Peter Principle

How U.S. Fell Under the Spell of ‘Curveball’

The German intelligence officials responsible for one of the most important informants on Saddam Hussein’s suspected weapons of mass destruction say that the Bush administration and the CIA repeatedly exaggerated his claims during the run-up to the war in Iraq. [...]

At the Central Intelligence Agency, officials embraced Curveball’s account even though they could not confirm it or interview him until a year after the invasion. They ignored multiple warnings about his reliability before the war, punished in-house critics who provided proof that he had lied and refused to admit error until May 2004, 14 months after the invasion.

The NYT says that the Bush administration was warned back in 2002 that an informer might be fabricating claims that Saddam Hussein cooperated with Al Quaeda. Report Warned Bush Team About Intelligence Doubts

The document, an intelligence report from February 2002, said it was probable that the prisoner, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, “was intentionally misleading the debriefers’’ in making claims about Iraqi support for Al Qaeda’s work with illicit weapons.

That must have been inconvenient, seeing how the administration had already decided to attack Iraq.

Some Tie Libby’s Case to the Case for the War

“This case is bigger than the leak of highly classified information,” said Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader. “It is about how the Bush White House manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to bolster its case for the war in Iraq and to discredit anyone who dared to challenge the president.”

Plamegate: Worse than Watergate

This week’s Peter Principle poster child is the President’s nominee for the supreme court, Harriet Miers! This truly is a great country, where an unknown lawyer with no judicial experience can rise to serve on the highest court in the land. It just goes to show what 10 years of sucking up can do for your career.

Bush Criticized Over Emphasis on Religion of Nominee

White House officials had told conservative supporters about the religious beliefs of his latest Supreme Court nominee, Harriet E. Miers, as part of an “outreach effort”

Christopher Hitchens

Of the nomination of Harriet Miers, by contrast, it can be said that only her religion has been considered by her conservative fans to be worth mentioning. What else is there to say, in any case, about a middling bureaucrat and yes-woman than that she attends some mediocre place of worship?

Valley View church

Valley View is part of the “restorationist” movement that is one strand in the larger web of American evangelicalism. Broadly speaking, evangelicals have three characteristics: They believe that Scripture is infallible and view it as their sole authority; they emphasize their personal relationships with Jesus Christ; and, often, they can tell you the day, even hour, at which they accepted Jesus as their Lord and Savior.

FrederickClarkson.com

“Reconstructionism argues that the Bible is to be the governing text for all areas of life–such as government, education, law, and the arts, not merely “social” or “moral” issues like pornography, homosexuality, and abortion. Reconstructionists have formulated a “Biblical world view” and “Biblical principles” by which to examine contemporary matters. Reconstructionist theologian David Chilton succinctly describes this view: ‘The Christian goal for the world is the universal development of Biblical theocratic republics, in which every area of life is redeemed and placed under the Lordship of Jesus Christ and the rule of God’s law.’”

The Commander in Chief just gave a speech at the National Endowment for Democracy. (I’ve never heard of it either). President Bush tried to counter the prevailing wisdom that the invasion of Iraq has served as a recruitment drive for radical Islamic groups:

Some have argued that extremism has been strengthened by the actions of our coalition in Iraq, claiming that our presence in that country has somehow caused or triggered the rage of radicals. I would remind them that we were not in Iraq on September 11, 2001, and al-Qaida attacked us anyway.

Fred Kaplan at Slate breaks down the logical flaws: Bush’s speech was a sad, demoralizing spectacle.

This is mere playing with words. Notice: First, he cites the claim that the U.S. occupation has “strengthened” the extremists; then he dismisses some straw man’s contention that our presence has “caused or triggered” the radicals’ rage. The fact that 9/11 preceded the invasion of Iraq is irrelevant to the point that he started to counter—that the occupation “strengthened” the insurgency. This point is incontestable.

I suspect this is why support for the war is waning on the home front—not because Americans doubt that the stakes are high, but because they wonder if the commander in chief knows what he’s doing.

Somehow, it all makes sense…

A President who was not popularly elected.

Responds to a attack that was never expected.

By a terrorist who can’t be found.

And invades a country that was never involved.

Using as justification – Weapons of Mass Destruction…

that never existed!

UPI: Rockets on donkeys hit major Baghdad sites

“… two other donkey-powered missile carts were found wandering in the vicinity of the Italian Embassy … Neither of those donkeys had fired its deadly load.”

What’s next? Sharks with Frickin’ Laser Beams?