Great article which explains how pre-Iraq war intel was doctored by NEOCONS to make the case for war. It’s funny how the NEOCONS got the war they wanted, and in the last year or so, have been scrambling to distance themselves from the failure of the Iraq war. If not scrambling, then backtracking from previous statements.

Lie to the public, send the troops in harm’s way, and claim you had nothing to do with it when it goes badly.

Chicken-hawk traitors of the USA, and many of them occupy the highest levels of our government.

Gotcha !
Tagged on:

One thought on “Gotcha !

  • Don’t see anything extraordinary here. We all know the CIA intelligence was at the very least exaggerated, and dissenting opinion ignored.

    That’s not new. That’s not a gotcha; that’s more of the same.

    And as far as Iran (which started off the article and then artfully disappeared) I sincerely think the Bush administration sees the writing on the walls here: that if they were to continue on the course of supporting Maliki that the Shiites in the region will gain the upper hand ala Sadr and support from Iran.

    They’ve spent the last few months (every since Bush said “this is our man”) making sure this doesn’t happen.

    I don’t think anyone has made the argument that the Sunni insurgency is not a problem. But it’s also hard to argue that the Shiite militias, ala al Sadr and Maliki’s buddying up to him are just innocent bystanders. Everyone knows Iran is supporting these Shiites (like you said, why wouldn’t they?).

    It’s disingenuous to ignore a threat of an enemy by saying “hey, they have every right to do what they do.” It’s just a useless exercise.

    And again as far as Libby/Feith, there is nothing shocking or “damning” in the testimony cited. If you read the whole transcript, Feith makes some good points that Wallace ignores.

    Wallace comes across like a grandstanding U.S. Senator, Feith makes a stand, and holds his logical position, and “the Nation” calls it arrogant.

    The point is there’s nothing here, but someone Dreyfuss (and apparently the NY Times editorial page) already disagrees with.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *