Tuesday, November 15, 2005

Has Hell Frozen Over?

Stop the presses!

Stop the blogging!

Stop the insanity! (sorry, couldn’t resist that last one)

A Bush administration official has admitted that they were wrong.

Yes, you read that right; a Bush administration official has admitted that they were wrong.

You are NOT dreaming, a Bush administration official DID admit that they were wrong.

Concentrate, read these words: a Bush administration official has admitted that they were wrong.

Why am I repeating myself?

Because I love the sight of the words; ‘a Bush administration official has admitted that they were wrong.’

(Quick, someone call hell and find out if they have frozen over...)

Turns out that the administration has decided to join the chorus of others who have finally made the realization that the administration did not have everything accurate and in proper order when making the case for the supposed plethora of WMD’s that ‘he-who-can’t-keep-an-attorney-alive-to-save-his-life’ had in Iraq.

But, it should also be pointed our that, while admitting “we were wrong” about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, President Bush's national security adviser straightforwardly rejected all assertions that President Bush and others in the administration manipulated intelligence and misled the American people in any way.

On Sunday, National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley told CNN’s Late Edition (which, oddly enough, is on fairly early in the day) that Bush relied on the collective judgment of the intelligence community (cuz that always works) when he determined that Iraq's Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

“Turns out, we were wrong.” Said Hadley. (Now, if that is not a nominee for the Understatement of the Year award, then I don’t know what is…)

Hadley continued though by adding: “But I think the point that needs to be emphasized ... allegations now that the president somehow manipulated intelligence, somehow misled the American people, are flat wrong.”

Hadley said that Bush received dissenting views about the accuracy of intelligence and relied on the ‘collective’ judgment of the intelligence community as conveyed by the CIA director (can YOU say ‘blame-shift’?)

The national security adviser continued to criticize those who maintain that Bush manipulated the intelligence and made misleading statements.

Republican lawmakers and other officials who appeared on Sunday news shows repeated Bush's Veterans Day speech in which he defended his decision to invade Iraq in which he stated that Democrats in Congress had the same intelligence about Iraq, and he argued that many now claiming that the information had been manipulated had supported going to war. The president also accused his critics of making false charges and playing politics with the war.

(Unlike him playing politics with Veteran’s Day and ranting about it on a day when only the memories of those that have died protecting our freedom should have been remembered… schmuck)

Democratic Party chairman Howard “Old Yeller” Dean, in a Sunday appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press,” rejected the criticism and said that the manner in which the administration handled the intelligence it received has yet to be determined by a Senate committee.

Further pushing the Democrat’s cause was former Senator/Presidential candidate/Vice-Presidential candidate and possible 2008 Presidential candidate John Edwards who, in a column for The Washington Post, said he was wrong to have voted to give Bush the authority to go to war and called the intelligence on which he made that decision “deeply flawed and, in some cases, manipulated to fit a political agenda.”

Hadley said issues about the accuracy of U.S. intelligence have not impaired the administration's ability to pursue its policies regarding the nuclear programs of Iran and North Korea… and those two are going so well, right?

Asked why people should believe U.S. claims about the nuclear plans of Iran given the failure of intelligence about Iraq, Hadley said there has been international consensus about Iran.

(Now wait a minute, if that is the case, why didn’t the US wait until there was an international consensus about Iraq before we invaded?

Wouldn’t that have lessened the animosity that the U.S. now has from other countries?

Wouldn’t that have lessened the animosity that the American public has for the administration?

Am I missing something here? Or, as my good friend Scott would say, maybe that is just too simple..)

No comments: