Tuesday, February 28, 2006

MSM & WH ignore new WMD evidence

Where are the WMD?
By Roger Aronoff, Accuracy In Media

Roger Aronoff does a round up of the articles run lately (in a few media) on new evidence of Saddam's WMDS. The same information that I've posted starting late in January with Sada's book release, "Saddam's Secrets", following up with Hoekstra's committee investigation and the tapes, and the underground bunkers. Links to the previous posts and articles are here, here, here, and here.

The question of "Where are the WMD?" has been offered by critics of the Bush Administration in order to mock the rationale for the invasion of Iraq. The question is presented because of the failure to find the weapons of mass destruction that Saddam was said to possess or was pursuing. But it's still a legitimate question. And some new answers are beginning to emerge—although generally not in the major media.

Several new sources have come to light to indicate that Saddam probably did have WMD, at least chemical and biological weapons, and that a nuclear program had not been entirely discontinued. And they also suggest a substantial relationship between Saddam and al Qaeda.

Like me, Roger doesn't wonder why the media isn't jumping on this important news event. The mea culpa involved, and required humble pie dinner that would ensue would further shake the faith of the public in the already distrusted MSM reporting.

But Bush and the WH? Why is it they don't pursue truths that would vindicate the claims of "lies" and "misleading" that permeate headlines?

We understand why the major media want to ignore these new revelations. They have already found Bush guilty of lying about the WMD.

The mystery is why the Bush administration has not worked harder to get out the information that could neutralize these reckless accusations. We hope it's not because they are afraid of picking a fight with the liberal press.

I've been thinking on this for quite a while now. Having the truth consistently get buried under such nonsense as Cheney's quail hunting accident and Oprah's faux pas really gets on my nerves. Granted they are news, but the MSM has tunnel vision. They all report and speculate on the same stories. They are totally incapable of multitasking.

My speculation on the WH lack of interest.. and it's just that... speculation... is based on this President's historic attitude towards the MSM and polls in general. He was always confident in his belief that Saddam constructively thwarted UN inspectors and maintained WMDs. He is ultimately comfortable with his decision to remove Saddam from power, and embark on the proclaimed impossible task to introduce an oppressed Iraqi population to self government.

This is not a man who's character likes to look back, but always forward. A single, and largely ignored line from the transcript of his KSU speech after the State of the Union
reveals much of his attitude. He was discussing the very first Presidential decision thrust upon him after inauguration... what color rug for the Oval Office.... a decision he delegated to wife, Laura.

Part of being a decision-maker, though, is you've got to help -- you've got to think strategically. And so I said to her -- she said, "What color do you want?" I said, "Make it say this: Optimistic person comes here to work every single day."


You can't lead the nation, you can't make good decisions unless you are optimistic about the future. So for the students here, as you take over organizations or head out of college and become involved in your life, you got to be optimistic if you're going to lead somebody. Imagine somebody saying, "Follow me, the world is going to be worse."

The truth that Saddam did have exactly what the intel suggested he did would obviously improve the nation and world's view of Bush, and affect his oft quoted popularity ratings. And while I would dearly love the opportunity to sing "na na nana naaaaaa" at so many who've been slinging personal arrows and insults at our nation and President, I don't believe that opportunity will ever present itself.

Fact is, this is a man who doesn't govern by how much he's loved or respected by the masses. He requires neither MSM or poll kudos or blessings for taking responsibility for his Presidential decisions.

And apparently, he doesn't care to return to a subject that he considers was obvious. He's busy trying to see his decisions thru to fruition.

No comments: