As we all settle into our happy family-oriented Thanksgiving Day festivities in which we will, hopefully, calmly and rationally dwell on those circumstances for which we feel thankful, please let us also remember that the lying, smearing, treasonous, torturing Bush administration lied us into a disastrous war on false pretenses and that the war has resulted in thousands and thousands of casualties, including the deaths of nearly 2100 brave American servicemen and women, and permanent life-debilitating injuries to many thousand others. Not only that, there appears to be no end in sight for the Iraq war, so the killings and maimings and worldwide torture and denials of civil rights are likely to continue for the foreseeable future.
This, of course, is not news to most kossacks, but it needs to be said (and I intend to say so after the break if you won't cut and run from this diary like a total coward - just joking:-))
A week or two ago, we were all informed that the lying, smearing, treasonous, torturing Bush-Cheney administration was now going to "fight back" against the growing awareness of Americans that they lied us into a disastrous war on false pretenses. Having heard that, one might reasonably assume that we would now be in the midst of a serious reasoned debate about the evidence of their baldfaced lies. Let's consider some of that evidence:
(1) The Downing Street Minutes provide our first glimpse. Therein, as we all know, Richard Dearlove, the then-head of the intelligence services of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reported, after extensive meetings with the U.S.'s senior leadership, that, as of mid-summer of 2002, the strategy was to "fix the intelligence and facts around the [start a pre-emptive war] policy." I ask you - in all of this concerted effort to "fight back" from Bush/Cheney/Traitor/Rove, have we seen any refutation of the meaning of the DSM?? Any counter-evidence??
(2) Senator Carl Levin, just within the past week or so, obtained the declassification of the DIA's description of the central evidence upon which the lying, smearing, treasonous, torturing Bush-Cheney administration based its claim that Iraq was involved with the U.S. real enemy (Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda) who planned and executed 9/11, which reflected that the informant was probably intentionally misleading his debriefers. Moreover, it seems plain that the relevant PDB on the issue which was actually provided to Bush shortly after 9/11 (we, of course, can't actually see it because of their continuing cover-up) concluded that there was no significant tie between Iraq and OBL. And, in addition, we have all, by now, seen the videotape of Cheney saying it was "pretty well confirmed" that a meeting between Atta and al Qaeda actually took place pre-9/11 when, in fact, it has never been confirmed. Also, we now have the statements from Colin Powell's former chief of staff (Lawrence Wilkerson - currently being slimed/smeared by the Bushies) which essentially confirms the absence of an Iraqi/OBL tie. What have the lying, smearing, treasonous, torturing Bush-Cheney sycophants provided to refute any of this??
(3) The Colin Powell speech, which he has repeatedly said he "regrets," was so chock full o' lies that it almost defies comprehension. Mobile weapons labs?? Debunked and not true. Aluminum tubes as centrifuges?? Debunked and not true. Firm intelligence based on reliable informants?? Laughably untrue.
(4) There are no WMD's. Let me repeat that - there are no WMD's. Every single statement made by the lying, smearing, treasonous, torturing Bush administration's mouthpieces regarding this issue is, was, and remains, untrue. Iraq was not reconstituting its nuclear weapons program and it wasn't reconstituting its nuclear weapons program-related activities either. Bush lied in the SOTU address!! And he smeared any and all critics who pointed it out. The Niger documents were forgeries! There were no yellowcake purchases! There was no missile that could reach Britain in 45 minutes! They didn't even have any chemical weapons stocks, much less white phosphorous!
There are, of course, many, many, many other factual examples. But why bother going through them when the lying, smearing, treasonous, torturing Bush sycophants won't even engage on the central charges??
Instead, let's look at what they have actually been saying.
(1) Everyone got the same intelligence. Big lie! We can't even see the PDB's now! Much less actually have access to them pre-war! Why do think they can get away with this crap?
(2) It wasn't really a "lie" because Bush The Moron believed what he was saying. Now, in law, they have a point. To prove culpability in court usually requires evidence of specific intent. But we aren't in court; we are in the court of public opinion, and normal meanings of words, unamplified by hairsplitting legalistic parsing, are perfectly legitimate in public opinion matters. My dictionary - American Heritage - defines "lie" in several fashions, and included therein are numerous defined meanings that do not include the requisite deliberate intent. "A false statement" is one such definition. "Anything meant to deceive or give a wrong impression" is another. "To convey a false image or impression" is yet another. The key being that of Bush says something false, it can legitimately be defined as a "lie" even without a demonstration that he intended to lie. Hence, he lied.
(3) Critics are all "cowards" who wish to "cut and run." This is not only a lie but also a smear.
(4) "We do not torture." Lie.
I think y'all get the point - it needed to be said.