?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Yes, I'm always the last to know these things. I just got around to watching 60 Mintues off the cable box.

The war with Iraq had been seriously in the stage of planning since two weeks after the WTC-Pentagon attacks?

That money was misallocated (Can I say "laundered"? Please?) from the Afghanistan front to the (future) Iraq front?

That George W Bush saw all that he had in way of evidence that Iraq had weapons and he himself found it lacking?

That Colin Powell sold his credibility on this adventure when he had serious misgivings? (At least Clarke wrote a book after playing good soldier as pennance.)

That there may be a plan by Saudi Arabia to play with oil prices rather conviently close to the election?

Comments

( 1 comment — Leave a comment )
rtfirefly
Apr. 20th, 2004 04:08 pm (UTC)
I'm wondering why two things in particular haven't gotten a lot of play. One's the stealing from the Afghanistan account to pay for the secret Iraq expenditures, which is a clear violation of the Constitution (Article I, Section 9, paragraph 7, "No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law") and would seem to me to be stand-alone grounds for impeachment much greater than Clinton's perjury about a blowjob.

The other is business of the Saudis manipulating the oil prices to benefit Bush's campaign. Nobody seems to be talking about why it's a big deal, which is pretty straightforward: when officials of the U.S. government have such entanglements with officials of other governments, it runs the obvious risk that the government official will put the resources and credibility of the U.S. government to repay a personal favor or obligation.

This is why we have laws against accepting campaign contributions from furriners. This is the same sort of thing, only much bigger. And yet the media are treating it like a joke.
( 1 comment — Leave a comment )