The Headlife Gameshow Everybody Loves……

It’s time to play….. “Which Neocon Zionist Stooge Said THIS Crap?!?!?”

“In addition, al-Qaida reached an understanding with the Government of Iraq that al-Qaida would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al-Qaida would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.”

Was it….

A) Scooter Libby
B) Tony Blair
C) Paul “Super Zion Boy” Wolfowitz
D) Some other Jew (Perle, Kristol, Safire, take your pick…)
E) The Clinton Justice Department in its 1998 indictment of Osama Bin Laden
F) Scooter Libby’s autistic redneck brother, Shooter

Well, clearly A, B, C, D or F since no arm of the Clinton administration would….. wait a second.


  1. *Whew* Well, I guess that means the war was OK.I wonder, do you think the Clinton Administration also had memos that argued for not having sufficient military force and post-war planning so that things would go smoothly after the invasion?And also, are there memos stressing that after such piss-poor planning, Clinton should be gutless refuse to fire anyone who had anything to do with said planning? Perhaps there’s a memo stating that Clinton should give a Medal of Freedom to people who give out crappy intel!They’re probably out there, and the Liberal Media are just hiding them from us!!!


  2. Your post suggests the desire–common among the war critics–to have the argument every-which-way, or whichever way seems most free from inconvenience at the moment.Currently (and for some time) Democratic leadership is waging a campaign to convince the public that (a) the Bush people misled them with fraudulent representations of available intel and (b) that they had no way of evaluating the reliability of the intel for themselves before they (almost to a man…or woman) voted to go to War.One of the favorite tricks in this game has been to caricature the suggested link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda as being an invention, a rampant distortion of the Neocon-controlled White House. The quotation above is just one of many illustrations that no one in the Bush admin ever suggested that Iraq-AQ link as strongly as Clinton’s Justice Dept (except, that is, for Clinton appointee George Tenet). My post is not meant to address questions of post-war governance or democracy-buidling in Iraq. It is meant to highlight (and, if I may say so accomplishes this quite devastatingly) the hilarious diconnect (some people would call it “dishonesty”) in the Democratic leadership pretending that these claims (a) originated with the Bush White House and (b) have no basis in sound intel.If you’d like to talk post-war governance and the problems there in substantive fashion–I’m game. Maybe you should pass the invitation on to your Party’s leadership.


  3. Stu– I am also a registered Independant, so I have no party.And as I have said before, the reasons for going to war and the trumped-up/not truped-up nature of the evidence doesn’t bother me much because in the end, it’s good to rid the world of horrible dictators. I may have my doubts about this administration’s honesty, but that’s just the irrational side of me. You’re right– Clinton’s people were saying a lot of the same thing. But again, it doesn’t bother me.What bothers me are the post-war efforts. Hence my comments.


Comments are closed.