Saturday, November 26, 2005

Methinks the Lying Sack of Shit Doth Protest Too Much

Vice President Dick Cheney has taken the offensive in attacking critics of the administration, and he has taken it to new levels of offensiveness. He distances himself from the same claims that he puts into the public dialogue, such as the assertion that dissent is hurting our troops’ morale in Iraq. The main gist of what he is saying is that dissent and debate are unpatriotic.

"The president and I cannot prevent certain politicians from losing their memory, or their backbone -- but we're not going to sit by and let them rewrite history," said Cheney.

According to Cheny, the claim that Bush or any member of the administration misled Americans before the war "is one of the most dishonest and reprehensible charges ever aired in this city."

What do we know so far? Here’s just one example of what a dishonest piece of work Fearless Dick Cheney is.

On Sunday, July 6, 2003, the New York Times published, “What I didn’t Find in Africa,” Joe Wilson’s account of his trip to Niger. As everyone knows by now, he reported that the President’s State of the Union Address was misleading in it’s assertion that Saddam was attempting to purchase uranium.

The Vice President obviously thinks it is reprehensible for Ambassador Wilson to say this, and he will not sit by and let it be said. So what is his plan of attack?

First, Cheney must claim that he had no idea that Wilson had gone to Niger and not found what he didn’t find. This is ridiculous on its face, since the mission to Iraq was a direct response to Cheney’s question.

Apparently Cheney wants us to think that the CIA responded to his question by sending Wilson to Iraq, but then forgot to pass along his findings.

Let’s listen to Cheney trying out this tactic. This is from his September 14 2003 appearance on Meet the Press:

I don’t know Joe Wilson. I’ve never met Joe Wilson. A question had arisen. I’d heard a report that the Iraqis had been trying to acquire uranium in Africa, Niger in particular. I get a daily brief on my own each day before I meet with the president to go through the intel. And I ask lots of question. One of the questions I asked at that particular time about this, I said, “What do we know about this?” They take the question. He came back within a day or two and said, “This is all we know. There’s a lot we don’t know,” end of statement. And Joe Wilson—I don’t who sent Joe Wilson. He never submitted a report -- that I ever saw -- when he came back.

How is that possible? Well, for an answer let’s look again at what Wilson said in the now famous article in the Times:

Though I did not file a written report, there should be at least four documents in United States government archives confirming my mission. The documents should include the ambassador's report of my debriefing in Niamey, a separate report written by the embassy staff, a C.I.A. report summing up my trip, and a specific answer from the agency to the office of the vice president (this may have been delivered orally). While I have not seen any of these reports, I have spent enough time in government to know that this is standard operating procedure.

Oh Dick, your pants are on fire. Of course you didn’t see his report – it was oral! And you know that this is standard operating procedure for the CIA, too. Go back to your undisclosed location, and think about the fact that America is on to you, you lying bastard.

... and tell 'em Big Mitch sent ya!

No comments: