Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 2014 E250 Bluetec 4-Matic, 1983 240D 4-Speed
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
It is this purposeful hyping and distorting that is behind the "lying" about the intelligence. Once there is a single example, no use of intelligence data by the one suspected of lying, or proven to have lied, can be accepted at face value. It is all now suspect. The now spoiled view of the Administration's presentation to support their invasion of Iraq expects some intelligence data will prove to be raw data that was not spun, just selected because it was alarming enough as-is, while other bits will be found to have been more than just cherry picked - they will have "English" on them that was not added without purpose.
The Valerie Plame affair is merely a reinforcing side show. If the yellow cake story was not essentially falsified, why go through the trouble to occupy the VP and his staff with discrediting the report by Plame's husband by trying to smear him, and outing his wife? Lots of unnecessary diversion of high paid help's attention for a very high risk, Watergate style "plumbers" mission. Puzzle piece that fits a picture of defending a lie more than anything else.
The other thing many people seem to overlook is, given the same data and arriving at the same conclusion, Saddam was a bad guy, used WMD on his own people and against the Iranians in recent conflicts/wars, Clinton elected to depend on the UN to enforce the conditions of Saddam's surrender in the first Gulf War that were agreed to be the UN's purview, while the United States enforced the no-fly zone, which was agreed to be our responsibility. Bush wound up the UN and got the weapons inspectors back on the job, but elected to ignore their findings and invade anyway, without the support of the Security Council, NATO or any other of our stronger allies, besides the UK. And he did this by taking his eye off Ossamma. The whole sequence of events is incongruous with the rationale provided at the time, and especially now with 20:10 hindsight. And the pattern of "I am the decider" and therefore do not need to have my decision making process held up to Congressional oversight or scrutiny does little but reinforce the image of Bush believing it is ok for him to lie to the American People and Congress if he thinks it is in his best interests.
All learning is pattern recognition. In this case, if you are not prevented from seeing the actual pattern by some blind faith in Bush, or the Republican Party he has now ruined, there is little to suggest Bush has been anything but deceptive and purposefully misleading and much to define a consistent pattern of manipulation and avoiding open debate. In America that cannot be tolerated if we are to live up to our heritage. Jim