Kinsley stabs Conyers & everyone pissed about BushCo's war in the back.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/10/AR2005061001705.html

C's focus on the dog that didn't bark -- the lack of discussion about the aftermath of war -- was smart and prescient. But even on its face, the memo is not proof that Bush had decided on war. It says that war is "now seen as inevitable" by "Washington." That is, people other than Bush had concluded, based on observation, that he was determined to go to war. There is no claim of even fourth-hand knowledge that he had actually declared this intention. Even if "Washington" meant actual administration decision makers, rather than the usual freelance chatterboxes, C is saying only that these people believe that war is how events will play out.


So what exactly what led C to this conclusion, Mike? Why didn't anybody at the meeting dispute this assertion? Or would it be make me a "paranoid extremist" to ask these questions? And why don't you at least tell your reader who the fuck C is? Or would that ruin your bullshit dismissal of this document's importance?


Of course, if "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy," rather than vice versa, that is pretty good evidence of Bush's intentions, as well as a scandal in its own right. And we know now that this was true and a half. Fixing intelligence and facts to fit a desired policy is the Bush II governing style, especially concerning the war in Iraq. But C offered no specifics, or none that made it into the memo. Nor does the memo assert that actual decision makers had told him they were fixing the facts. Although the prose is not exactly crystalline, it seems to be saying only that "Washington" had reached that conclusion.


Maybe so, Mike, although your parsing is a bit strained in BushCo's favor. However, here's the head of British intelligence coming to a conclusion that BushCo is intent on fixing the intelligence to drag the United States into war, no matter what the facts say. And now we know that the intelligence that BushCo used to sell their criminal act of murderous aggression was, in fact, full of shit. So maybe this disclosure gives us the right to demand a FULL, REAL, IMPARTIAL investigation into the Bush Administration's homicidal mendacity (as opposed to another bs "bad intelligence" whitewash that doesn't even consider this possibility)? Or would I be a "paranoid extremist" to suggest as much?


And of course Washington had done so. You don't need a secret memo to know this. Just look at what was in the newspapers on July 23, 2002, and the day before. Left-wing Los Angeles Times columnist Robert Scheer casually referred to the coming war against Iraq as "much-planned-for." The New York Times reported Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's response to an earlier story "which reported preliminary planning on ways the United States might attack Iraq to topple President Saddam Hussein." Rumsfeld effectively confirmed the report by announcing an investigation of the leak.


Sure, Mike. Many of us knew Bush was lying to drag to us into war. But we didn't have an internal government document of undeniable authenticity quoting the head of British intelligence confirming as much. Do you think if this document had been published and widely disseminated during Bush's hypocritical run up to his pet war -- you know, the murderous and insanely expensive disaster he sold us by telling us it would keep us safe from WMDs and terrorism (both of which were then nowhere to found in Iraq) that it might have influenced public opinion to know FOR CERTAIN that our closest allies had determined that Bush was dead set on war -- even if our best intelligence said that Iraq posed us little or no threat?

Does it make me a "paranoid extremist" to point this out, Mike?


Poor Time magazine, with a cover date of July 22 but actually published a week earlier, had the whole story. "Sometime last spring the President ordered the Pentagon and the CIA to come up with a new plan to invade Iraq and topple its leader." Originally planned for the fall, the war was put off until "at least early next year" (which is when, in fact, it happened). Unfortunately, Time went on to speculate that because of a weak economy, the war "may have to wait -- some think forever," and concluded that "Washington is engaged more in psy-war than in war itself."


So what you are saying Mike is that because many people GUESSED that BushCo was intent on war no matter what -- despite BushCo's fervent denials of this contention to this day -- the fact that we now know that the head of British intelligence also concluded as much is basically meaningless?

Are we supposed to simply dismiss extremely compelling evidence that our President lied us into an insanely costly, murderous war of aggression with no foreseeable end simply because some people were smart enough to guess the truth about BushCo's heinous criminality back then? Is that what you're saying, Mike? I mean, if during the height of the "I did not have sexual relations" a document had been leaked from the head of British intelligence concluding that Clinton was compromised due to his affair with an intern, do you think that would have made front page news? Do you think that information would have been sufficient to launch a full scale special prosecutor investigation into the matter? Wouldn't even the "reasonable" gatekeepers of the mainstream left -- like you -- have had an impossible task trying to downplay such a document's significance?

So are 1,900 dead Americans and over 100,000 innocent Iraqis slaughtered really not important enough for you to suggest that all citizens of conscience need to take this new revelation about the Bush Administration's criminal mendacity very seriously and demand that our leaders get to the bottom of it no matter what it takes? What would you have us do now instead, Mike? Get over it?

My eyes glazed over.

Why,...well, nevermind. Obviously, there are those who are stuck,..."somewhere" in "something" that is NOT reality, and they swallow criminality with their eyes wide freakin' open while rationalizing their own denial.

It's the craziest shit I've EVER seen in my life!!!! And when I say "crazy", I literally mean C-R-A-Z-Y!!!

of deception would have fit the bill, takes one's breath away.Is he paid by the tons of drivel he peddles?

For your information, Michael, always distrust our rulers and when in doubt distrust them even more.You will never be disappointed.Is that clear or do you want a long winded explanation.

You are less than pathetic, man.Go find another job you may be good at.Like being Cheney's valet.

The White House seems to think so. “From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce a new product in August,” White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card told The New York Times about why the Bush administration was waiting on its PR offensive about the possibility of war until after Labor Day


Link to that awful qote: http://sundial.csun.edu/sun/02f/features/102302spinningwar.html

Could it be his Parkinson's? I just hate to say that, but does any medical DUer out there have any evidence that Parkinson's Disease could beat up his brain this way? He used to be so good. Sad. Really sad.

as a smug, sophist "know it all" brat on that stupid talk show where he was the ..."liberal."

In many ways, his medical issues could be playing a significant role in his becoming a bitter, tortured person. It would be hard to see the transformation of his intellect as separate from his disease. This is, sadly, diseased thinking on his part.

What a jerk. Reads one part of it, then quite transparently Googles his brains out trying to find "evidence" that this is really nothing new.

Idiot. It's about the fact that the intel was fixed, they used the UN to help them justify military power rather than prevent it (as * and Blair just claimed), and they had it all planned out well in advance, even before * was proclaimed king.

Watching intellectuals do summersaults to protect thier mythologies is nasuating.

http://www.davidcorn.com/

Let's compare C's insider's view with the view given to the rest of us. On August 8, 2002, the Chicago Tribune ran a front page piece that read:

While portraying Iraq as a serious threat to American security, President Bush and his top advisers made a concerted effort Wednesday to reassure European and Arab allies that the administration would weigh its options and their concerns before trying to oust Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. "I promise you that I will be patient and deliberate, that we will continue to consult with Congress and, of course, we'll consult with our friends and allies," Bush said in a speech in Madison, Miss.

"I will explore all options and all tools at my disposal: diplomacy, international pressure, perhaps the military," he said.

The president's comments, as well as those made by Vice President Dick Cheney and others, marked a distinct shift in tone. Administration officials have spoken repeatedly and strongly about the evils of Hussein's regime and insist they would take whatever action against him they deem necessary, unilaterally if need be. However, Wednesday's comments seemed designed to calm foreign leaders who are sharply questioning Bush's call for a "regime change" in Iraq, which most have interpreted to mean a military invasion. "The president has not made a decision at this point to go to war," Cheney said in a speech in San Francisco. "We're looking at all of our options. It would be irresponsible for us not to do that."

This seems to be the defense of the media when questioned about the lack of coverage of the DSMs. It is absolutely fantastic. When Clinton "lied" about sex the whole Constitution was in peril! But knowing without doubt that Bush lied us into a war and occupation of a sovereign state is of no interest. It is truly beyond belief.

sending 150,000 American troops overseas to invade another country, and "get over it."

"That is, people other than Bush had concluded, based on observation, that he was determined to go to war. There is no claim of even fourth-hand knowledge that he had actually declared this intention."

This is an argument that the wingers gave. It assumes that an emissary from the British government, our closest ally, came to America to negotiate plans for war, and wasn't given accurate official information. Kinsley makes it sound like he just wandered around Washington and listened to gossip.

On top of that, are we supposed to believe that the meeting with Tony Blair that produced plans for how the British would act in their relationship with America and plans for war was based on "fourth-hand knowledge."

This crazy argument comes straight from the right wing.

Kinsley wrote the following:

" It takes a critical mass of citizens with extreme views and the time and energy to obsess about them. It takes a promotional infrastructure and the widely shared self-discipline to settle on a story line, disseminate it and stick to it."

"It takes, in short, what Hillary Clinton once called a vast conspiracy. The right has enjoyed one for years. Even moderate and reasonable right-wingers have enjoyed the presence of a mass of angry people even further right."


The left has not become like the right wing lunatics. Kinsley has. He's the one buying their insane excuses.

I do, however, sympathize with him for having to read nasty E-mail. Some people presume journalists are there to promote views that are requested by readers. I'd be insulted if somebody wrote a letter to me that suggested that.

like Kinsley?

God, I wish that branch of the tree would whither away so real liberals and progressives could take root.

on my car tomorrow

pictures will follow

He followed Darth Cheney...Unbelievable!!!! :crazy: :crazy:

Just show it like it is, the latest minutes show the decision for false based lies to go to war had already been made and regime change that wasn't needed.

Joe Wilson...Bob Woodward...

The list goes on and on and on.

Versus bush's denial.

We all know how bush NEVER EVER lies.

"I continued to fly for several years"..."Want wood?"..."I never said I didn't care about Osama bin Laden"...