk about WMD.
"The question that weighs on my mind remains. Why did Bush allow the "no weapons were found" lie continue to be told."
I think its because before the invasion Bush and co told us that Saddam had "as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent" and "upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents". What have we found? "Over 50 chemical munitions"? How far past their shelflife were the weapons that we found? How effective were they? Bush would've been ridiculed if one of his pre-war speeches saying "Saddam has tons of weapons" was played back to back with a post-war speech saying "We found the weapons; he had a lunch-box packed full of the stuff!".
The fact is that what has been found was a tiny fraction of what we were told was there. What we have found would justify invading my neighbor's barn, but probably not someone else's country.
The reason that we say we didn't find any WMDs is that we did.
To minimize the propaganda power of Saddam, Bush is willing to allow it to be said that we didn't find anything.
All the nuclear stuff Libya surrendered after Iraq had fallen was Saddam's, from a secret nuclear facility inside a mountain in Libya where 10,000 Iraqis worked on WMD's.
As soon as Quadaffi figured out Saddam done for, he decided to give up what he was hiding for him, because he knew we would be coming to get it (And him) later.
It's all about saving face with the arabs, we are beating them but not rubbing it in to the point where they get angry and get organized on a whole different scale.
President Bush is keeping them just confused enough to remain splintered and divided.
Or put another way Bush isn't going to tell the world Saddam had a Full House when we bluffed him with three of a kind into folding.
"The question that weighs on my mind remains. Why did Bush allow the "no weapons were found" lie continue to be told."
I will tell you why. Think of the liberal mantra of No WMD found. Now think of the liberal mantra, "How do we know that we found all of the WMD? Because of Bush invading Iraq, Al Queada might now have WMD."
Which scenario would you rather have? On one hand, the WMD was probably secured by the Russians and out of country. On the other hand, terrorists could have possession of enough WMD to destroy a city.
In my opinion, taking out Saddam and fighting a war on terror pretty much got Bush reelected despite the no WMD claim. I am not sure if it would have been the same result after the libs and the world consemned Bush for allowing Al Queda to possess WMD.
You might like this article.
http://knewshound.blogspot.com/2005/12/rope-dope-gambit_10.html
I believe it to be true.
My record on predictions such as this is quite good.
Cheers,
knewshound