Monday, March 22, 2004
Fabulous Judy and the Medicine Show
Sulzberger flys a fabulous kite.
Yep..."fabulous" is certainly an excellent word for it.
As in: fabulous 1. Barely credible; astonishing.
I guess that would make Judith Miller one fabulous fabulist wouldn't it?
Of course as we all know Judith Miller moonlighted as international swindler Ahmad Chalabi's cheery house minx charge d'affaire and special envoy for all things fabulous when it came to serving up a noisy endless clatter of INC boo-stories concerning all things I-Racky terra-bull.
And now lassie Miller is off again. This time assigned the task of intercepting Richard Clarke's doomsday missile. Neato. I can hardly wait for her latest round of fabulous conclusions to come fluttering down from the empyrean like so much chaff from a decoy flare.
Yeah well whatever - off ya go Judy, and uh, always remember to use a condom. (Just a short public service reminder.)
Anyway, meantime, what's kind of altogether creepy with respect to this entire unfolding trajedy is the realization that the Cult of the W - and their entire medicine show of incompetent liars, dissemblers, apologists, and potted GOP media plants - will continue attacking Clarke's character and credibility. Thereby attempting to define Clarke as some kind of washed up disgruntled crank who's now attempting to foil the emperors glorious war-circus maximus for his own personal and partisan political gain. In other words, a "shill" for John Kerry and the Democrats. In other words, .....look, over there, sour grapes! son et lumiere!
Expect the usual jumble of CNN and MSNBC punditry to go chasing off after that rabbit like so many blind spaniels in a berry bramble. Count on it.
Yet, oddly enough, these same noisy wagtails will never question the motivations of the Bush congregation with regards to, say, international swindler Chalabi, who, it appears, may have held more sway within the walls of the Bush cult compound than Clarke himself. Which begs the question: why was the Bush administration discounting the intelligence expertise of someone like Clarke (and the FBI and the CIA as well) while simultaneously hustling the wares of a shady opportunist like Chalabi and the INC? What was the Bush administration doing giving more credibility to the claims and designs of some devious runaway grifter, who was feeding them so-called credible intelligence, often from his cozy little nest in Iran, than to a long time trusted anti-terrorism foreign policy expert like Richard Clarke? Think about it. A suspected international fugitive bank robber was one of the key persons influencing decisions about our post 9/11 anti-terrorism efforts while a credible veteran public servant like Richard Clarke was being swatted away like a bothersome housefly. Why it sounds almost treasonous doesn't it? Someone tell me again why this current administration is a reliable steward of our national security interests.
For more on Chalabi Stratfor.com published a very interesting take on his relationship to Iran, the Bush administration, Petra Bank, and the run up to the war in Iraq -- and asks this question:
Read the entire stratfor article here, its very interesting: Ahmad Chalabi and His Iranian Connection
At one point, a college reporter asked Sulzberger a pointed question about one of his newspaper's star writers, Judith Miller, who has been widely criticized for misleading coverage of alleged weapons of mass destruction in Iraq last year. The publisher defended Miller, saying he had known her "for decades," adding that she "has fabulous sources."
Yep..."fabulous" is certainly an excellent word for it.
As in: fabulous 1. Barely credible; astonishing.
I guess that would make Judith Miller one fabulous fabulist wouldn't it?
Then he added: "Were her sources wrong? Absolutely. Her sources were wrong. And you know something? The administration was wrong. And when you're covering it from the inside like that you're going to get things wrong sometimes. So I don't blame Judy Miller for the lack of finding weapons of mass destruction." This produced a few laughs from audience members. "I blame the administration for believing its own story line," he continued, "to such a point that they weren't prepared to question the authenticity of what they were told." [see: Sulzberger on Blair, Miller, Getting a Job at the 'Times']
Of course as we all know Judith Miller moonlighted as international swindler Ahmad Chalabi's cheery house minx charge d'affaire and special envoy for all things fabulous when it came to serving up a noisy endless clatter of INC boo-stories concerning all things I-Racky terra-bull.
And now lassie Miller is off again. This time assigned the task of intercepting Richard Clarke's doomsday missile. Neato. I can hardly wait for her latest round of fabulous conclusions to come fluttering down from the empyrean like so much chaff from a decoy flare.
Yeah well whatever - off ya go Judy, and uh, always remember to use a condom. (Just a short public service reminder.)
Anyway, meantime, what's kind of altogether creepy with respect to this entire unfolding trajedy is the realization that the Cult of the W - and their entire medicine show of incompetent liars, dissemblers, apologists, and potted GOP media plants - will continue attacking Clarke's character and credibility. Thereby attempting to define Clarke as some kind of washed up disgruntled crank who's now attempting to foil the emperors glorious war-circus maximus for his own personal and partisan political gain. In other words, a "shill" for John Kerry and the Democrats. In other words, .....look, over there, sour grapes! son et lumiere!
Expect the usual jumble of CNN and MSNBC punditry to go chasing off after that rabbit like so many blind spaniels in a berry bramble. Count on it.
Yet, oddly enough, these same noisy wagtails will never question the motivations of the Bush congregation with regards to, say, international swindler Chalabi, who, it appears, may have held more sway within the walls of the Bush cult compound than Clarke himself. Which begs the question: why was the Bush administration discounting the intelligence expertise of someone like Clarke (and the FBI and the CIA as well) while simultaneously hustling the wares of a shady opportunist like Chalabi and the INC? What was the Bush administration doing giving more credibility to the claims and designs of some devious runaway grifter, who was feeding them so-called credible intelligence, often from his cozy little nest in Iran, than to a long time trusted anti-terrorism foreign policy expert like Richard Clarke? Think about it. A suspected international fugitive bank robber was one of the key persons influencing decisions about our post 9/11 anti-terrorism efforts while a credible veteran public servant like Richard Clarke was being swatted away like a bothersome housefly. Why it sounds almost treasonous doesn't it? Someone tell me again why this current administration is a reliable steward of our national security interests.
For more on Chalabi Stratfor.com published a very interesting take on his relationship to Iran, the Bush administration, Petra Bank, and the run up to the war in Iraq -- and asks this question:
As we consider the intelligence failures in Iraq, Chalabi's role in those failures and his relationship with senior Iranian officials of all factions, a question needs to be raised: Who was whose stooge?
Read the entire stratfor article here, its very interesting: Ahmad Chalabi and His Iranian Connection
