Bush Apologists’ Limp And Dishonest “Plausible Deniability” Defense
I don’t buy the Bush Apologists’ limp and dishonest “plausible deniability” defense; which merely underscores their rabid partisanship, and lack of desire to look at the evidence candidly, critically and in context. Here’s how Bush’s “plausible deniability” defense was set up: Bush & Co. knew, it is now clear, that elements of their Iraqi WMD argument rested on shaky ground (i.e., hyped evidence and, even, forged documents). Accordingly, Bush & Co.’s statements on Iraqi WMD (and alleged pursuit of nuclear weapons) were crafted so that, while closely straddling the line of common decency and honesty, could not easily be called out as outright fabrications. Given this, I find Bush’s statement in his 2003 State of the Union address very telling, and a tell-tale sign of dishonesty in the works (i.e., a lie):
The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.
That line is purposely crafted to: (1) Give credibility to the claim that Iraq had “recently” reconstituted its nuclear program, (2) all the while giving Bush the ability to distance himself from a claim that was known (by his administration) to be false; since, (3) Bush could factually (even if dishonestly) claim that he had been relying on “British government intelligence” (i.e., the forged Nigerian uranium document) whose veracity he could not control.
For now leave aside the fact that the Bush administration had been informed that the claims made in the “British government intelligence” brief were not true; we’re then left with an administration that relied on the advice of a foreign government (i.e., Britain) to formulate our national defense strategy. Moreover, if Bush’s defense is, When I made that statement I thought it to be true. Then I ask, When we ask our fellow citizens to make the ultimate sacrifice, shouldn’t the standard be a tad higher?
The Bush Apologists will never admit that their man mislead and lied to us all; so am not at all surprised at how stubbornly they cling on to the “plausible deniability” defense. Think of it, if these Bush apologists were to ever acknowledge and recognize that Bush & Co. lied our country into a war, why it would totally shake their foundation — it would be akin to admitting that the earth is, in fact, round. If the Bush apologists ever admitted that their man lied, they would have to face the ugly truth that their unabashed support for Bush & Co. facilitated Bush’s war of choice.
I’ll spare you all an already long post, and not reproduce the entire chronology of when Bush & Co. knew what, which you can read here; however, let me leave you with the following:
“March 1, 2002: The State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) sends a memorandum to Secretary of State Colin Powell stating that claims regarding Iraqi attempts to obtain uranium from Niger are not credible, according to a knowledgeable government official.”
[...]
“September 24, 2002: The United Kingdom issues a report on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program stating “there is intelligence that Iraq has sought the supply of significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Iraq has no active civil nuclear power programme or nuclear power plants, and therefore has no legitimate reason to acquire uranium.”
September/October 2002: U.S. intelligence officials tell Senate committees about their differences with the British report regarding the Iraq/uranium claim, according to Tenet (July 11, 2003).”
[...]
“January 28, 2003: President Bush asserts that “the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa” during his State of the Union address.”
The Bush Apologists’ argument rests solely on the factual claim that Bush merely cited “British government intelligence;” however, shouldn’t the standard be just a tad higher? Shouldn’t we also expect honesty and unmitigated truthfulness from our leaders before committing our nation to war?
