Downing St Minutes - coverage and cover-ups of the day
Baltimore Sun has an excellent editorial on damning evidence can't be ignored. Here's the money quote.
Meanwhile the Bush apologists, after an embarrassingly long silence while they desperately tried to cook up a counter attack on the emerging truth, finally latched onto their usual strategy - when you can't attack the facts, attack the messenger. Why not just label 100 Congressman and 500,000 Americans as drooling, left wing, paranoid, conspiracy theorists. And of course, don't forget the ever popular right wingnut tactic - decide on the message and everybody lie your ass off in tandem. They figure they can just say they have facts and evidence to counter the actual evidence on the table of criminal White House activity, without ever having to produce any. Hey, it's been working for them until now.
My personal favorite excuse for this pathetic attempt at a wholesale cover-up of the story is the premise that the revelations coming from Downing Street are "old news." Everybody already knew Bush is incompetent and a liar so what's the big deal?
In other words, they just spent the last five years on their knees, sucking up the neo-con dreck and regurgitating it into cyberspace because they knew it was all a lie, but they approve of governance by deceit and foreign policy built on deliberately manipulated intelligence that has directly caused the death of thousands of other human beings? The operative word here being, I suppose, "other" human beings. As long as their comfy little sycophantic seats are secure, why should they worry just because hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are afraid to leave their homes - those that still have homes that is - and it's other mother's sons who are coming home in flag draped caskets?
As the Bush Pack are often fond of saying, better there than here, better them than me. Nice people, huh? And they call the left hateful?
Update: When my friend Steven Couch calls me out on a post, I know I've gone over the top so while I stand by it, it does occur to me that I was indulging in the same sort of perjorative speech I was complaining about. It contributes nothing to the discussion, but sometimes it just feels good to get it off your chest. Maybe the noise machine needed to do it too. I expect they're irritated for their own reasons.
That being said, I'd like to point out that I don't consider every blogger for Bush part of that mass-distraction mongering Pack. Steven and many others that support this administration, (Joe Gandelman comes to mind), offer cogent arguments for their positions and while they haven't convinced me, they haven't pissed me off either and they make me think. That's the level of discourse I usually strive for here.
Lying to Congress is a felony. Either lying to Congress about the need to go to war is a high crime, or nothing is.SF Gate gives a good overview of the salient points of the Minutes and the related UK Cabinet briefing paper. And out of Africa, this editorial reviewing the facts that the US media, can't or won't get straight.
Meanwhile the Bush apologists, after an embarrassingly long silence while they desperately tried to cook up a counter attack on the emerging truth, finally latched onto their usual strategy - when you can't attack the facts, attack the messenger. Why not just label 100 Congressman and 500,000 Americans as drooling, left wing, paranoid, conspiracy theorists. And of course, don't forget the ever popular right wingnut tactic - decide on the message and everybody lie your ass off in tandem. They figure they can just say they have facts and evidence to counter the actual evidence on the table of criminal White House activity, without ever having to produce any. Hey, it's been working for them until now.
My personal favorite excuse for this pathetic attempt at a wholesale cover-up of the story is the premise that the revelations coming from Downing Street are "old news." Everybody already knew Bush is incompetent and a liar so what's the big deal?
In other words, they just spent the last five years on their knees, sucking up the neo-con dreck and regurgitating it into cyberspace because they knew it was all a lie, but they approve of governance by deceit and foreign policy built on deliberately manipulated intelligence that has directly caused the death of thousands of other human beings? The operative word here being, I suppose, "other" human beings. As long as their comfy little sycophantic seats are secure, why should they worry just because hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are afraid to leave their homes - those that still have homes that is - and it's other mother's sons who are coming home in flag draped caskets?
As the Bush Pack are often fond of saying, better there than here, better them than me. Nice people, huh? And they call the left hateful?
Update: When my friend Steven Couch calls me out on a post, I know I've gone over the top so while I stand by it, it does occur to me that I was indulging in the same sort of perjorative speech I was complaining about. It contributes nothing to the discussion, but sometimes it just feels good to get it off your chest. Maybe the noise machine needed to do it too. I expect they're irritated for their own reasons.
That being said, I'd like to point out that I don't consider every blogger for Bush part of that mass-distraction mongering Pack. Steven and many others that support this administration, (Joe Gandelman comes to mind), offer cogent arguments for their positions and while they haven't convinced me, they haven't pissed me off either and they make me think. That's the level of discourse I usually strive for here.
posted by Libby Spencer at 11:30 PM
7 Comments:
Michael Kinsley a "Bush apologist . . . cook[ing] up a counter attack . . . "? Last I checked, he doesn't play for my team.
Indeed, I don't recall his ever having done so.
Okay, it's hotter than Hades here today and I've haven't had enough sleep in a week, so I was a little irritable this afternoon and feeling more than a little insulted by the posts, I lost my composure.
Steven, I don't consider you part of that pack. You're one of the few truly independent players that actually bothers to offer proofs (even though I don't always find them valid).
As far as those who might usually sit on my side of the fence, if they're excusing these Minutes by hurling invectives about paranoid conspiracy theorists, then as far I'm concerned they've defected.
peace,
Libby
President Bush has committed acts of "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors", making him guilty of an impeachable offense? It's not like he had sex with an intern or something!
The religious right frequently tries to defend Bush as morally superior to Clinton by reminding the world of Clinton's infidelity. They are correct that this was a sin, but they need to remember that God sees ALL sin the same. There is no sin worse than the other, except for the sin of blasphemy.
Is Clinton guilty of a sexual sin? Yes, he is.
Is Bush guilty of the sin of lying, which in turn resulted in the sin of taking of life? Yes, he is.
ks,
Never heard it put in exactly those words! Thanks.
I was being ironic, you know. The Republicans would never hold W. up to the same lop-sided standards to which they held President Clinton.
Not to worry Kevin, the irony meter is well calibrated here. We got it.
Post a Comment
<< Home