This morning, got to listen to the President's speech/press conference on Iraq while getting my new suit altered by a tailor who, let's just say, did not have good things to say about it. Let this be the ocassion then for the first posting on the subject of Politics, and the first in a series of discussions of George W. Bush's rethoric.
From the prepared remarks:
Press Conference by the President: "Over the past three years I have often addressed the American people to explain developments in Iraq. Some of these developments were encouraging, such as the capture of Saddam Hussein, the elections in which 12 million Iraqis defied the terrorists and voted for a free future, and the demise of the brutal terrorist Zarqawi. Other developments were not encouraging, such as the bombing of the U.N. Headquarters in Baghdad, the fact that we did not find stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, and the continued loss of some of America's finest sons and daughters."
What strikes me here is the inclusion of "the fact that we did not find stockpiles of [WMD]" on this list of negatives. Putting aside the fact that WMD's were used as one of the main excuses for the invasion, wouldn't the absence of WMDs actually be a *good* thing, specially when compared to the other two items on the "negatives" list? Most of the harm caused by the absence of WMDs would be to the credibility and reputations of those who chose to launch this war based on that particular pretext. Can this compare to the harm caused by the other two?
No comments:
Post a Comment