If he had been lying, Why wouldn't he have had some spooks go plant some WMD's in the desert as soon as the area was secured, and then let the military "discover" the WMD's. If he had been lying, this would have covered up his lie. If you say he was lying, please exert your brain to come up with a plausible explanation of why Bush did not do this.
I'll bet the best you libs can come up with is "because he's an idiot." Well, if that's your answer, then why didn't the Machiavellian Dick Cheney or Karl Rove get him to do it, since according to libs Bush is their puppet?
2007-02-25 09:12:28 · 2 answers · asked by kscottmccormick 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Okay, Sonny, it looks like you're well-positioned to get 10 points for best answer, but why wouldn't he care? Look at all the grief he's gotten because of this. This explanation isn't making sense to me yet. Please explain your reasoning, if you would.
2007-02-26 01:16:41 · update #1
Ohhbother, although you believe Bush lied about WMD's, obviously you're not one of those who also believe he arranged a massive deception as to who "really" was behind 9/11.
2007-02-26 12:46:59 · update #2
Because that kind of political trick could not be pulled off without many people being in a position to whistle-blow. It's not like Carl Rove could just hop out into the desert after hours and bury a few nukes.
I think they counted on being able to spin some trivial arsenal into WMD - the claim that chemical lab trucks and long range missiles were found was repeatedly made - and repeatedly debunked. Rove had a strong belief in being able to 'define' the news.
2007-02-26 09:09:27 · answer #1 · answered by oohhbother 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He didn't plant any in Iraq because he didn't care whether they were found or not.
2007-02-25 22:25:56 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋