Bush's magnificent deception By Thomas Oliphant

[jbfam4]

Bush's magnificent deception
By Thomas Oliphant, Globe Columnist | November 15, 2005

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/11/15/bushs_magnificent_deception/

WASHINGTON
JUST FOR the record, the polling numbers President Bush claims not to read show the following with regard to the run-up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003:

According to The Wall Street Journal-NBC News survey last week, 57 percent of the sample believe Bush deliberately misled the country on the way to war, more than 20 points above the numbers asserting he was straight with the country.
In denying the charge, however, it is fascinating that the White House spin machine has avoided giving examples of its nuanced rhetoric on the subject of the alleged threat posed by Iraq at the time in order to make its case to a skeptical public. That's because there aren't any.

Instead, there has been an entertaining chorus of claims that the charge is false but that everybody else did it -- other countries' intelligence services, assorted politicians in this country (especially Democrats). Lacking a defense, Bush's operatives have sought to construct a Potemkin universe of intelligence dupes.

In this blizzard of disinformation, though, the unique nature of Bush and his top advisers is conveniently overlooked. Everyone else in the world with the possible exception of Tony Blair recognizes the corollary to the now-accepted wisdom that Iraq possessed no unconventional weapons and posed no threat to the United States worthy of adjectives like grave, imminent, or even serious.

The corollary would be that knowing then what is known now, an essentially unilateral invasion of Iraq under conditions of haste and waste in March of 2003 would have been ill-advised in the extreme. Virtually alone in the world, Bush has proclaimed for months that he would have invaded Iraq even if he had known it posed no threat.

[kurth]

1. An important paragraph:

... As for Kennedy, the White House ignored his position on the 2002 resolution, which included an endorsement of a UN resolution far tougher than the one Colin Powell negotiated in November 2002. One of the grand ''what ifs" of this period is whether Saddam could have survived a finding by a small army of weapons inspectors that one of his holds on power -- the belief that he had unconventional weapons -- was a complete fiction.

[blm]

2. Oliphant nailed it exactly...Bush's approach did sound desperate....

like a movie studio who cherry-picks words from harsh critics to pretend their stinker of a movie is any good.

[Amonester]

3. He was on a "mission" sponsored by his contributors.

(Big Oil and the Military Industrial Complex).

Not much need of any other explanation. Just look at their latest record-braking 'bottom-lines' and suddenly, the truth shows up...

Although, all the bribes and other robberies (Iraq + Treasury) remain "hidden" (mostly by the Corporate Soldout Media).