Still More Dissent Re: Post's "Mobile Weapons Lab" Story
This time from Protein Wisdom.
It's definitely worth reading, but the refrain is really the one we've been hearing all along: if you squint really hard you can make this look like it might just possibly have been incompetence instead of an outright lie.
Now, we've heard this defense many, many times before, and it's not getting any more plausible... But when your heart and soul are dedicated to defending a theory--in this case the Bush-is-good theory--you can usually find some way to construct a story that obfuscates things enough to let the theory sneak out the back door.
Look, unless Bush comes right out on national t.v. and say "I cherry-picked intelligence," the few dead-enders that are still defending him are not going to stop doing so. In fact, I'd be willing to bet at least some money that even that would not be enough to stop all of them. Even then some of them would probably construct an elaborate theory about how he was sacrificing himself and his reputation to unify the country or somesuch...
So since Bush and his posse are never, ever, ever going to admit what happened no matter what evidence turns up, there is no reason to take their utterances into account.
Rather, all we can do is look at the evidence. Evidence like this is almost never conclusive. It just keeps piling up until one of the possibilities looks more and more remote.
It's of course possible that the administration was straight with us about Iraq intelligence. But the more we learn, the more remote that possibility becomes.
This time from Protein Wisdom.
It's definitely worth reading, but the refrain is really the one we've been hearing all along: if you squint really hard you can make this look like it might just possibly have been incompetence instead of an outright lie.
Now, we've heard this defense many, many times before, and it's not getting any more plausible... But when your heart and soul are dedicated to defending a theory--in this case the Bush-is-good theory--you can usually find some way to construct a story that obfuscates things enough to let the theory sneak out the back door.
Look, unless Bush comes right out on national t.v. and say "I cherry-picked intelligence," the few dead-enders that are still defending him are not going to stop doing so. In fact, I'd be willing to bet at least some money that even that would not be enough to stop all of them. Even then some of them would probably construct an elaborate theory about how he was sacrificing himself and his reputation to unify the country or somesuch...
So since Bush and his posse are never, ever, ever going to admit what happened no matter what evidence turns up, there is no reason to take their utterances into account.
Rather, all we can do is look at the evidence. Evidence like this is almost never conclusive. It just keeps piling up until one of the possibilities looks more and more remote.
It's of course possible that the administration was straight with us about Iraq intelligence. But the more we learn, the more remote that possibility becomes.
posted by Winston Smith at
3:11 PM
1 Comments:
We all tend to think in terms of courtroom drama these days, requiring certainty beyond a reasonable doubt, even when such certainty is impossible to attain.
There was not a single piece of evidence that that madman had become sane, justifying a best-case scenario, that he had disposed of and foresworn WMDs.
It would be stupid if not immoral to view the WMD machinations of a man resposible for the deaths of over a million people in the best case scenario.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home