Friday, October 08, 2004

bad liars

It strikes me that the strongest evidence that the Bush/Cheney team is lying about Iraq is the simple fact that EVERY piece of evidence they are confronted with somehow, to them, supports their case for the invasion of the country and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. Nothing in the universe of political decisions has ever been that clear-cut before and never will be. The recent Duelfer report, which for English-speaking people was a condemnation of the rush to war using manipulated intelligence, has actually been contorted by the president and the vice-president to support their decision for the first time in American history to start a war on a country that did not attack or threaten us. It has long been a popularly-accepted axiom that the most effective liars admit to small untruths in order to appear honest and distract watchers from the big lies. Apparently, this group isn't even very good at the thing they do the best, being dishonest.


Blogger Phil said...

I don't claim to be in the 'know', but I have thought about this. The people in our government aren't stupid. They take actions for a reason. So, why attack Iraq? If it wasn't for WMD, why?

Here is my theory: Saudi Arabia is the home of most of the terrorists, and also our major oil supplier. Could we apply pressure to SA without risk of a cut in the oil supply? No. So, we need an alternative source prior to applying pressure to end funding for terrorism. But where could we get a replacement for SA oil? Iraq. An easy target. Lots of oil. Evil dictator. Potential tie to terrorists. Install a friendly government, and we can turn the screws on the royal family without worry.

Just a theory. If it isn't true, maybe it should be. Do you think Machiavelli would be proud of me?

10:04 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home