The GOP is really getting nervous about Iraq now. Eleanor Clift actually talked about Bush's impeachment in her column today. As a result, we can now behold the hilarious spectacle of GOP drones actually whining that impeachment is anti-democratic and unfair.
Posted by GreggMT at November 6, 2005 03:52 AMIncompetently gathered evidence is
evidence of incompetence.
For the administration it's either deliberate lying or incompetence. And since repubs keep stating it's the latter, then why hasn't Bush held anyone accountable for it? Why haven't they done anything to correct those who were responsible for the worst foreign policy debacle ever? If anything he gave Freedom Medals to those who were "blamed".
Posted by at November 6, 2005 04:51 AMwhy hasn't Bush held anyone accountable for it?
khe-khe... Fish rots from the head...
Posted by buck turgidson at November 6, 2005 05:51 AMevidence of incompetence>
Great Bumber Sticker mparker!
Best sign seen at the recent anti-war demonstration in DC:
"Would someone please give him a blow job so that we can impeach?"
Posted by DOT at November 6, 2005 07:01 AMNice juxtaposition, eRiposte.
"No dearth or absence of evidence" ... quite the understatement.
As for the wider question of Administration deception and lies over Iraqi WMDs, one in no way hinging on the quality of existing intelligence, the evidence is massive and overwhelming. It is quite simply beyond any dispute.
(If I were writing that comment now your invaluable recent series (pl.) on Uranium from Africa would be right beside the links to Rangwala's work.)
And of course the "intelligence" itself was in many instances not neatly separable from the use that was made of it. This is another of those false dichotomies along the lines of Bob Somerby's tiresome and disingenuous refrain about the difference between "sought" and "bought" in the infamous Sixteen Words. If Somerby knew any actual facts about the case he'd be well aware that there are few examples of logical distinctions with less substantive content, in reality, than the one he's been shamefully peddling. It is precisely pseudo-distinctions like these that have been manipulated to full rhetorical advantage by the reprehensible apologists for this war.
Posted by KM at November 6, 2005 09:43 AMKM, thanks for the link. I posted a link to that.
Posted by eriposte at November 6, 2005 10:51 AMThe link to Glen Rangwala's writings is great. In fact, it has some of the articles I was using in 2003 following the Hutton inquiry. Here was one from July 3, 2003 that lays out why the British dossiers were junk. And he makes short shrift of the British claim that their "evidence" of Saddam trying to acquire Uranium to some other "secret" source other than the disputed Niger forgeries:
Months after the forgeries were revealed, UK ministers have started to claim that the claim in the September 2002 dossier was based on different evidence for Iraqi attempts to import uranium from Africa. The IAEA in March 2003 had not received any evidence about Iraqi attempts to import uranium. The UK has an obligation under Security Council Resolutions to give material to the IAEA on Iraqi attempts to illegally import weapons material. So either the UK was violating its obligations under the same Security Council Resolutions it claimed Iraq was violating, or it was relying on forgeries to make its case for war.
Indeed, that is one of the items that I noted in my Timeline.
Posted by Mary at November 6, 2005 12:03 PM