A tribute to Condoleeza Rice and George W. Bush who, despite voluminious evidence to the contrary, said, "I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon, that they would try to use an airplane as a missile," adding that "even in retrospect" there was "nothing" to suggest that" and "I don't think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees," respectively.

Saturday, July 23, 2005

"C" Student Gets "F" on Laugh Test 

Sometimes I wonder exactly how they (republicans) manage to say what they say with a straight face. Then I have to remember that it’s essentially a big con game they’re running and they are but conmen, albeit very successful conmen.

Most recently, the pathetic defense of whomever (we know it was Turd & Scooter) leaked the identity of Valerie Plame to several reporters barely passes the laugh test.

For example, one defense is that the CIA is too secretive. It’s a spy agency dumbass, keeping secrets goes with the job description. The hypocrisy is this is the most secretive administration in history. More secret documents. Less access via the Freedom of Information Act, etc. We can't even be told who among the country's energy executives attended an "Energy Task Force" meeting with Cheney or what was discussed. The administration fought “tooth and nail” in the courts to prevent having to reveal this information, yet the CIA is too secretive.

Next, they dismiss the work of Valerie Plame claiming she’s only a “desk jockey.” Not only is this contention absurd based on the fact the CIA asked the Justice Department to investigate the leak because they would not have done so if they did not consider this a crime, this also demeans the hard-working agents at the CIA whose analysis we depend upon. The raw intelligence gathering is just part of the process.

Next, they say Rove was told by reporters about Plame’s identity. Okay, if that’s true (sure), then how did the reporters get the information in the first place. Someone with that knowledge had to have told them, so who was it?

Next, they say, and even the once honorable (perceived) John McCain tries to justify the whole mess by saying that Rove was just trying to protect the President. Look at the means employed. It says a lot about the party that they think attacking a detractor personally along with his family is acceptable. It smacks of cowardice and ruthlessness and hardly shows the ‘honor and integrity” which was promised. He questioned my boss’ honesty, so I jeopardized the security of the nation. How ridiculous is that?

Finally, the real question about who is telling the truth should be about whether there was evidence to support the claim that Hussein was trying to obtain “uranium from Africa.” What we get are tangentially related false claims about who authorized the trip, whether Wilson’s wife was involved, whether Dick Cheney requested the trip. None of which matters to the real issue: Was the claim made in the State of the Union true or false. If it was false, why was it in the SOTU? Of course, this brings us to the bigger picture about the whole run-up to the shock and awe.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?