Bush Has Nothing To Do With Brian Williams And His Fibs

Been reading various media pundits and their little pretties (fans) make some remarkable claims in defense of Brian Williams.

It goes something to the effect of 'Buuuussssh!'

As in, 'it's funny how Bush lied but he never lost his job!'

Seriously?

Seriously? They pulled on the Bush card?

This is what we call in the business a false equivalence. They appear to be equivalent but they're not.

What does Williams embellishing or lying have anything to do with Bush?

Of course, to any sane and sober mind, the answer is absolutely nothing.

They're two separate things that didn't even occur in the same year for crying out loud.

***

About that Iraq thing. The argument (which really it isn't. It's a lame ploy to distract from Williams shameless behavior as a journalist bringing into question his integrity) is hollow.

Here's why:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.

Ahead of the vote, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle announced Thursday morning he would support Bush on Iraq, saying it is important for the country "to speak with one voice at this critical moment."

Daschle, D-South Dakota, said the threat of Iraq's weapons programs "may not be imminent. But it is real. It is growing. And it cannot be ignored." However, he urged Bush to move "in a way that avoids making a dangerous situation even worse."

Wikileaks weighed in as well:


"By late 2003, even the Bush White House’s staunchest defenders were starting to give up on the idea that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
But WikiLeaks’ newly-released Iraq war documents reveal that for years afterward, U.S. troops continued to find chemical weapons labs, encounter insurgent specialists in toxins and uncover weapons of mass destruction.

An initial glance at the WikiLeaks war logs doesn’t reveal evidence of some massive WMD program by the Saddam Hussein regime — the Bush administration’s most (in)famous rationale for invading Iraq. But chemical weapons, especially, did not vanish from the Iraqi battlefield. Remnants of Saddam’s toxic arsenal, largely destroyed after the Gulf War, remained. Jihadists, insurgents and foreign (possibly Iranian) agitators turned to these stockpiles during the Iraq conflict — and may have brewed up their own deadly agents."


Here's Hilary (the great Liberal Democrat hope) on the matter:

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show
that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Hillary Clinton, Oct. 10, 2002




Like I said. Not only is it a false equivalence but I assert people taking this position are disingenuous. 

Bush didn't lie on his own. The American political class thought this as well. 

I  don't understand the mindset of these people who single out Bush but give Congress a pass.

And I'm glad I don't.