Sunday, April 27, 2003

Hmmmm just thinking… …who would benefit from forging Iraqi documents?   Well obviously the Bush and Blair regimes… but do we really think they would risk forging false documents themselves?   I don’t think so… both are clever enough to use third party cut-outs to do the dirty work. For example, when the Bush folks want to torture someone, in order to get around laws against such they simply have an ally not subject to such laws do the nasty – while our agents watch and prompt.   (And then there are other forms of torture too – like this and this).   So the Bush regime is not above having others do things that are too toxic for them to be directly linked (wink wink, nod nod).   For example who provided the false nuclear “documents” that we so readily vouched for at the UN? Bush didn’t forge it but someone did – and Bush didn’t care as long as he could use it.   And now documents are “appearing” in Iraq that sound like the same kind of clumsy forgeries (Using white out to hide a name? Excuse me, but isn’t that just the kind of thing you would do if you wanted the “hidden” name to be easily uncovered?)   Who would do such a thing? Perhaps a group of Iraqi exiles (headed by a confidence man) who have nothing to lose and everything to gain by currying favor with the “coalition”? Exiles that were secretly transported to Iraq by the Pentagon (even the State Dept didn’t know) and are now running loose getting into everything? Heck they may even be providing the translators for the Telegraph (when not claiming credit for electricity or water services repaired by the US).   And now we here that Chalabi's group was "responsible" for much of the bogus "intelligence" that the US has been trying to pawn off on the rest of the world. And now wonder - they only stand to gain by painting as terrible a picture as possible - even if untrue.   So my money is on Chalabi and his cronies as the probable forgers of these documents. They have the experience, the access and the motive (to please their political masters). The Bushies will no doubt will once again reward them for doing the dirty work while providing "plausible deniability." 12:32:29 PM

Is this the story … …the “coalition” would like to bury?   Revealed: How the road to war was paved with lies Intelligence agencies accuse Bush and Blair of distorting and fabricating evidence in rush to war [snip]   Glen Rangwala, the Cambridge University analyst who first pointed out Downing Street's plagiarism, said ministers had claimed before the war to have information which could not be disclosed because agents in Iraq would be endangered. "That doesn't apply any more, but they haven't come up with the evidence," he said. "They lack credibility."   Mr Rangwala said much of the information on WMDs had come from Ahmed Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress (INC), which received Pentagon money for intelligence-gathering. "The INC saw the demand, and provided what was needed," he said. "The implication is that they polluted the whole US intelligence effort."   Read it and decide for yourself. 1:54:32 AM

Doctored evidence? Would the “coalition” doctor evidence in order to “justify” the Bush’s war on Iraq?   Well, we already know that someone doctored evidence submitted to the UN prior to the war.   And we know that someone is doctoring photos of “jubilant Iraqis.”   And now we hear the most exculpatory evidence yet – not only was a Scottish Member of Parliament (MP) who opposed the war secretly in the pay of Iraq, but Iraq was also in touch with al Qaeda and (no, we’re not done yet) France provided Iraq with intelligence on the US… and who discovered not one, not two but all three of these incredible bombshells (each of which individually strains credibility) - why the same newspaper in Britain – the Telegraph.   And each time in the same manner (“while rummaging around in a bombed out ministry… we just happened to find…”).   How curious?   And how convenient - just in time to get all the Sunday talk shows off the question of where are the WMDs...   And who owns the Telegraph?   You might be excused if you thought I was about to say Murdoch. The name you’re looking for is Conrad Black. Mr. Black seems to get what he wants and what he wants now is to be Rupert Murdoch – as betrayed by his behavior. He employs folks like Thatcher, Gingrich, William F. Buckley, Kissinger, George Will… what a swell guy huh? (And if you’d like to know how he feels on issues, click here.) He has a well-earned reputation for cutting staff and shifting editorial boards to the right. Some of his more fawning reviewers try to water this all down by saying that he’d only be a moderate GOPer in the US – as if his repulsive politics are made less reprehensible by virtue of his Canadian heritage (which he renounced to obtain a British peerage).   So, sound like the kind of guy who might be willing to “win dirty” if it meant getting playing with the big boys?   And if all those fantastic charges eventually prove to be false… who will report it... and will anyone care? 12:50:00 AM