Addendum
Read the post below, then this:
The real story behind this Iraq/Niger nuclear thing is the fact that the documentation was forged, and poorly so, yet either never caught by anyone reviewing it or the Resident's State Of The Onion address, or inserted into it with the knowledge that it was wholly untrue, but highly useful to the propaganda effort.
And lastly, but not leastly, the White House finally admitterd it in July, even though there were published reports many months ago in progressive media pointing out that the docs were forged, CIA knew it, and others in the administration knew it. Only when investigations were started into the body of evidence concerning mass destruction weapons did the White House "get out in fornt" of this very old story.
Liars and cheats, top to bottom.
==================
Richard Cohen, with whom I often disagree, has taken the CEO/President analogy one small step further, and it is kind of funny:
Audit.
July 10, 2003
Follow me into fantasy land:
Don Rumsfeld has floated a new justification for invading Iraq: seeing old "evidence" in "new" light. That particular light is said to be the experiences of September 11th, though he proffered that idea without any further explanation.
Talking in code again, I see.
This from a man who has spent hours at his press podium parsing words and splitting the finest of hairs in order to avoid simple truths, like the fact that US forces, no longer involved in "major hostilities," are now fighting a guerilla war. Rumsfeld hotly denied that it was guerilla warfare, preferring instead any one of a number of other terms, most of them involving the word terrorism, a catch all term intended to shut down the conversation.
A CNN reporter finally looked up the term "guerilla warfare" in the Defense Department's own book of definitions and terms, and read it to Rumsfeld, then asked the obvious question: What is the difference, if any, between this definition and what is happening in Iraq? Rumsfeld made some weak joke about the book, and failed to address the question.
It is telling that the point man in the administration on the war against Iraq spends much of his time and energy splitting fine hairs to make them finer and continues to search desperately for justification after the fact for a war the US had no business conducting. The White House is so cowardly that folllowing the "news" that the reports quoted in the State Of The Onion address asserting Iraq was buying nuclear materials from Africa (Niger, to be precise) proved to be totally false and the documentation supporting it pathetic forgeries, no more than a statement from an unidentified administration official was released. The Resident Shrub also tried to brush the discovery of vaporous evidence away, proclaiming with a puzzled furrow in his brow that he believes he made the right decision, and that ought to be good enough for everyone.
Frankly, these fuckers care nought that they have been caught in a tremendous lie, one made as part of the speech given to justify the war and get the public to go along with it. The deed is done, justification in and of itself. The real looting is now underway, and those fingers fiddling in your pocket don't belong to Mary Ann's shaky hands.
Don Rumsfeld has floated a new justification for invading Iraq: seeing old "evidence" in "new" light. That particular light is said to be the experiences of September 11th, though he proffered that idea without any further explanation.
Talking in code again, I see.
This from a man who has spent hours at his press podium parsing words and splitting the finest of hairs in order to avoid simple truths, like the fact that US forces, no longer involved in "major hostilities," are now fighting a guerilla war. Rumsfeld hotly denied that it was guerilla warfare, preferring instead any one of a number of other terms, most of them involving the word terrorism, a catch all term intended to shut down the conversation.
A CNN reporter finally looked up the term "guerilla warfare" in the Defense Department's own book of definitions and terms, and read it to Rumsfeld, then asked the obvious question: What is the difference, if any, between this definition and what is happening in Iraq? Rumsfeld made some weak joke about the book, and failed to address the question.
It is telling that the point man in the administration on the war against Iraq spends much of his time and energy splitting fine hairs to make them finer and continues to search desperately for justification after the fact for a war the US had no business conducting. The White House is so cowardly that folllowing the "news" that the reports quoted in the State Of The Onion address asserting Iraq was buying nuclear materials from Africa (Niger, to be precise) proved to be totally false and the documentation supporting it pathetic forgeries, no more than a statement from an unidentified administration official was released. The Resident Shrub also tried to brush the discovery of vaporous evidence away, proclaiming with a puzzled furrow in his brow that he believes he made the right decision, and that ought to be good enough for everyone.
Frankly, these fuckers care nought that they have been caught in a tremendous lie, one made as part of the speech given to justify the war and get the public to go along with it. The deed is done, justification in and of itself. The real looting is now underway, and those fingers fiddling in your pocket don't belong to Mary Ann's shaky hands.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)