« BoingBoingfilter | Main | clicking and dragging not included »

Q: Whose Fault Was It?

I love this new distraction where we're supposed to figure out who forged the documents in the first place:
Tenet's gallantry, however, does little to answer the question first raised in early March when inspectors at the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency judged fake a mysterious set of documents Bush had relied on to buttress his claim about Iraq's nuclear ambitions. Press speculation has fingered Iraqi dissidents as the group who had the most to gain in alleging Saddam's uranium shopping spree. The paper trail behind the documents has led to: a "con man" out to make money; Italian intelligence; and "the French." Some publications even suggest the United States, Britain, or other interested powers forged the uranium letters.
A: Everyone in the whole entire fucking world EXCEPT George Bush.

Posted by on July 14, 2003 11:55 PM |

Comments

I love how Bush calls it "revisionist history" to try to get to the bottom of who knew what when, when it's really just "history." Who's being revisionist?

Also, we're assured that Bush has "moved on." As if this were a minor error, of little consequence. That's what we Americans do. We move on.

Posted by: nedlog | July 15, 2003 11:53 AM

Also, dig this from today's Washington Post:

President Bush yesterday defended the "darn good" intelligence he receives, continuing to stand behind a disputed allegation about Iraq's nuclear ambitions as new evidence surfaced indicating the administration had early warning that the charge could be false.

Bush said the CIA's doubts about the charge -- that Iraq sought to buy "yellowcake" uranium ore in Africa -- were "subsequent" to the Jan. 28 State of the Union speech in which Bush made the allegation. Defending the broader decision to go to war with Iraq, the president said the decision was made after he gave Saddam Hussein "a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in."

Bush's position was at odds with those of his own aides, who acknowledged over the weekend that the CIA raised doubts that Iraq sought to buy uranium from Niger more than four months before Bush's speech.

The president's assertion that the war began because Iraq did not admit inspectors appeared to contradict the events leading up to war this spring: Hussein had, in fact, admitted the inspectors and Bush had opposed extending their work because he did not believe them effective.

This is so Alice in Wonderland it's not even funny.

By the way, has Homer Simpson said, "Mmmm, yellowcake" yet? Because that's what I say every time it's mentioned.

Posted by: nedlog | July 15, 2003 9:08 PM

Just to illustrate the media's bias in covering this issue, I would love to dig up the editorials when Clinton lied about the Lewinsky thing. I'm *sure* there were any number that said that America could not have a president that lied and that he should be impeached. Well, he lied about *sex*.

Bush lied and that resulted in a war where thousands of people were killed. And you've got the same media falling over themselves to justify it.

The other thing that baffles me *is* the fact that many people on the Left had debunked the Africa claim *days* after the State of the Union speech. And there were plenty of other lies in that speech. The media ignored the Left in the wake of that speech and has yet to point out any number of other lies that Bush told and that Colin Powell repeated to the UN. They've been linked here before.

Posted by: zagg | July 16, 2003 9:58 AM

another piece I enjoyed: how do you translate "darned good" intelligence?

Posted by: nedlog | July 16, 2003 11:25 AM

Post a comment

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)