« tim & georgie | Main | The Absurdity of Pro Forma Security »
February 9, 2004
coming not so soon: WMD Whitewash
To hear the punditry chatter about it, you could be forgiven for thinking that the WMD/intelligence investigation is a whitewash whose script is already written. They keep referring to investigation into intelligence "failures." The premise, implicitly, is that intelligence "failures" are at fault for the US' illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq. Excuse me, but what about the possibility -- for which there is ample evidence -- that our fearless leaders knew what time it was and lied about it to the public?
Remember last February and again in April when a hundred thousand of my closest friends and I demonstrated in the streets of New York (and elsewhere around the world) shouting at the top of our lungs that the adminstration's justifications were bullshit? I guess that's gone down the memory hole.
Didn't Paul Wolfowitz acknowledge in an interview with Vanity Fair, essentially, that the administration adopted the WMD angle because they knew it would sell? "It was the one reason everyone could agree on." That it was a lie is incidental.
Didn't Paul O'Neill say publicly (in a CBS news interview, January 11, 2004) that the Bushites began planning the invasion in January of 2001? Why would he make that up?
Granted, it is hard to overestimate the incompetence of our intelligence services. But here's the problem I'm having. When you assert a negative, and you turn out to be wrong, that's one thing. Example: "We don't think the dude has WMD because we have searched systematically for a long time and found no evidence that he does." Then suppose you're mistaken and he does have WMD. "Oops, my bad. Sorry." But when you assert a positive and you're wrong, you better explain yourself. Example: "we are certain the dude has WMD." Why? "Because." Because what? "Can't tell ya. It's a secret." OK, now we fast forward to today: no WMD. What's the story? "Well, ya see, intelligence is never 100% right or 100% wrong." Yeah right. The director of the CIA will fall on his sword -- sort of -- and the "bilateral" panel chosen by dubya will take until after the election to complete its whitewash.
Get the fuck outa here.
Posted by Professor B at February 9, 2004 10:12 AM
Comments
Since the beginning of the whitewash I have gotten the true meaning of obfuscation. It is incredible that no one, other than O'Neill, in the administration hasn't gotten fed up with it all. Are they afraid of getting into an "accident" if they speak out? Valerie Plame. I used to think that Powell was at least a cautious and level headed person but now he has turned out to be just as another pawn. I wonder what they are blackmailing him with.
Recently there was an article in the NYT advising democrats on campaign slogans/ideas. My favorite was to start referring to the BMD of the bushies. Budget of mass destruction. I like it.
Posted by: dark-eye at February 9, 2004 7:44 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)