Quote:
Originally posted by bilmore
I don't think he had factual information that would contradict the years-old CW. He had new analyses from sources he didn't much trust.
Face it - had Bush really believed there were none, there's no way he would fake it to this extent. Better info is always down the road a bit, and people historically tell what they spoke to the Prez about later. It would be a guaranteed loser for him to do that.
Make allegations of negligence. I can see that as an honorable, and supportable, position. But this "lie" crap is just that - partisan crap that just makes you all (meaning, those of you still parroting it) look stupid and venal.
|
The record is well established that W regularly shuts out or ignores anyone or anything that is likely to be a source of contradiction. It isn't that he didn't trust the source of the new data; the same sources produced the old data. He simply didn't want to hear anything that conflicted with what he had already decided to do.
I'm not saying he lied, in the sense that he willfully and subjectively stated something he knew for certain to be a falsehood. But he was dishonest in the sense that he willfully shunned any person or report that objectively did or should have given him pause.
