Is It Just Me?

Is it just me, or did anyone else notice that for quite some time the Bush line was that we invaded to “free the Iraqi people” and “bring Democracy to the Middle East,” etc. and NOT just because of an imminent WMD threat? But now we’re back to Bush claiming the we invaded because we had intelligence that Iraq had WMD and was going to use them against us. He says the Democrats “had the same intelligence that he did” and that was the justification for war.
What will it be next week? And what does ANY of this have to do with what we are doing TODAY in Iraq?

6 thoughts on “Is It Just Me?

  1. No, it is not just you, Dave! And our Australian PM John Howard has been doing the exact same thing over the last few weeks. I mean – how many reasons for invading Iraq have Bush, Blair and Howard given us anyway?

  2. It’s just you.
    Bush is saying that the congressional dems are as bad as he is. He is not justifying the war on the bad intelligence, he is saying “we all had it” and they are just playing politics now. Manure, of course.
    It’s all just Rovian sand in the air and a very early foundation for vote suppression next year — they’re just as bas as I am, so why not just stay home? (He’s pretty much correct about that of course. In general and in the particular of Iraq. The dems go along with their eyes wide open — how else can they please their corporate bosses?)

  3. You’re absolutely right. We should be seeing news story after news story pointing out the obvious “credibility gap” here. But if the Washington media did that, they’d be exposing their own gullibility and role in spreading the war lies as well.

  4. Bush is a master of language manipulation. He constantly changes “resons” for everything he does, suprisingly to the approval of the majority of the public.

    In 2006, we have a chance to regain power in Congress by voting Democrat. When that happens, we will be poised to deliver justice to King George II and send him into exile with an IMPEACHMENT and REMOVAL FROM OFFICE.

    Dennis Melancon, Jr.

  5. The Democrats didn’t go along with the war to “please their corporate bosses,” or because they were deceived to the point that it was incapable for them to think anything but what Bush told them. They went along with it due to domestic political concerns and a desire to be reelected.
    I disagree with their votes, but I understand why they voted the way they did. Bush would have invaded no matter the Democrats did, so why not vote with him and not give Republicans ammo for the 2002 elections. Bush could have started military action without Congress due to the War Powers Act, then put Congress in the position to rubber-stamp the war after it had already started, either through a funding bill (the one Kerry voted against after he voted for) or some other means. So what the Democrats did or did not do at the time is, in a practical sense, irrelevant to whether or not Iraq was invaded.
    Its kind of ridiculous how the right wing is attacking Democrats for voting with them. And lets not even talk about how its an ad hominem ‘tu quoque’ fallacy.
    Of course, the right wing would have (and did) viciously attack Democrats who didn’t vote with them in 2002. I mean, the right wing is going to attack Democrats no matter what they do, so let’s not get too bogged down, defensive, and reactive about this. Bush can’t shift responsibility for Iraq onto anyone else, even if his attempts might make his (ever shrinking) base stand up and cheer.

  6. “When the law is against you, pound the facts; when the facts are against you, pound the law; when the law and the facts are against you, pound the table.”
    Bush talked nuclear weapons when he was bombing the Iraqis, and humanitarian intervention when the nuclear weapons didn’t appear. At this stage, when the nuclear weapons still aren’t here and now he’s burning, napalming, and torturing the Iraqis, he’s got nothing left but to shout a lot about how bad the Democratic Party representatives are.

Comments are closed.