There's a new allegation in the USA over what the President did and did not say about the war in Iraq. I'm referring, of course, to the claims that President Bush told USA Christian Coalition leader, Pat Robertson, that there would be no casualties in Iraq.
Typically the media are expecting us to exclaim "oooohhh, he lied!". But seriously, think about it! Where is the logic of this issue? It really doesn't matter who is right in the new debate over who said what. However, there are two important conclusions that could and should be raised.
Firstly (and least of all) if Bush is correct in his recollection, that he never made such a ridiculous claim, then Robertson is posturing for some unrevealed reason. Perhaps he is now trying to distance himself from Bush on the slim chance that Kerry wins? Is he hedging his bets?
Secondly, and I prefer this one, is that Robertson is correct in his claim, and Bush is now covering his ass. I like this theory because it goes to prove that both Bush and Robertson are idiots. Bush, primarily by believing he could go to war and not have any casualties; and Robertson, for having faith in Bush and now having the audacity to be upset about a promise that was broken last year!
Sometimes you just have to laugh :-)
[+/-] show/hide this post
No comments:
Post a Comment