Quote:
Originally posted by bilmore
Just curious: here's the admin's response to that point. Are you saying, you doubt this response is truthful, or are you saying that it's nonresponsive, or . . . what?
"[i]Myth: After the 9/11 attacks, the President ignored the evidence and tried to pin responsibility for 9/11 on Iraq.
The Facts: The President sought to determine who was responsible for the 9-11 attacks. Given Iraq's past support of terror, including an attempt by Iraqi intelligence to kill a former President, it would have been irresponsible not to ask if Iraq had any involvement in the attack.
|
I'd say that, like any good advocates, they've framed the question (or "myth") in a manner that predetermines the outcome. I agree with the first paragraph of the "facts" as far as it goes -- although I think it hides the ball a bit -- and have no reason to doubt the sequence laid out in the rest of the passage.
All of which shows Bush lined it up fairly well in the immediate aftermath -- but that at least some of his senior advisors just plain wanted to go kick Iraq's ass. Which they ultimately did.
As usual, I think the media is focusing on the flashy stuff at the expense of the more telling though subtle points.
S_A_M
