Let's take a look at the WMD situation as one example. Aparently, half of Americans still believe the lies tossed at them to rally support for invading Iraq. But we know that the WMD charade was at least a boldfaced lie in two respects:
1) The reality in this case is that after a 16-month, $900-million-plus investigation, the U.S. weapons hunters known as the Iraq Survey Group declared that Iraq had dismantled its chemical, biological and nuclear arms programs in 1991 under U.N. oversight. That finding in 2004 reaffirmed the work of U.N. inspectors who in 2002-03 found no trace of banned arsenals in Iraq.And
2) Administration statements still describe Saddam's Iraq as a threat. Despite the official findings, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has allowed only that "perhaps" WMD weren't in Iraq. And Bush himself, since 2003, has repeatedly insisted on one plainly false point: that Saddam rebuffed the U.N. inspectors in 2002, that "he wouldn't let them in," as he said in 2003, and "he chose to deny inspectors," as he said this March.But rehashing old issues is not the point of this post. Let's flash forward to today where we know that the W, Rove and Co is losing control of the Israel/Lebanon situation. Here' we see a very good question posed at the front end of this AM's Q &A at crawford. Again, the W, Rove and Co demonstrates what's wrong with an administration that chooses to view the world as they see it rather than for what it is.
The facts are that Iraq — after a four-year hiatus in cooperating with inspections — acceded to the U.N. Security Council's demand and allowed scores of experts to conduct more than 700 inspections of potential weapons sites from Nov. 27, 2002, to March 16, 2003. The inspectors said they could wrap up their work within months. Instead, the U.S. invasion aborted that work.
When you read through this paragraph, ask yourself two questions: 1) Did he answer the question, and 2) Are they using my taxpayer dollars to effectively resolve the situation?
Q Thank you, Mr. President. Lebanon has rejected the draft proposal, and Israel is not speaking out in support of it. How do you get a resolution that both sides will support?Kyoto Treaty lesson No. 1. If you don't like a treaty or resolution, ignore it or just don't sing it. Gitmo lesson No. 2. If you have a set of conventions, they don't apply if you don't want them to. Signing Statment Lesson No. 3. If you don't like a law that is thrust upon you, make sure you are very clear what parts you will and will not enforce. I am sure you could keep going on these lessons - but I digress.
THE PRESIDENT: Everyone wants the violence to stop. People understand that there needs to be a cessation of hostilities in order for us to address the root causes of the problem. That was the spirit that came out of the G8 conference. It came out of the Rome conference that Secretary Rice attended. We all recognize that the violence must stop. And so that's what Secretary Rice is working toward with our friends and allies.
Look, everybody is -- I understand both parties aren't going to agree with all aspects of the resolution. But the intent of the resolutions is to strengthen the Lebanese government so Israel has got a partner in peace. The intent of the resolution is to make sure that we address the root cause -- the resolution is to address the root cause, which was a state operating within the state. Hezbollah was -- or is an armed movement that provoked the crisis.
And so whatever comes out of the resolutions must address that root cause. And so the task today for the Secretary and her counterparts is to develop a resolution that can get passed. It is essential that we create the conditions for the Lebanese government to move their own forces, with international help, into the south of Lebanon to prevent Hezbollah and its sponsors from creating this -- creating another crisis. And so that's where we're headed.