Bush's New Candor
Bush keeps giving "There-really-is-a-reason-we attacked-Iraq" speeches. Understanding the deceptions of Bush's new candor.
 

December 19 2005
Counterbias.com
Steve Horowitz
 

Holy hole in the argument, Batman! Bush gave a speech recently (earlier in December) and actually answered questions -- unscripted questions -- afterward. This immediately made clear why his handlers hate when he does that.

Q Mr. President, I would like to know why it is that you and others in your administration keep linking 9/11 to the invasion of Iraq when no respected journalist or Middle Eastern expert confirmed that such a link existed.

THE PRESIDENT: What did she -- I missed the question. Sorry. I didn't -- I beg your pardon, I didn't hear you. Seriously.

Okay, note how he has to add "seriously" here, lest people think he's evading tough questions in customary fashion.

Q I would like to know why you and others in your administration invoke 9/11 as justification for the invasion of Iraq --

THE PRESIDENT: Yes --

Q -- when no respected journalists or other Middle Eastern experts confirm that such a link existed.

THE PRESIDENT: I appreciate that. 9/11 changed my look on foreign policy. I mean, it said that oceans no longer protect us, that we can't take threats for granted; that if we see a threat, we've got to deal with it. It doesn't have to be militarily, necessarily, but we got to deal with it. We can't -- can't just hope for the best anymore.

Here we are heartened to learn that we can no longer take threats for granted -- that we need a raging incompetent in the White House to ensure a steady supply of them by antagonizing and humiliating millions of Muslims.

Interesting side note, by the way, about oceans not protecting us. We've kind of understood that since the introduction 50 years ago of intercontinental ballistic missiles, nuclear subs and long-range bombers. Yet we somehow managed to avoid attacking anybody over those threats.

And so the first decision I made, as you know, was to -- was to deal with the Taliban in Afghanistan because they were harboring terrorists. This is where the terrorists planned and plotted. And the second decision, -- which was a very difficult decision for me, by the way, and it's one that I -- I didn't take lightly -- was that Saddam Hussein was a threat. He is a declared enemy of the United States; he had used weapons of mass destruction; the entire world thought he had weapons of mass destruction. The United Nations had declared in more than 10 -- I can't remember the exact number of resolutions -- that disclose, or disarm, or face serious consequences. I mean, there was a serious international effort to say to Saddam Hussein, you're a threat. And the 9/11 attacks extenuated {let's assume he meant to say accentuated} that threat, as far as I -- concerned.

While it's reassuring that the decision to begin an unnecessary war that has killed tens of thousands of civilians was not taken lightly, we should note that there were no WMDs for Saddam to disclose or disarm. I have always found the administration's reasoning on this issue to be similar to the choice offered by the Spanish Inquisitors: Confess that you're a witch so that we may kill you, or we'll torture you until you confess, at which time we'll kill you.

And so we gave Saddam Hussein the chance to disclose or disarm, and he refused. And I made a tough decision. And knowing what I know today, I'd make the decision again. Removing Saddam Hussein makes this world a better place and America a safer country.

You may have difficulty finding Bush's answer to the original question -- Why the continued link between the Iraq war and 9/11? -- here. (Were you expecting Bush to admit that his administration has been lying to us for three years?) So let's review:

1. We must deal with real threats to our security.

2. We must deal with imaginary threats to our security.

3. If a nation that doesn't threaten us tells us it doesn't threaten us, we can use shocking and awesome military force against it.

4. Discovering that a perceived threat to our security did not actually exist should not affect future decisions about launching wars based on perceived threats. (See point 2.)

5. Invading countries that pose no threat to us makes the world better and America safer.

In conclusion, we should all feel grateful for George Bush's new candor with the American people.

Any other questions?