tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11363027.post1484088709825549195..comments2024-03-29T07:36:51.933-05:00Comments on driftglass: The Truth Is Out Theredriftglasshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09379167083253389153noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11363027.post-54301905342818003842015-05-20T16:50:33.767-05:002015-05-20T16:50:33.767-05:00I fear NT is correct--and of course, anything capa...I fear NT is correct--and of course, anything capable of bringing down the 1% (or .1%, or .01%, or whatever is the actual proportion) will doom the rest of us as well. <br /><br />I recently completed my 52nd solar orbit, so maybe I will die of natural causes first. As for descendants, I have sired none, and never will. <br /><br />That may prove to be fortunate. Ivory Bill Woodpeckerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01318699512583970467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11363027.post-85161726839908436402015-05-20T12:48:52.322-05:002015-05-20T12:48:52.322-05:00They assist the destroyers because of the money an...<i>They assist the destroyers because of the money and influence it brings, and because that money and influence insulates them from consequences of the disasters the destroyers create. And until that money and influence is threatened -- until consorting with monsters starts coming with a terrible price tag -- the status quo will never change.</i><br /><br />The problem, it seems to me, is that no action taken by mere humans can threaten that money and influence any longer. Only a disaster from which that money and influence cannot protect them will threaten it. Only a complete collapse -- of the economy, of society, of the ecology -- will knock the props out from under them.<br /><br />"'How did you go bankrupt?' Bill asked.<br />"'Two ways,' Mike said. 'Gradually and then suddenly.'"<br />-- Ernest Hemingway, <i>The Sun Also Rises</i>Neo Tuxedohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15455041641080873400noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11363027.post-49993131182592264842015-05-20T11:38:23.957-05:002015-05-20T11:38:23.957-05:00Because I wanted to fuel my rage, I did a duckduck...Because I wanted to fuel my rage, I did a duckduckgo search on "Bush Iraq" and clicked on the links of major "objective" news sites. I'm looking here for acknowledgment that the intelligence on Iraq was cooked on purpose. The village consensus is that the intelligence was "flawed." Lets see how many villagers can figure out why. <br /><br />CNN: <br /><br />"One reason for that is the bipartisan consensus now forming that the war was a mistake given that Hussein's weapons of mass destruction -- used as a justification for war -- did not exist."<br /><br />Sounds pretty good acknowledgment of the facts, but in the interest of comity, CNN can't bring itself to say that the intelligence was cooked maliciously, and that a big chunk of the GOP -- the ones who don't read Brooks -- still don't know the truth. <br /><br />And let's count the paragraphs where this comes in: 16 paragraphs in. You know what comes way before that? <br /><br />"Democrats make a case that the 2003 invasion invalidated an entire school of Republican political thought -- neoconservatism -- and say the war proves the GOP cannot be trusted with U.S. national security.<br /><br />Republicans meanwhile insist the war was all but won in 2009 by Bush's belated troop surge and blame Obama for being more concerned with honoring a political promise to end the war than the reality of the deeply unstable nation he left behind."<br /><br />Yeah, driftglass, you made me angry and depressed, so now I return the favor. <br /><br />CSMonitor: Second paragraph: "“No,” they said to a man, “Knowing what we know now [about the faulty – some say concocted – intelligence on Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction and connections to al Qaeda], I would not have done what George W. Bush did.” "<br /><br />Some say... in brackets. Still, pretty good. The CSMonitor isn't going to let something like lying us into war completely slide. Good outfit. <br /><br />Time Magazine: Nothing. <br /><br />Washington Post: Nothing.<br /><br />Reuters: Worse than nothing: "George W. Bush made his decision to go to war and assembled an international coalition to help the United States carry it out based on intelligence indicating Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's government possessed weapons of mass destruction.<br /><br />The intelligence turned out to be wrong, and the decision to go to war remains a topic of hot debate in the United States as Iraq is in turmoil with the rise of Islamic State militants."<br /><br />THe intelligence turned out to be wrong. WTF. <br /><br />New York Times: Nothing. <br /><br />NY Daily News: Obvious. <br /><br />So out of seven papers, only ONE makes mention of the mendacity; and that paper is only read by news nerds.896216598755556665https://www.blogger.com/profile/05444218334987757672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11363027.post-78044505402853162992015-05-20T11:36:09.573-05:002015-05-20T11:36:09.573-05:00They are all beholden to Northrup Grummond, Boeing...They are all beholden to Northrup Grummond, Boeing, and Raytheon. Right above God in the org chart.<br /><br />You're such a good writer. Will you marry me? Fran / Blue Galhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18293627981248346055noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11363027.post-30845759120237662902015-05-20T11:03:24.110-05:002015-05-20T11:03:24.110-05:00That's what I call restraint. You didn't m...That's what I call restraint. You didn't mention that prick Brooks even once. Nice.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14193373308384527337noreply@blogger.com