Is President Bush a victim? - heraldblog

Is President Bush a victim?

One of the explanations offered in defense of the President, with regards to his acting on phony intelligence to justify a war, is that the President didn't know any better. After all, the line goes, if John Kerry and many Democrats were also convinced of Sadam's evil intentions, then is it really fair to blame the President for thinking the same? After all, Kerry sat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, and he said many times in the run up to war that Sadam was a dangerous fellow.

This President-as-victim script is a new low for the GOP, and it must pain Karl Rove greatly to have to play this card so early, if at all. I thought the Republicans were the party of foreign policy competence? And the word "victim" is too vulgar to be uttered by even Dick Cheney, i.e. Go victim yourself.

Can you imagine the political fallout that would have occured if Bill Clinton had acted on phony intelligence during his two terms?

But the real issue here is how much slack do we give a Commander in Chief who falls victim to bad intelligence?

Intelligence, the President's supporters like to point out, is rarely precise. The best a CIA analyst can do is assemble known facts, and then put those facts together to form a possible narrative to best explains those facts.

I don't buy the leftist line that Bush lied about the intelligence he received in the years leading up to the war. That's a serious charge, and I need to see proof. A far likelier explanation is that the former 1-1/2 term governor of Texas does not possess the requisite critical thinking and managerial skills necessary to be the leader of the free world.

7.8.04 16:35

Permalink

To date 3 Comment(s) TrackBack-URL

(7.8.04 16:38)
In other words Bush is a complete arse

(7.8.04 17:02)
I agree with you (i think). I don't think Bush was lying about WMD on the run-up to the war. That was a mistake, which he should acknowledge. There was a point, though, where it became clear that WMD wouldn't be found, yet he still made the connection. That, I think, borders more on lying than mistaking. Also, the one area where I think they knew they were lying in the run up to the war, was the connection between AQ and Iraq. That assumption always depended on Zarqawi, who was in Kurdish controlled Iraq--not Saddam controlled Iraq. This is sort of the Swift Vote Veteran argument for war....Zarqawi was in Iraq, therefore, he was in cahoots with with Saddam. That is not a viable premise, and all the evidence suggested otherwise.

(7.8.04 17:58)
That's an excellent point. Eventually, unacknowledged mistakes must morph into lies. The Zarqawi connection is a good example. I heard a Republican congressman not too long ago on a talk show repeat the old canard that Zarqawi lost a leg in Afghanistan, and had medical attention in Baghdad. But it was detemined months and months ago that Zarqawi is still bipedal.