No day is complete without some mention of the Rove/Plame non-scandal, so here’s a bit of Hitchens for you:
But the coverage of this non-storm in an un-teacup has gone far beyond the fantasy of a Rovean hidden hand. Supposedly responsible journalists are now writing as if there was never any problem with Saddam’s attempt to acquire yellowcake (or his regime’s now-proven concealment of a nuclear centrifuge, or his regime’s now-proven attempt to buy long-range missiles off the shelf from North Korea as late as March 2003). In the same way, the carefully phrased yet indistinct statement of the 9/11 Commission that Saddam had no proven “operational” relationship with al-Qaida has mutated lazily into the belief that there were no contacts or exchanges at all, which the commission by no means asserts and which in any case by no means possesses the merit of being true. The CIA got everything wrong before 9/11, and thereafter. It was conditioned by its own culture to see no evil. It regularly leaked—see any of Bob Woodward’s narratives—against the administration. Now it, and its partisans and publicity-famished husband-and-wife teams, want to imprison or depose people who leak back at it. No, thanks.
There you have it. Wilson told a series of lies about Saddam and his WMD program, and then tried to hide behind an official secrets act to keep them from being found out. Quite rightly, the Administration didn’t let him get away with his little ploy.
What rock have you been hiding under and just came up for air? You have CIA personnel, i.e., Larry Johnson (Republican)who joined the agency with Valerie Plame and others who are coming forward with the truth.The whole cover of the CIA front (Brewster Jennings) was blown. It is also alledged that approx. 50+ individuals involved were executed. Scott Ridder, Paul O’Neill, Richard Clarke,Downing Street minutes, etc.. and now this .Finally this whole murderous scheme is being exposed for what it is. Bush & Co. are going down. Hey, you think Dick had a premonition when it was announced that Haliburton was building a jail at Gitmo?
I love the mixed metaphors, the invented spelling, and the fabricated facts. Awesome!
God bless Hitch – he was on c-span the other day confessing his current Marxism. The irony of him defending the contemporary Hiss is not lost on anyone.
Tinker, Tailot, Soldier, Rove,
Richman, poorman, beggarman, Hitch.
Cheney surely regrets making that request. He obviously didn’t recall the last man in Baghdad in 1991.
Jimmy Carter’s good buddy Saddam didn’t, that’s fer sure.
I thought Saddam was Rummy’s good buddy.
Carter (the worst American president of the 20th century) armed Saddam, but Rummy disarmed him. Big difference.
What year was it that the infamous photo-op of Saddam & Rummy shaking hands was taken?
December 20, 1983. Reagan was president.
It makes me want to ask (perhaps you know the answer): did Reagan also sell arms to Saddam?
Reagan sold arms to both Iraq and Iran; remember Iran-Contra?
But historically Saddam got most of his arms from France, not the USA. Remember the famous photo-op of Saddam shaking hands with Chirac inside the nuclear reactor France built in Iraq?
That’s the kind of handshake that means something.
Yes, I remember Iran-Contra very well. Hours & hours of Ollie North on TV. Now his war/political intrigue novels grace the bookshelves of the “Religious Fiction” section at Barnes & Noble for some reason (I’ll have to glance at one someday, figure out “why” they’re placed there). What a patriot.
I remember the photo-op of Saddam & Chirac, too. I think about as highly of Chirac as I do about Rummy, & that ain’t much. BTW, what’s the meaning of saying France sold more arms to Saddam than we did? So what, one could say. Does that exonerate the Reagan administration (on this issue)? If so, please explain.
I get nauseated thinking about the whole damn bunch of politicos.
Saddam’s supporters peddle the idea that the USA put Saddam in power and kept him there by supplying him with weapons. This simply isn’t true, because France (and Communist China) supplied him with way more arms than we did.
Your comment is pretty good spin.
But “embedded” in it is the fact that we participated in arming Saddam. Thus, we participated with others in keeping him in power. Simple, no blame casting. We were wrong, the French were wrong, to do so. Okay.
It wasn’t necessarily wrong to sell arms to Saddam once upon time, any more than it was necessarily wrong to depose him when he got too uppity. There are no permanent alliances, only permanent interests.
Why was it right (or rather “not wrong”) once upon a time (for any country) to sell arms to Saddam? Interestingly, do you draw a distinction between “right” & “not wrong”? As in, “It may not be right to do business with crooks, but it’s not wrong either as long as you’re honest in your dealings with them & condem what they’re about.”
Moreover, so long as Saddam stayed in his own backyard (committing whatever crimes against his own people), did business with a smile & a handshake, & didn’t get too “uppity” (shades of the Old South in that word! As in “uppity niggers”. For that matter, I’ve heard Iraqis/Arabs/Iranians called “sand niggers” by a number of “decent” folk) then he could buy all the guns he wanted? Afterall, bidness is bidness, right?
There are no permanent alliances, only permanent interests. When the layout of the board changes, so do your friends and enemies. The point is that the world is a dynamic place.
Stalin was our ally against Hitler, but as soon as Hitler was defeated, he became our enemy again, although FDR was a bit slow to realize it.