From "No Doubt" to "Is That a Yes?"

When the Bush administration -- yeah, they're still in office, and they like it when we're not paying attention -- first trotted out its marketing campaign for the Iraq war, the three main criteria for attacking that country stuck in my mind. Hey, I thought, I know a nation that fits all three -- has attacked its neighbor, has weapons of mass destruction, and has close ties with those who harbor and abet terrorists. That country was Pakistan. Iraq, of course, turned out to fulfill only one of those criteria for war, but, as Barton Gellman points out in his chilling book about Dick Cheney, Angler, the value of attacking Iraq, so it was thought at the time, was that it was an easy, pre-weakened target. Whereas Pakistan really did have nukes.

And Pakistan's ISI intelligence agency had long-standing connections with the Taliban. That had been reported for years. But now (hat tip: the San Diego desk of Le Show) comes bizarre, contorted, please-don't-make-me-say-it confirmation from the man who replaced Doug Feith (co-author of our Feith-based Iraq policy) at the Pentagon. Read this interview. and compare it with the chest-thumping assertions about Saddam Hussein's alleged connections with al-Qaeda, and then repeat to yourself: These guys are still in office, and they like it when we're not paying attention.

EDITED TO CORRECT LINKS

Comments

[philistine]

Two words: Sibel Edmonds.

[breakingpoint]

my renewed sense of justice cries out, ARREST THEM!

please

[antispin]

Harry, I'd like to see the interview, but it looks like you repeated the previous link, rather than giving the one you wanted?

It looks like I don't need the interview to know this guy is creepiola in the extreme. We need to make room at Leavenworth for this guy and his pals.

[kellygrrrl]

the mere fact that these guys are not in prison - much less "still in office" - is a scar that WE will carry until the end of time.