|
Did the Dog Eat Condi's Homework?
A BUZZFLASH READER COMMENTARY
Why are we even considering whether or not Condoleezza is lying about the White House being out of the loop on the CIA's warnings that the documents indicating Iraq's attempt to procure uranium from Niger were forged? Stop and think for just a minute, and you have to realize how utterly implausible her statement is. The entire intelligence community knew. The state department knew. They even had the claim removed from both Colin Powell's and John D. Negroponte's addresses to the U.N. Security Council.
It's really quite impossible for the White House not to have known that the information was, at best, unreliable, and almost certainly forged. Just look at Condoleezza's public statement: "Maybe someone knew down in the bowels of the agency, " Rice said on NBC's "Meet the Press" while back, "but no one in our circles knew that there were doubts and suspicions that this might be a forgery."
It's one thing to engage in disinformation. It's quite another thing, to lie stupidly. Are we to suppose that the only method of communication between the CIA and the National Security Director boils down to "advisories" e-mailed back and forth, which they may or may not get? Do they seriously expect us to believe that this is how the White House gets it's security information? The White House bases a war on a few pieces of misinformation, and they don't even sit down with the intelligence community, and discuss how accurate, or reliable, or verifiable their information is? They don't even check it out? Think about it! This is information that the President of the United States of America is announcing to the entire world as provocation for war!
And now we're hearing things like, "Oh, well, we didn't realize it was forged. We didn't get those memos. Someone should have told us. They must have gotten lost in the mail, or something. Maybe the dog ate them...."
It's not a matter of wondering how they could be so stupidly incompetent. It's not possible to be that stupid, and still be able to find your office.
The problem is how stupid they think WE are. This is not something that was hidden deep "down in the bowels" of the CIA. This was so openly discussed that the claim was yanked from Powel's and Negroponte's addresses to the U.N. Correct me if I'm wrong, please - wasn't this openly reported on various alternative media websites BEFORE the attack on Iraq? There is no way that Condoleezza and Dim Son weren't fully informed, and fully aware. There is no way they are not lying to us.
How many lies does it take, my friends? Remember those aluminum tubes? Remember how Shrub and Powell went on and on about them, even after they had been informed by experts, in no uncertain terms, that they were not designed for nuclear use? And they STILL insisted that they were for nuclear uses, regardless of evidence to the contrary! In other words, they weren't mistaken - they were lying. Evidence of WMD? Shrub and Powell insisting that they had hard evidence. They didn't. They weren't mistaken -they were lying. They didn't know the documents were forged? They aren't mistaken - they're lying. We'd have to be complete fools to swallow this current line of B.S. How many times can you cry "Wolf!" before the rest of us wise up?
Don't even wonder if Condoleezza's explanation is true. It's not.
Will Morris
* * *
BuzzFlash Note: See BuzzFlash references to Condi's ludicrous "The Dog Ate My Homework" attempt to "explain" why Bush didn't know about the possibility of 9/11 happening from an earlier BuzzFlash editorial:
"The Bush Cartel hauled out Condi to "explain" that it was true that Bush had been warned that Al-Qaeda hijackings might occur in the near future, but that Bush wasn't told about plans to attack the World Trade Center or Pentagon so he didn't take action to protect them. The press dutifully accepted this explanation. But as BuzzFlash pointed out at the time -- and we assume most second graders would understand this, but apparently not the mainstream press -- the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon WERE hijackings. If Bush had taken steps after his pre-9/11 security briefing to put law enforcement on heightened alert, he might very well have prevented the hijacking attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon. But the American press and the TV pundits couldn't figure out this little bit of basic common sense and convinced the American public that Condi had cleared everything up. It staggers the mind that they could get away with this transparent, nonsensical, lie. Condi admitted that Bush was warned about potentially imminent hijackings, the source of the 9/11 attacks. That is the bottom line, period.
Furthermore, if Bush was warned in the summer of 2001 that Al-Qaeda was planning spectacular hijackings and did nothing significant to increase airport security, what does that tell you? Another point that seemed to cast doubt on Condi's claims of Bush innocence in terms of having failed to prevent 9/11 was that she claimed that no one had known that Al-Qaeda was planning to attack buildings with planes. But that was quickly disproved by BuzzFlash and other sites who pointed out that Bush had attended a G-8 conference in Genoa, where anti-aircraft missiles were deployed for the specific reason that intelligence gathering had revealed Al-Qaeda was planning to attack buildings in the Italian city, targeting the G-8 conferees. That was one reason Bush slept on a boat offshore. And that occurred before the "smoking gun" briefing in the summer of 2001!"
From: Planting Weapons of Mass Destruction, Karl Rove, And "Sympathy for the Devil"
A BUZZFLASH READER COMMENTARY
Articles in the BuzzFlash Contributor section are posted as-is. Given the timeliness of some Contributor articles, BuzzFlash cannot verify or guarantee the accuracy of every word. We strive to correct inaccuracies when they are brought to our attention.
