That is a significant summary in the opening portion of a post by three McClatchy bloggers writing about Scott McClellan's book that seems to have generated lots of discussion and no new information. They do a great job of setting the record straight. Read it here.
It is so refreshing to see good reporting. Too bad folks were not paying attention to this crowd back when they were reporting the truth amid all the propaganda.
Sigh.
Oh, and Scotty... you and the horse you rode in on.
Tool.
UPDATE: Glenn Greenwald has a few words on the subject also. Concluding yesterday's post:
Maybe Rutten should ask them how they did it since, according to Rutten, that was impossible. Speak to sources inside and outside the Government disputing the administration's claims. Give a platform to experts warning of the dangers of the invasion. Trumpet the multiple discrepancies between the administration's claims and what was available in the public record. Isn't this excruciatingly obvious? The Washington Post's Dan Froomkin adds more evidence here regarding the profound media failures.
How did Woodward and Bernstein uncover what the Nixon criminals did since they kept it secret? It must have been impossible! How did Dana Priest uncover the CIA Black Sites in Eastern Europe without being able to go there and visit them? How did Jim Risen and Eric Lichtblau find out that the Bush administration was eavesdropping on Americans without the warrants required by law? It's called "reporting": the process of finding out, through investigation, that which the Government seeks to conceal. Why does that need to be explained to the "media critic" of The Los Angeles Times? If he doesn't understand that, what does he understand?
Senator Leahy pursued Attorney General Mukasey's recent misleading (if not totally fabricated) remarks in San Francisco. Mukasey allowed that he might have gotten the country wrong, blah, blah, blah.
Glenn Greenwald, who--thank you, Jesus--will not let go of this, comments in an update to his post today:
UPDATE: The commenter selise, one of the most reliable sources around, has posted a transcript of the Leahy-Mukasey exchange that is somewhat different (and even more damning) than the source quoted above. Mukasey claims that his only point was that no warrant should be required for foreign-to-foreign calls, but virtually nobody contests that. Indeed, that has always been the law under FISA -- certainly it was the law as of 9/11 -- and there was absolutely nothing preventing them from having intercepted and investigated that call (more details on that here, from Kevin Fenton).
Moreover, virtually everyone in Congress -- including even Russ Feingold and Rush Holt -- were willing to amend FISA to clarify further that no warrants are required to eavesdrop on such calls, but the President threatened to veto any such amendment unless it was accompanied by telecom amnesty. So it's hard to believe -- to put it mildly -- that Mukasey's only point was that foreign-to-foreign calls shouldn't require warrants, since (a) nobody contests that and (b) no warrants were required for such calls as of 9/11. His point was that FISA's warrant requirements prevented discovery of the 9/11 attack ("We've got three thousand people who went to work that day and didn't come home to show for that") and that claim is every bit as false as Mukasey's description of the call itself.
Mukasey: The one thing I got wrong was the geography. It did not come from Afghanistan. I got the country wrong, but other than that it was spot on, and I will be happy to provide you with the page. And the point to be made there was not that we could not have monitored it under FISA, but rather that no FISA application should have been necessary to monitor a foreign target in a foreign country. I was speaking generally to the desirability of getting a bill passed, as you know we've been having a lot of trouble with that, but I'd be happy to get you the reference. You're right it's not in the 9/11...
Leahy: Then we don't need FISA to monitor a foreign source.
Mukasey: We shouldn't need it.
Leahy: We didn’t need it then. And we don't today.
The Great Oz notwithstanding, it's hardly a matter of peeking behind the curtain anymore. A thousand Totos have pulled the curtain down and everyone with eyes to see can behold the mendacity involved in fomenting and executing the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Those who led this nation into such an immoral fiasco KNEW their alleged reasons and rationales were all bullshit and they did it anyway. And the media enabled them. And we followed them. And here we are.
I want to thank Crooks and Liars for this video of Dick "Darth" Cheney speaking back in 1992. He explains why it was a good idea NOT to pursue the Gulf War into Baghdad. All the reasons why it would be a nightmare (perhaps even a quagmire?) are eloquently set forth.
In other words, Dick Cheney (at the very least) KNEW that invading and occupying Iraq would be a huge mess long before Commander Codpiece went for it.
So, the question is this: What sort of person, knowing what Dick Cheney had every reason to know, would support this fiasco?
[I've read about this response by Cheney to why Pres. George H. W. Bush didn't pursue Saddam back then, but tonight was the first time I'd seen and heard it. Just wow.]
Not to mention W's conversation with then-Prime Minister José Maria Aznar of Spain (you can read about it here and here and here).
These are the minutes of a Feb. 22, 2003 meeting between Bush and Spanish Prime Minister Aznar, which El Pais has just published. In this meeting, Bush declares that he would try to get a second UN vote condemning Hussein in order to satisfy his allies, but he doesn't really care what the resolution says and in any case with or without it he intends to invade Iraq shortly after March 15 (as soon as US forces were ready to invade). Bush also shows that he has no interest in what the UN weapons inspectors are finding, and indeed he treats the UN as a cat's paw. [Source]
Note the passage "he doesn't really care what the resolution says and in any case with or without it he intends to invade Iraq shortly after March 15...." Do you recall your civics lessons from way back when? How the Constitution and treaties ratified by the United States are the supreme law of the land? That part? Yeah. OK. Now you might have forgotten that according to treaties we have ratified, it is unlawful for any country to attack another except if they are attacked by that county or threat is imminent.
Now, let's rewind to 2003. Iraq posed no imminent threat to the United States. It is debatable whether it might have posed a longer-term threat but certainly no imminent one. Inspectors were on the ground, finally allowed to be present and inspect anywhere and anytime they wanted. Saddam did not kick them out; Bush pulled them out so he could attack.
I won't even go into the just war doctrine and the various criteria, which this preemptive invasion DID NOT MEET.
So, to sum up, we have an unlawful and immoral preemptive military action. Bush did not even fulfill the terms in the AUMF, so it didn't even fit within our own law supposedly authorizing it.
If you are reading this blog, you probably already know all this, but it doesn't hurt to remind ourselves now and again what a bunch of crooks and liars are running this country (and running a great nation, the one I love, into the ground).
As the drumbeats of war thrummed in the background back in early 2003 I said, to those within earshot, that Bush wanted his war and he was going to have it. Facts made no difference. Whatever might unfold would make no difference. It was going to happen because George [multiple expletives deleted] Bush wanted it to.
Now he and Cheney are trying to whip up a war with Iran. How stupid do you have to be to believe a single word that comes out of their lying mouths? They have repeatedly lied to the American people and the world. They have repeatedly been wrong about damn near everything.
OK. Deep breath.
People, we need to take our government back. --the BB
The views expressed on this blog are solely those of the blogger and do not represent the positions of any group or organization with which he may be affiliated. As one who spent decades stuffing down his opinions and emotions, I am inclined to cut loose here, which I believe is healthy, honest, and part of the process of sanctification in the long run. Politics and spirituality mingle freely here, along with theatre reviews, photography, and passionate talk about food, literature, and the human journey. If anything written here offends you, please find other blogs to read. I am here to share, not to do battle.
