Tuesday, December 4, 2007

NIE: Iran Not Pursuing The Bomb; Bush: Lying

Now it comes out that government intelligence agencies in the National Intelligence Estimate unanimously agreed that Iran had stopped trying to develop a nuclear weapon. And that this assessment has been out for some time. So when recently the President goes up there and condescendingly lectures the rest of us about WWIII and Iran getting nukes, he is doing so KNOWING that he is lying to the American public.

The intel changes yet he insists it doesn't change the policy or rhetoric. What this is is an admission that the intelligence doesn't factor into the decisions. If it did he would have to adjust at least slightly. But he doesn't.

So he is admitting that he lied and mislead leading up to the Iraq invasion both with the claims of WMD and the lie that he hadn't made his mind up about attacking in the months before the invasion.

It is also creates even more suspicion of his illegal domestic spying programs and it's purpose. He doesn't care what the intelligence has to say so this must serve some other purpose. I continue to believe that it is intended to gather information on political opponents (as well as keep the GOP in line) to be used to coerce and blackmail them.

In the end, it's simply time to impeach. He clearly has contempt for the American people's right to know ANYTHING. You will never get honesty from these guys on incredibly important issues. And the other alternative, that he walks around unaware of what is in the NIE is absolutely frightening. If that is the case there simply is no argument against impeaching him.

Monday, December 3, 2007

Frank Rich: Who's Afraid of Obama?

Frank Rich in Sunday's New York Times makes a similar point about the trap of a Hillary nomination:

The unspoken truth is that the Clinton machine is not being battle-tested at all by the Democratic primary process. When Mrs. Clinton accused John Edwards of “throwing mud” and “personally” attacking her in a sharp policy exchange in one debate, the press didn’t challenge the absurd hyperbole of her claim. In reality, neither Mr. Edwards nor any other Democratic competitor will ever hit her with the real, personal mud being stockpiled by the right. But if she’s getting a bye now, she will not from the Republican standard-bearer, whoever he may be. Clinton-bashing is the last shared article of faith (and last area of indisputable G.O.P. competence) that could yet unite the fractured and dispirited conservative electorate.

The Republicans know this and are so psychologically invested in refighting the Clinton wars that they’re giddy. Karl Rove’s first column for Newsweek last week, “How to Beat Hillary (Next) November,” proceeded from the premise that her nomination was a done deal. In the G.O.P. debates through last Thursday, the candidates mentioned the Clintons some 65 times. Barack Obama’s name has not been said once.

But much like the Clinton campaign itself, the Republicans have fallen into a trap by continuing to cling to the Hillary-is-inevitable trope. They have not allowed themselves to think the unthinkable — that they might need a Plan B to go up against a candidate who is not she. It’s far from clear that they would remotely know how to construct a Plan B to counter Mr. Obama. The repeated attempts to fan “rumors” that he is a madrassa-indoctrinated Muslim — whether on Fox News or in The Washington Post, where they resurfaced scurrilously on the front page on Thursday — are too demonstrably false to survive endless reruns even in the Swift-boating era.

He does add something interesting in the thought that the GOP could be setting themselves up by betting all their money on the Clinton horse.