i love seeing the i-word in print.
* digby is upset with Harry Reid's performance on Lehrer
* digby on the possibility of murtha giving the Dem response to SOTU:
"Murtha is just terrific on TV. His grizzled countenance, his obvious sincerity and straighforwardness, his credibility make him the perfect person to speak for the Democrats on Iraq. Even my wingnut Dad has to say "well, he's got a point." After listening to the callow preznit spew out words he doesn't even know the meaning of for an hour, Murtha would be like a breath of fresh air."(the Dems have chosen Tim Kaine)
* some guy on lehrer said that the binladen speech sounds like it was written in english and then translated into arabic!
1 comment:
These were my thoughts as I watched another round of Bin Laden hysteria:
1) Both political parties promote the Bin Laden frame...ie...Democrats often say "The war in Iraq was a diversion from the true war on terror."
2) Edmonds has told Congress (or at least a few Senators in closed session) her entire story. Obviously, those Senators (Grassley comes to mind) have been in no rush to bring "certain high ranking officials" to justice.
3) Even if the Democrats take the Bin Laden story at face value (pretty sad IMO) they haven't gone after Bush...ie..."Five years and he hasn't caught the man responsible for 9/11, he should resign and let someone qualified try to get the job done."
4) Democrats were shamed into more opposition to the mismanaged occupation by...Cindy Sheehan. Furthermore, they didn't do much with the Downing Street Memo (Rep. Conyers did but he doesn't get much support from bigshot Democratic Senators). And one effort by Sen. Reid to call out Sen. Roberts for failing to complete the Phase II investigation was about all the Democrats were up for.
IOW, I'm not sure if Edmonds and others are correct when they speculate that 9/11 and other F'ed up activities are the actions of a few corrupt individuals. For instance, look at Diebold. Does the Democratic party's failure to prevent obvious voting fraud make any logical sense...ie..."Bush can steal the '04 election and we will pretend it didn't happen." There's a good chance that the US political class (not everyone but maybe 75%) is complicit in all of this stuff. Of course, there are likely levels of compartmentalization.
I'm still hung up on motive. I don't believe that all this treasonous activity has been done merely to line the pockets of some ALREADY rich scumbags. I'm familiar with the "normal" motives (profit, imperialism, idealogy, caving to corporate agendas) and the "conspiratorial" motives (Bilderberg/CFR theories ala Alex Jones). For all I know Fitzgerald's probe is theater to convince pissed off Democrats that the "system works."
I simply don't know what the truth is at this point.
Mike (author of the nuclear proliferation email. BTW, Lukery thanks for posting it).
Post a Comment