Another nail in the coffin of WMD excuses

I know we’re all used to it by now, but there’s yet another reason to believe that Bush was full of shit when he said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and we needed to invade. From the keyboard of Molly Ivins:

The latest development to which the only appropriate response is “Huh” is the news that the “mobile weapons labs” introduced to us by President Bush before the war as conclusive evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq were not evidence — conclusive or otherwise — of WMD and were not, in fact, mobile weapons labs.

The only thing new here is the news that George W. Bush probably knew a couple of days before he talked about them in public that the Defense Intelligence Agency had found they were not mobile weapons labs.

OK, given everything we already know about the lies before the war, this is not particularly startling — although I do think it’ long past time we stopped referring to the campaign of disinformation and false information that we were fed as anything but lies. No, the startling and funny part of the “mobile weapons lab” lie is the administration’s defense of it, which is so batty it’s an instant classic.

Yes, once again the President lied us into war. It’s severely disconcerting that all this mounting evidence is doing dickall to stop him, to the point where a mere censure is looked upon as crazy.

Of course, let’s have the President’s men have their amusing little say, see how they’re explaining it away this time…

The Bush administration yesterday denounced a Washington Post report that questioned the handling of postwar intelligence on alleged Iraqi biological weapons labs. A White House spokesman acknowledged that President Bush’s assertions about the suspected labs were in error but said this was caused by flawed intelligence work rather than an effort to mislead.

Bush press secretary Scott McClellan criticized the article as “reckless” for what he said was an “impression” that Bush had knowingly misled the American public about the two Iraqi trailers seized by U.S. and Kurdish fighters weeks after the Iraqi invasion began. On May 29, 2003, Bush described the trailers in a television interview as “biological laboratories” and said, “We have found the weapons of mass destruction.”

How many times is the CIA going to jump on grenades meant for Bush?

But seriously, this is almost tedious in its predictability. More evidence damning Bush, and more unbelievable lies spilling out of the White House. Is he trying to out-bore his way into keeping his job, or what?

6 Comments
  1. We know that X has grossly violated the human rights of millions of people and little compunction against using his thousands of WMD’s. We must invade

    the White House!

    How about a human wave when we know he’s in there?

  2. Everybody is getting it wrong. Bush (or someone close enough to Bush that Bush properly bears the responsibility) already knew the trailers were not real evidence. (You can research what David Kay said about them for one aspect of this.) The so-called evidence Bush did use was cooked to be proof of WMD activity. The suppressed report wasn’t needed by Bush for him to know the truth: they knew the truth when they cooked the CIA/DIA white paper. The task or the white paper (if it ere honest) was to determine if the pre-war claims about WMD were accurate or not. Most of the white paper is merely a re-assertment of those claims. That’s not how you prove something: re-assert it. No actual evidence for the mobile WMD culture lab fable is in the white paper. No actual evidence for that fable is anywhere: it was and is a fable, from start to finish. Sure, they suppressed the honest report, but the real crime is the dishonest report they forced the CIA to issue.

  3. Well, duh. What difference does even more evidence of the lies make? It doesn’t matter if there were WMD anyway. What really matters is that the same playbook is being used on Iran and it’s working. Americans are AT LEAST as stupid as they were three years ago, if not even dumber! That’s not going to change without massive amounts of wonderful, glorious death. If I had my druthers, I would choose to make it happen via starvation – Americans could use a good diet.

  4. I hate to state the obvious, but if a guy was pointing a gun at you and said he was going to shoot you, and you could kill him first, what would you do if (1) he said he was going to do it; (2) he had done it in the past; (3) he wouldn’t cooperate with you to confirm he wasn’t a threat?

    Even if I thought the gun might not be loaded, I would take his ass out.

    Saddam (and Iran) are brandishing weapons in a mennacing fashion, and they have track records, and they hate us.

    We’d be stupid not to take them out.

  5. Hey KJ, gimme a break! North Korea too! How about the Sudan? Russia does not love us yet! Do we have enough bombs?