Extraordinary.
60 Minutes just aired an amazing piece about the interrogation of Saddam Hussein by a very shrewd FBI field agent. Among the nuggets in this is the entire undoing of the rationale for Bush’s rain of terror. Yes, Saddam hated and feared Osama Bin Laden and would have nothing to do with al Qaeda. No, there weren’t WMD–they were destroyed in the 90s, but the ruse was maintained to keep Iran at bay. Yes, Saddam would have liked to have had those weapons some day, but some day was far away. No, he didn’t think Bush would be as stupid as to invade Iraq. Add up all of the recent revelations and this interview and you realize everything, I mean everything, a lot of us have been writing about since the run-up to the war is indisputably true. In a strange way, it would have been easier and perhaps a bit more comforting if we were wrong.
So as we parse every little barb from Barack and the Clintons, let’s not lose sight of what this is all about. We were lied into war. Our leaders committed war crimes with their unprovoked attack of Iraq, and sedition with their acts against this country and against the freedoms and liberties ensured by our Constitution. Islamofascism in its grand context exists only in the minds of Faux news and those who feed it–al Qaeda is a couple of hundred crazy dudes in the mountains that we have built up into a worldwide movement. Bushco is going to go unpunished because we’ve taken our eye off the ball and find that it’s easier to deal with triangulation, race/gender politics, and sound bite gotchas than dealing with the cold hard reality that America is well on its way to becoming a failed power and perhaps a failed experiment, morally, financially and ultimately, militarily. For what? It’s been an 8-year outrage.
So Bushco is going to get away with it and the billions they’ve plundered, and they’re not going to go away unless they’re put away. I take no solace in 4 or even 8 years of a Democratic president (if we even have one). The Pugs and the people who run them are patient, organized and more than well financed. Believe me, they’ll be back with a vengeance. Neither Hillary nor Barack are going to even raise the issue of prosecutions. Like their corrupt and neutered colleagues in the Congress, they don’t have the stomach for it, neither one of them. Which makes this election and our choices so incredibly so frustrating.
Posted: January 27th, 2008 under Bushco, Dumbocrats, Hillary, Impeachment, Iran, Iraq, Obama, Osama, Sedition, Where's the Outrage.
Comments: 5
Comments
Comment from Josh Hammond
Time: January 28, 2008, 11:10 am
“Hang Bush” is hardly a winning strategy for the nomination.
Comment from Leftcoast
Time: January 28, 2008, 4:37 pm
The Dem campaign is operating as if it were 2000, with exactly the same issues almost in the same proportions: economy, health care, environment. It’s as if the past 8 years never happened, which is a disconnect from reality–the same disconnect and missed opportunity the Dems had in 04 when they ran Kerry.
Bottom line is that we’ve been fucked by the Bush administration in every which-way possible and people know it. It’s all well and good to say past is past and let’s move on to a bringht and positive future. My point is that you can’t point to a future without fixing the ongoing rape of this country and its people. The same forces that are at work now will be at work 4-8 years from now unless someone calls them out and makes them pay.
In a way this is the heart of what Edwards is talking about when he talks about taking on corporate America. But he’s not very good at getting people to march with him–more a style problem than a substance problem, I think. Obama gets people to march, but to where? No one can answer that for sure. And knowing that Obama throughout his life and career is the least confrontational candidate running, i have my doubts that he’ll be the guy to bring an end to this madness. Hillary won’t either. Which is why I’m so frustrated with our choices, which once again seems based on the question, Who sucks less?.
Comment from Leftcoast
Time: January 28, 2008, 5:43 pm
From the AP today: “Hillary Rodham Clinton relegated her chief Democratic rival to the rhetorical sidelines Monday and focused her criticism on President Bush, saying he had lost touch with the concerns of an anxious public. In a speech to more than 1,000 people jammed in a gymnasium, Clinton did not refer to the fight with Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination. Her audience, which included an equal number listening in an adjoining room, roared with approval when the former first lady took note of the Republican president’s dwindling time in office.”
Yes Josh, taking on Bushco will get someone the nomination and more important, elected. It’s the political high ground…
Comment from Sasha
Time: January 28, 2008, 6:05 pm
“taking on Bushco will get someone the nomination and more important, elected. It’s the political high ground…”
I don’t agree. It is pandering to the electorate and is in no way the high ground. The high ground is talking about the future, proposing solutions, engaging the electorate to share the road.
Comment from Groom Lake
Time: January 28, 2008, 7:29 pm
A few more reason why I have been calling it the “war of lies” since late September 2001.
Write a comment