or Powell's or me• • •
"Mike and Jon, Jon and Mike—I've known them both for years, and, clearly, one of them is very funny. As for the other: truly one of the great hangers-on of our time."—Steve Bodow, head writer, The Daily Show
•
"Who can really judge what's funny? If humor is a subjective medium, then can there be something that is really and truly hilarious? Me. This book."—Daniel Handler, author, Adverbs, and personal representative of Lemony Snicket
•
"The good news: I thought Our Kampf was consistently hilarious. The bad news: I’m the guy who wrote Monkeybone."—Sam Hamm, screenwriter, Batman, Batman Returns, and Homecoming
March 27, 2006
Yet More Information That Seems Damning For Bush But Actually Is Taken Competely Out Of Context
The New York Times has confirmed the so-called "White House Memo" of January 31, 2003 is genuine. The memo, first reported several months ago, records a meeting at the White House between Blair, Bush and key advisors. Among the key points:
1. Bush had decided on war no matter what, even if UNMOVIC found nothing and they failed to get a second U.N. resolution.
2. Bush suggested creating a pretext for the war by painting a U.S. spy plane in the colors of the United Nations, in hopes Iraq would try to shoot it down.
3. Bush thought it was "unlikely there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups."
So, how to deal with this embarrassing information? An unnamed "senior British official" tries this gambit:
"In all of this discussion during the run-up to the Iraq war, it is obvious that viewing a snapshot at a certain point in time gives only a partial view of the decision-making process."
Huh, that sounds familiar. Where have I heard it before? Oh, rightâ€â€Âit's exactly what Tony Blair said about the Downing Street Memo:
"The trouble with having a political discussion on the basis of things that are leaked is that they are always taken right out of context. Everything else is omitted from the discussion and you end up focusing on a specific document."
UK Defense Secretary John Reid also said this about the Downing Street Memo (via Nexis):
"You can produce one out of a thousand of memos that were flying about, which represented one person's view about one particular issue."
So now we have TWO British memos shamefully ripped out context. Or rather, eight memos ripped out of context, counting the six other documents related to the Downing Street Memo. Wait, I'm sorryâ€â€Ânine memos, when you add in the one Paul O'Neill revealed showing the Bush administration already planning for "Post-Saddam Iraq" on January 31, 2001. Or actually, ten memos, counting the NSA memo about spying on the U.N. Well, to be fairâ€â€Âeleven memos, given the one Blair aide John Sawer wrote in May, 2003 about the lack of post-war planning.
Okay: we have eleven internal memos ripped horribly out of context. And in a bizarre coincidence, they tell exactly the same story as a gigantic amount of public information.
But that's irrelevant. What's important is we know if we had access to all the relevant government documents, they would tell a completely different story. If only Tony Blair and George Bush had the authority to declassify them!
Sadly, of course, this is impossible. Blair and Bush are completely powerless in this matter. All they can do is tell us how they would be completely vindicated if only we knew things we aren't allowed to know.
Posted at March 27, 2006 02:44 AM | TrackBackThis is incredible, infuriating, and horrible. All I could think when I read that the lunatic liked the idea of a dummy plane that might be shot down was, "Would it be piloted by a person? Maybe have a crew aboard? And would he have no problem if they were sacrificed? Would he put them on a par with the children we've slaughtered--just a regrettable, but unavoidable, side effect of war?"
May he rot in the hottest part of hell.
I don't know about you but we're way past verbal outrage at this point. We don't need anymore evidence what we need is action.
Given everything we know it is highly likely that everyone in Bush's domestic coallition of the willing is either being bribed or blackmailed into support for him. Given this why not find out what leverage he's using against various players and make it public.
Posted by: patience at March 27, 2006 06:15 AMWe know for a fact that
1.Team Bush cannot protect their pawns
2.Team Bush cannot change course
Therefore they should be easy meat, once you get past the hubris.
Posted by: patience at March 27, 2006 06:17 AMbefore Irakatak the official stated policy from the Oval Officer was "regime change" - then in
State of the Union speech, invasion was described
as a "last resort" meaning that if goddam saddam
did not drop dead, was not assassinated, or did not hop a plane to (Libya), then regime change would be brought about as it actually happened -
the actuality and threat of WMD provided the chief
rationale for the policy of regime change -
this is what the Toxic Texan could have said to Helen Thomas, but he is so contaminated by lying and denying that the truth seems like a rattlesnake on his ranch
Who would have ever thought that Nixon's secret plan to end the war would have enough legs to morph into Bush's secret plan to begin a war!
Posted by: at March 27, 2006 09:48 AMMy recent conviction for robbing that gas station was also taken out of context. The video surveilence footage did look bad, but it is obvious that viewing a snapshot at a certain point in time gives only a partial view of the retail process.
If we had access to all the relevant information they would tell a completely different story.
Posted by: Jake at March 27, 2006 01:50 PMALL ACCORDING TO PLAN: The airplane was just a variation of the Gulf of Tonkin. (airplane instead of a ship) These plans were made in the 80's under Reagan with Rummy and Deadeye left as co-managers to GET THE OIL. (getting the oil now is a variation of European pre-WWI plans started in 1880's with the Berlin to Baggdad RR built by Deutchebank to GET THE OIL. A root cause of WWI & WWII.) Unfortunately plans made in 1980's don't work well in 2000's. (unforseen internet, unforseen weapons cashes in Iraq, unforseen lack of talent in high command) Still things WILL CONTINUE according to plan ie; INVADE IRAN. Still no talent in high command. Thus, I am compelled to reitterate "Why am I paying these people?"
Posted by: Mike Meyer at March 27, 2006 11:15 PMTime for talking is over.
Posted by: Jon Koppenhoefer at March 28, 2006 12:53 AMThe Gulf of Tonkin was just a variation on the Maine. Which was a variation on the Rio Grande incident. Which was a domesticated variation on the Shot Heard Round the World. Isn't it great to always be the innocent party, attacked by immoral parties from far away?
Posted by: hedgehog at March 28, 2006 01:20 AM
