Thursday, June 23, 2005

Secracy leads only to speculation.

Iraq's Justice Minister Abdel Hussein Shandal recently said "it seems there are lots of secrets they want to hide." You are absolutely right, sir. Whether it has to do with the US involvement in delaying the trial of saddam hussein to which you refer or the intelligence intercept documents of john bolton that have been requested by the Democrats, it certainly does seem that there are "lots of secrets they want to hide". Why should the little prince and king richard change their secret ways now? Let the GAO put in as many requests as it wants. Dick's duck hunting judge buddy and the head nodders behind him will just rule to secure their secrecy again anyway. This leaves us with only speculation. What fun!

1. Old news - the Energy Task Force
Now I understand that the president and his minions reserve the right to get opinions and counsel from whomever they like, and that if everything said was on the record, perhaps people would speak and act differently. Energy policy is something that has desperately needed to be addressed for a number of years, but all we know about those who drew up this administration's attempt is that there were NO environmentalists involved. Thanks to Justice "quack, quack" scalia's ruling, we're left to speculate. My guess is that the oil industry was very involved, Kenny Boy's Enron in particular. I know that's the odds on favorite. My longer shot is bandar bush. Enron would be understandable enough to the American public, but a Saudi prince? Now that's a reason to keep the task force's identities hidden.

2. Identities - names in secret national security intercepts that Bolton requested and received
The reason bolton continues to get the NO votes out isn't his surly attitude towards his subordinates. It's not because he chases people down hotel hallways. Democrats are demanding that the administration turn over the names of people listed in intelligence intercepts whose identities bolton asked for and received. Now who could be on that list that would keep them from giving the Democrats what they desire to pass bolton through the US Senate. Here's a guess, Valerie Plame. You remember Valerie Plame. She's the active CIA operative whose identity was given to a red columnist by an "administration official". The little prince and his personal assistant used bolton to make sure chads were (weren't) counted correctly back in 2000. Maybe they thought he was just the guy to bring down administration critic, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, by outing his wife and endangering her life. Say what you will reds, Joe Wilson said the yellow cake from Niger "intelligence" was crap, and guess what. It was.

3. the trial of saddam hussein

It's being said that the US is delaying the trial of saddam hussein, and one is left to wonder why. The butcher of baghdad "gassed his own people" back when reagan was president, right? The US actually supported his reign initially, as well as supporting Iraq in their war against Iran. That was until reagan's administration decided to sell arms to Iran so that the US could fund rebels in Nicaragua. So why would the United States want to slow saddam's trial? Since the administration makes no comment on the justice minister's charges let's guess. While we were "supporting" Iraq on the down low during the Iran-Iraq war, maybe just maybe, we provided them with arms. And maybe just maybe, he used those arms on his own people. Or maybe the little prince really is worried about Iraq having a good court and justice system first. Though that does sound like a bit too much fore thought from a man who went into war without a plan for its aftermath, let alone an "exit strategy".

So let the personal assistant come out using 9/11 as a political spin wheel, goading Democrats into saying they were for the war that they now say is a "grotesque mistake". Hey karl, some of us still remember that the War in Afghanistan was the response to 9/11 and remains separate from the War of Choice in Iraq, which is a "grotesque", "quagmire" of a "mistake" requiring more money or military than we can afford to "win".


"The mission must be clear. Soldiers must understand why we're going. The force must be strong enough so that the mission can be accomplished. And the exit strategy needs to be well-defined."
- g.w. flip floppin' bush 10/17/00 in the third Gore-bush presidential debate

No comments: