> netslackers <

-- Sunday, July 13, 2003 --

Holy shit! There haven't been updates in quite some time now. To the one or two dedicated fans netslackers has out there (read: scandalous j . . . a.k.a. Josh) we apologize for not adding new content. We know you’ve come to depend on our humble site for reading material and alas we have let you down. However, owing to the fact that it’s summer we do not in fact, to put it bluntly, “give a flying fuck.” And, as the name implies, no one is particularly dedicated to this so we really haven’t failed at all.

In closing, that entire paragraph should have been deleted before I posted this seeing as it contradicts itself at the end. Such is life.

At any rate, the real reason I’m posting is to ask our dedicated reader(s) to ponder the following: is it worse to lie to Congress, a pack of cheating, power hungry politicians, about receiving head from an astoundingly ugly intern who probably isn’t even a woman (or at the very least wasn’t born one) or is it worse to use evidence you know to be blatantly false in order to gain support for a war against a threat that isn’t so much imminent as it is non-existent? In other words, would it make more sense to impeach a man for having an affair or to impeach a man for thrusting his country into a battle because it’s politically advantageous?

Hmm. I know; that’s a toughy.

As I’m sure you all know, Bush lied to the very citizens he was “elected” to serve and it looks like he’s going to get away with it by blaming it on the CIA. Well Mr. President, some of us aren’t interested in seeing you get off that easy.

The documents Bush used as proof that Hussein was trying to mail-order weapons of mass destruction were forgeries and he knew it.

You used documents widely known in the intelligence community to be forged as proof that Hussein was trying to mail-order weapons of mass destruction all so you could make a case for a war we didn’t need in the first place. Not only did you use them, you were warned not to. The CIA made it clear in the past you shouldn’t use fabrications as evidence in your speeches. In fact, you even took their advice once. So why did it suddenly become all right later on to go ahead and insert made up facts into your address to the nation? Could you explain that one to me? Please?

And here’s the answer you’ve supplied us with: Because the British said it was true.

Well yes they did. But guess who set the record straight over on their little island. That’s right, the CIA. They explained to the English that no, the documents they were using to hand-feed the war to their own citizens were not in fact correct in the strictest sense of the word.

But our President didn’t care because he’s an American, goddamnit! And Americans can do whatever they damn well please, thank you very much.

And by the way . . . where did these forgeries come from? Hussein? Was the evil bad man from Iraq making up lies to destroy your career Mr. Bush? That’s the only logical explanation and clearly it’s yet another justification for war to add to the quickly growing and never-ending list.

One more interesting thing to point out: CIA Director George Tenet is sitting by as he gets slimed by the very administration he helped try to prevent from embarrassing itself. Sure Bush says he’s in Tenet’s corner, but he’ll find something else to blame him for in the coming months and Tenet will quickly find himself out of a job.

Oh well. You win some, you lose some, right? And sometimes you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet, correct? Well in this case, the cracked eggshells look like the remains of Iraq and the turmoil you’ve unleashed on this country. And the omelet? Why, it’s your bid for another four years in office. So what if a few things have to go to hell in order for you reach your goal? The important thing is that you get the power you so richly deserve.

Ok, I lied, one more thing I need to show the readers:

The new disclosure suggests how eager the White House was in January to make Iraq's nuclear program a part of its case against Saddam Hussein even in the face of earlier objections by its own CIA director. It also appears to raise questions about the administration's explanation of how the faulty allegations were included in the State of the Union speech.
-The Washington Post

Wow. Looks like they’ve rediscovered the old liberal slant. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t like seeing editorializing in a news article, but I have to admit, it’s nice to see our local paper assert its independence from the conservative propaganda machine once known as the news media.

All right, I think that makes up for at least a few missed updates. Maybe I’ll get some help at some point from the rest of the netslackers . . . (hint, hint, nudge, nudge).

------------------------

Edit: It looks like Maureen Dowd agrees with me . . .

------------------------

Update (7/14): According to the White House, it's a 'bunch of bull'

This revisionist notion that somehow this is now the core of why we went to war, a central issue in why we went to war, a fundamental underpinning of the president's decisions, is a bunch of bull.
-Ari Fleischer

Looks like Ari is getting a bit flustered. Let's hear it for the professionalism he exudes. Why does this man still have a job?



> KC 12:01 AM [105806890372795499]
>