The Big Meta-Lie is slowly crumblingExcerpts:
In a surprising editorial, The Washington Post deviated from the conventional anti-Bush media position on two counts. It said President Bush was right to declassify parts of a National Intelligence Estimate to make clear why he thought Saddam Hussein was seeking nuclear weapons. And the editorial said ex-ambassador Joseph Wilson was wrong to think he had debunked Bush on the nuclear charge because Wilson's statements after visiting Niger actually "supported the conclusion that Iraq had sought uranium."
In the orthodox narrative line, Wilson is the truth-teller and the Bush is the liar. But Wilson was not speaking truthfully when he said his wife, Valerie Plame, had nothing to do with the CIA sending him to Niger. And it obviously wasn't true, as Wilson claimed, that he had found nothing to support Bush's charge about Niger when he (Wilson) had been told that the Iraqis were poking around in that uranium-rich nation.
Testifying before the Senate intelligence committee, Wilson said that the former prime minister of Niger told him he had been asked to meet with Iraqis to talk about "expanding commercial relations" between the two countries. Everybody knew what that meant; Niger has nothing much to trade other than uranium...
The Butler report confirmed that Iraqi officials had visited Niger in 1999, and the British government had several different sources insisting that the purpose was to buy uranium. But it added, 'the evidence was not conclusive that Iraq had actually purchased, as opposed to having sought, uranium, and the British government did not claim this.'"
I say:
The politics of truth, indeed. The tactic used against Bush here is known as "poisoning the well." Call the other person a liar, repeat it over and over, shrilly, in the hopes of drawing attention away form the fact that *you* are the liar. It works, but it's not foolproof. If and when the facts get out, you will be looking like human filth.
The facts are coming out, far too slowly. Part of the problem is the mainstream media are suppressing them. Most of the problem is the administration isn't pushing hard enough on getting the facts out. So now they're making
Iraqi documents publicly available now, for anyone to translate. Open source translation. A good idea, but why wasn't this done two years ago?
Oh, and a hint of what's to come. Excerpt:
According to Laurie Mylroie, page 6 of the document is a memo from the command of an Iraqi air force base asking for volunteers for suicide missions:
In the Name of God the Merciful The Compassionate
Top Secret
The Command of Ali Bin Abi Taleb Air Force Base
No 3/6/104
Date 11 March 2001
To all the Units
Subject: Volunteer for Suicide Mission
The top secret letter 2205 of the Military Branch of Al Qadisya on 4/3/2001 announced by the top secret letter 246 from the Command of the military sector of Zi Kar on 8/3/2001 announced to us by the top secret letter 154 from the Command of Ali Military Division on 10/3/2001 we ask to provide that Division with the names of those who desire to volunteer for Suicide Mission to liberate Palestine and to strike American Interests and according what is shown below to please review and inform us.
Air Brigadier General
Abdel Magid Hammot Ali
Commander of Ali Bin Abi Taleb Air Force Base
Air Colonel
Mohamad Majed Mohamadi.
I say:
If this is for real, it deserves front page coverage. If not, fairness demands it receive the same treatment as that National Guard memo, from the same people who championed that memo. But never mind. The blogosphere will follow through.
Oh, and, lest I forget,
Here's Hitchens on ZahawieExcerpt:
A NATO investigation has identified two named employees of the Niger Embassy in Rome who, having sold a genuine document about Zahawie to Italian and French intelligence agents, then added a forged paper in the hope of turning a further profit. The real stuff went by one route to Washington, and the fakery, via an Italian journalist and the U.S. Embassy in Rome, by another. The upshot was - follow me closely here - that a phony paper alleging a deal was used to shoot down a genuine document suggesting a connection.
Latest flash:
General attacking Rumsfeld once sang a different tune.Excerpt:
Former Clinton CENTCOM commander, Anthony Zinni - the most prominent of the retired generals attacking Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld - now says that, in the run-up to the war in Iraq, "What bothered me ... [was that] I was hearing a depiction of the intelligence that didn't fit what I knew. There was no solid proof, that I ever saw, that Saddam had WMD."
But in early 2000, Zinni told Congress "Iraq remains the most significant near-term threat to U.S. interests in the Arabian Gulf region," adding, "Iraq probably is continuing clandestine nuclear research, [and] retains stocks of chemical and biological munitions ... Even if Baghdad reversed its course and surrendered all WMD capabilities, it retains scientific, technical, and industrial infrastructure to replace agents and munitions within weeks or months."
I say: note the careful wording. It's not a flat-out self contradiction. What he's doing here is varying his standards, playing keep away with the burden of proof.
Angelfire link (turn off Javascript to avoid popups)
