Well, I'm sure glad they told us. I mean, who knew?
This is typical Bush White House stuff. Make the administration as inaccessible as possible. I wonder where the "differing opinion" emails go. The garbage can? The ether? John Ashcroft?
The Iraq/Niger connection intel has provided an interesting diversion in recent days, and it certainly should do an effective job of giving people in the red states a taste of the venality and cynicism -- the end justifies the means -- of the Bush administration, by perhaps giving the press permission to start looking into more of the lies great and small that Bush's team foists on us to justify some new tax cut for the wealthy or sop to corporate supporters.
And it's been fun watching Condi, George, and Rummy off-message for a change, and it may curtail Rumsfeld's and Cheney's adventurism, at least for a short time.
But I don't think we should lose sight of the real issue that should be held up to close scrutiny: The post-war Iraq planning, or lack thereof.
Dean and Graham are barking up the wrong tree. Whatever one's opinion of the build-up to the war, few people seriously doubted that Saddam had serious weapons, why else play games with the inspections process (actually, I have a theory which may not be my own on that, more to follow)? Moreover, the war has happened, it's time to stop protesting it.
But what many of us suspected before the war and is now becoming painfully clear, is that there was no plan for dealing with what, predictably, is happening there right now. Michele Goldberg practically hyperventilates, but it's a good piece in Salon, as is this one on the intel manipulations. I'm not sure I buy into this golden age of CIA nonpartisanship, but it's pretty clear that things are not too happy in Langley right now.
What is particularly disturbing about the events in Iraq is the fact that Rumsfeld continues to waste time trying to make his fantasies real. He's still trying to create -- from fairy dust, apparently -- a coalition of the willing. Trouble is, writes Michael Gordon, is that how willing? And how able? We need a real peacekeeping force -- and fast -- before an understandably angry marine decides to get even the next time his buddy gets blown up trying to buy a soda. After a while, the Iraqis are going to all look the same to those beleaguered guys.
Phil Carter, I think, agrees, but with less hyperventilation. He also finds a choice piece of news from Iraq, showing the ingenuity of our Marine Corps.
He also has a worthwhile piece on judicial discretion when it comes to the Executive Branch's national security and foreign policy constitutional monopoly. Always good to reread the Constitution.
*****
He seems happy. But for how long, Lord, how long?
This is typical Bush White House stuff. Make the administration as inaccessible as possible. I wonder where the "differing opinion" emails go. The garbage can? The ether? John Ashcroft?
The Iraq/Niger connection intel has provided an interesting diversion in recent days, and it certainly should do an effective job of giving people in the red states a taste of the venality and cynicism -- the end justifies the means -- of the Bush administration, by perhaps giving the press permission to start looking into more of the lies great and small that Bush's team foists on us to justify some new tax cut for the wealthy or sop to corporate supporters.
And it's been fun watching Condi, George, and Rummy off-message for a change, and it may curtail Rumsfeld's and Cheney's adventurism, at least for a short time.
But I don't think we should lose sight of the real issue that should be held up to close scrutiny: The post-war Iraq planning, or lack thereof.
Dean and Graham are barking up the wrong tree. Whatever one's opinion of the build-up to the war, few people seriously doubted that Saddam had serious weapons, why else play games with the inspections process (actually, I have a theory which may not be my own on that, more to follow)? Moreover, the war has happened, it's time to stop protesting it.
But what many of us suspected before the war and is now becoming painfully clear, is that there was no plan for dealing with what, predictably, is happening there right now. Michele Goldberg practically hyperventilates, but it's a good piece in Salon, as is this one on the intel manipulations. I'm not sure I buy into this golden age of CIA nonpartisanship, but it's pretty clear that things are not too happy in Langley right now.
What is particularly disturbing about the events in Iraq is the fact that Rumsfeld continues to waste time trying to make his fantasies real. He's still trying to create -- from fairy dust, apparently -- a coalition of the willing. Trouble is, writes Michael Gordon, is that how willing? And how able? We need a real peacekeeping force -- and fast -- before an understandably angry marine decides to get even the next time his buddy gets blown up trying to buy a soda. After a while, the Iraqis are going to all look the same to those beleaguered guys.
Phil Carter, I think, agrees, but with less hyperventilation. He also finds a choice piece of news from Iraq, showing the ingenuity of our Marine Corps.
He also has a worthwhile piece on judicial discretion when it comes to the Executive Branch's national security and foreign policy constitutional monopoly. Always good to reread the Constitution.
*****
He seems happy. But for how long, Lord, how long?
posted by John at 6:04 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home