Just what does a "causal relationship" mean to Jay Carney?
Jay Carney gives Bush credit for Iraq’s brighter future…just barely…sort of
Comments | Print friendly | Subscribe | Email Us
For years, the left has been telling us that George W. Bush is some kind of evil war-monger who lied, went into Iraq, and prosecuted an illegal war designed to trade blood for oil. He’s a monster, a war criminal, and the very face of tyranny. Today is the 10th Anniversary that conflict.
To mark the occasion, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney praised the U.S. military and suggested that Iraq has the chance for a brighter future thanks to the ouster and death of Saddam Hussein.
So Fox News reporter James Rosen asked “If credit is due to those servicemen and women, it seems to me a matter of logic that some credit would also be due to President Bush and his advisors on this occasion. Do you not see it that way?”
Carney first tried to dodge the question by bringing up WMD’s that “didn’t exist” before again praising the troops and saying historians should judge the administration that was in power at the time.
“But it sounds to me,” Rosen persisted. “What you call the quote-unquote ‘welcome development of Saddam Hussein being gone,’ you are unwilling to accord President Bush even a single iota of credit for that development.”
Carney then offers one of his most tortured answers to date.
“I’m happy to do that, James,” he said. “But there is no question that Saddam Hussein was removed from power thanks to the military efforts of the U.S. armed forces and they were sent to Iraq by President Bush, so obviously there is a causal relationship and to the extent that credit is due, credit is due to him for that. That does not change, I think, assessments made by this President as a candidate or by many others on this day…about the judgments made to go to war in Iraq.”
Ummm….a causal relationship? What exactly is Carney trying to say? Is Bush the fearsome, unconstitutional, hawk that Democrats have claimed for the last decade, or was there only a minor “causal relationship” between the former President and the Iraq war?
Was he a liar, or does he deserve credit for his actions?
You can’t have it both ways. Either Bush is responsible for Iraq’s “brighter future” or he’s isn’t.
During the last election, Barack Obama campaigned fiercely on the idea that he was responsible for the death of Osama Bin Laden. Yet, that mission was carried out by our military personnel, just as the Iraq war was. Would Carney reduce Obama’s role by saying there’s only a minimal “causal relationship” between the President and the killing of the world’s number 1 terrorist?
Here’s the White House press secretary, trying his very, very, best not to give any credit whatsoever to Obama’s predecessor.Robert Laurie -- Bio and Archives | Click to view Comments