A movement in denial - The Washington Times: Commentary - July 12, 2004:
"Well, on Wednesday in London, Lord Robin Butler will publish his report into the quality of the intelligence on which Britain's case for going to war with Iraq rested. The report is said to be critical of some of Tony Blair's claims, supportive of others.
Among the latter, he says the statements about Iraq and Niger are justified and supported by the intelligence. In other words, the British Government did learn that Saddam Hussein did seek significant quantities of uranium from Africa.
As a gazillion e-mails a day shrieked from my in-box back then, 'Bush lied.' So where exactly in that State of the Union observation is the lie?
Last summer, the comparatively minor matter of uranium from Niger was all over the front pages and the news shows. Do you think Lord Butler's report will be? Do you think Terry McAuliffe and John Kerry and Howard Dean will eat humble yellowcake? "......
President Bush didn't lie. He was right, and the CIA was wrong. That doesn't mean, they lied either. Intelligence is never 100 percent. You make a judgment, and in this instance the judgments of the British and Europeans were right, and the judgment of the principal intelligence agency of the world's hyperpower was wrong. That should be a cause of great concern — for all Americans.
National security shouldn't be a Republican/Democrat thing. But it's become one because, for too many Americans, when it's a choice between Mr. Bush and anybody else, they'll take anybody else. So, in the Michael Moore movie "Fahrenheit 9/11," if it's a choice between Mr. Bush and Saddam, Mr. Moore comes down on the side of the genocidal whacko and shows us lyrical slo-mo shots of kiddies flying kites in a Ba'athist utopia.
In the Afghan war, if it's a choice between George Bush and the women-enslaving homosexual-executing Taliban, Susan Sarandon and company side with the Taliban. And in the most exquisite reductio of this now universal rule, if it's a choice between Mr. Bush and the CIA, the left sides with the CIA.
There's one for the peace marches: Hey, hey, CIA/How many Bush lies did you expose today? This isn't an antiwar movement. This is a movement in denial.
"Well, on Wednesday in London, Lord Robin Butler will publish his report into the quality of the intelligence on which Britain's case for going to war with Iraq rested. The report is said to be critical of some of Tony Blair's claims, supportive of others.
Among the latter, he says the statements about Iraq and Niger are justified and supported by the intelligence. In other words, the British Government did learn that Saddam Hussein did seek significant quantities of uranium from Africa.
As a gazillion e-mails a day shrieked from my in-box back then, 'Bush lied.' So where exactly in that State of the Union observation is the lie?
Last summer, the comparatively minor matter of uranium from Niger was all over the front pages and the news shows. Do you think Lord Butler's report will be? Do you think Terry McAuliffe and John Kerry and Howard Dean will eat humble yellowcake? "......
President Bush didn't lie. He was right, and the CIA was wrong. That doesn't mean, they lied either. Intelligence is never 100 percent. You make a judgment, and in this instance the judgments of the British and Europeans were right, and the judgment of the principal intelligence agency of the world's hyperpower was wrong. That should be a cause of great concern — for all Americans.
National security shouldn't be a Republican/Democrat thing. But it's become one because, for too many Americans, when it's a choice between Mr. Bush and anybody else, they'll take anybody else. So, in the Michael Moore movie "Fahrenheit 9/11," if it's a choice between Mr. Bush and Saddam, Mr. Moore comes down on the side of the genocidal whacko and shows us lyrical slo-mo shots of kiddies flying kites in a Ba'athist utopia.
In the Afghan war, if it's a choice between George Bush and the women-enslaving homosexual-executing Taliban, Susan Sarandon and company side with the Taliban. And in the most exquisite reductio of this now universal rule, if it's a choice between Mr. Bush and the CIA, the left sides with the CIA.
There's one for the peace marches: Hey, hey, CIA/How many Bush lies did you expose today? This isn't an antiwar movement. This is a movement in denial.
Comments