Iraq WMD: Bush allegedly makes fatal admission

It appears Bush knows something, but his public statements demonstrate otherwise.



The big problem for the President is when he starts to privately blame those around him.

The problem the President has is that, all this time, he's always said that they were telling the truth.

Why would someone say "they got bad information," yet have us believe they had something else?

Why would Bush "blame someone" for giving him something he's previously denied "there being a problem with"?

If Bush wants us to believe "he didn't mislead us," why is Bush blaming someone for something that "isn't a problem"?

* * *

Insight offers us:

They said the president has told his senior aides that the vice president and defense secretary provided misleading assessments on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, as well as the capabilities of the regime of Saddam Hussein.

This is a misleading statement.

To say that someone "provided misleading assessments" is incorrect.

It is the job of the CIA and analysts to provide assessments; but that assessment cannot be "misleading".

Rather, the issue is: Bush is actually confirming that the information he's been given from the Vice President is:

Unreliable

At odds with reality

* * *

Update: 3 Dec 2005

Bush is showing greater fear, and fissures within the White House continue to spread.

The CIA assessments were valid.

It remains to be understood how the Joint Staff was involved.

If Bush is "blaming" Cheney for asssments, Bush has it backwards:

The Downing Street Memo shows the facts wer fixed;

The CIA dipsuted the non-sense information from the office of special plans -- the Germans found the WMD source had no credibility.

The Senate Phase II investigation has been illusory

End update


* * *

This also confirms what Bush has been denying: That there were misstatements made; and/or the President "didn't know" about the misstatements.

The only way the President "could possibly know today in 2005" that there was a problem with the WMD information in 2003 was if he's seen there is a disconnect between:

Reality

What a reasonable person should conclude

What he was told

What he concluded

The actions taken

* * *

But there's a larger problem for the President. By asserting this late in the game that there has been some "misleading statement" and also assigning blame, the President has dug himself into a hole:

A. How does he explain his decision to go to Congress;

B. What has the President done or not done in 2005 that a reasonable person in his position should have done in 2002-3 in re verifying the information;.


* * *


We judge the Bush's private statements about "what to blame" and "what is wrong" or "who is accountable" as evidence the President knows:

There were actions contrary to facts;

The President has failed to accept responsibility or show remorse;

Despite the realization in the Downing Street Memo from 2002 [before the war] that there was a scheme going on, that scheme continued;

The President is not feeling "remorse" or "upset" because of the truth, but because the public is holding the President accountable for the truth.

* * *

Think of it this way: In 2002-3, it appears the President and Vice President were already orchestrating two things:

An unlawful war

A series of media campaigns to sell the war

The President was already "hitched to" this set of events; and was part of the campaign to justify the war.

IN the President's mind, a reasonable Grand Jury, would conclude that the president knew what was going on in 2002-3; and in 2005 is discussing "his being upset" not as a way to accept responsibility for what happened in 2002, but to cast blame to the very people he was already part of.

* * *

We judge the President's statements [that he is upset at misleading statements] are designed to mislead and create the illusion that someone else is to blame.

However, the evidence before us suggests the opposite:

A. The President was allegedly fully engaged with the process;

B. The President was allegedly completely aware of what was going on in 2002-3 in re the alleged conspiracy to provide misleading information [as evidenced by MI6 Operation Mass Appeal and the Downing Street Memo];

C. The President and Vice President allegedly agreed to a common course of conduct that was designed to mislead, provide material information to Congress, and Congress was going to rely on that information; and

D. The President allegedly knew his actions were wrong, but was only concerned "when it became known" what was going on, and was not actually concerned when the initial options, scheme, or conspiracy unfolded.

* * *

We judge the following:

A. The President continues to make materially misleading statements to his staff in an effort to create a protective shield for himself against impeachment.

B. The President continues to know the public knows he is responsible for the deception; and that the alleged conspiracy continues.

C. The President knew what he was doing; has failed to withdraw himself from the ongoing conspiracy; and has failed to make an affirmative effort to stop additional efforts that he allegedly knows is related and required for the original conspiracy to continue.

* * *

As you can see, the President has made a simple error. But this is what is called a "fatal admission" in that it raises doubts about:

Previous statements

Alleged denials

Conclusions that a reasonable person might rely on

Explanations for what did or didn't happen

In short, the small statement raises reasonable questions about the veracity and reliability of the President; and also suggests that there are principals in the original conspiracy that continue to have contact with the President, but realize that they need to find an outlet.

This is evidence that the monitoring of the President's words and actions continue; and that his very office has been compromised:

No longer can the President trust his most capable advisors;

No longer does the President have a safe, secure place where he can discuss his private concerns;

No longer does the President have ability to effectively interact with another human being.

This is the sign of a troubled person, who is alone, afraid, and lashing out.

His addiction to alcohol is resurfacing.

His desire to fight that addiction is driving his denial and paranoia about reality.

He is distant, aloof, untrusting.

He has shown that he is unfit to govern.

But, alas the arrogant Americans who enable this addict will let him blame the world.

* * *

Do you enjoy working in a place where the President talks behind your back?

Do you like being around someone who is making fatal admissions: what is he saying about you; what is he proposing; and is he making flawed decisions?

* * *

You know what must be done: This man, who misleads, is no longer fit to lead.

The Congress, if they fail to act, will simply enable someone to continue to hide, and blame others.

The RNC leadership needs to confront this man and ask him to resign, as Cheney.

If you fail to stand up to this tyrant, he will consume you.

You must choose: Do you want a Constitution, or do you want a tyrant?

Only you can answer that.

But this tyrant is already choosing the former. Why should you choose otherwise?