Sunday, January 18, 2009

Matthews: Bush is like the cop who shoots an unarmed man.

Matthews is spot on here:

Matthews: I found it interesting that the president, who admitted he was wrong about WMDs as a justification for war, called it a "disappointment." If a police officer in the line of duty in the middle of the night shoots a fellow because he thinks he's got a gun, it turns out he's got a wallet, your reaction if you're a police officer is not that you're disappointed he didn't have a gun, it's shame that even if it was a technical mistake that you've made, that you've killed a guy without reason. Why does the president use the word "disappointment" when he says they didn't have the WMD to justify us going in? I think it's an odd use of the word.
Bush expresses no shame because WMD were never really the reason that he invaded Iraq, as Wolfowitz made very clear.
"For bureaucratic reasons we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on," Mr Wolfowitz tells the magazine.
WMD were simply the easiest way to sell the war, they were never actually the reason for the war. Which is why Bush expresses his disappointment that they actually never existed rather than any shame. Their existence was never of any real import to him.

Hat tip to Crooks and Liars.


Steel Phoenix said...

I had the same reaction to that WMD comment, but had totally forgotten about it. I wonder if he wrote his own speech. There were so many places in it where his choice of words gave us a bit of extra view of what is going on in his mind. None of it made me think of him as rational or honorable.

Tony Blankley? I haven't seen that guy since he disappeared off of the McLaughlin Group years ago. I always found that if he was saying something, I could trust that it was wrong. Not in a moral sense, just in the sense that he always draws the wrong conclusions.

Kel said...

It is telling the way he chooses to phrase things isn't it? What I find so breathtaking is the utter lack of personal responsibility for anything that he has done.

And Blankley is simply singing a script that most Republicans have stopped even trying to defend. The election is over and they lost. There's no political gain in trying to sell Bush as a success to a public who have long ago come to the opposite conclusion.