When you change your story after the fact, contradictions and inconsistencies are likely to emerge. Earlier, I pointed out a few in Tony Blair’s testimony before the House of Commons. Today, Rumsfeld said this:
“The coalition did not act in Iraq because we had discovered dramatic new evidence of Iraq’s pursuit [of weapons of mass destruction]. We acted because we saw the evidence in a dramatic new light — through the prism of our experience on 9-11.”
I instantly thought that was an outrageous statement, but I didn’t realize quite how much so until Rick in Davis pointed it out. Rick is co-blogger of at The Likely Story, a new blog that you should definitely check out.
“I’m not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein — because he had a weapons program.”
But, as Rick notes, either they merely saw existing weapons in a new light (Rumsfeld) or Iraq had actual programs to produce new weapons (Bush). What to conclude from this contradiction about Rumsfeld’s opinion of Bush’s position? Go read Rick’s entire post.