If Dan Rather publicizing obviously forged documents is the worst thing in the history of the world (as blogdom is monomaniacally pronouncing), then what was it when the Bush Administration foisted an unnecessary war upon America based largely on convicted embezzler and known forger Ahmed Chalabi's countless lies?Paul Craig Roberts, God bless him, is asking the same question.
Chalabi was on the Pentagon payroll and had this to say about his role dragging the US into an unjustified war with his bogus "intelligence":
As far as we're concerned we've been entirely successful. That tyrant Saddam is gone and the Americans are in Baghdad. What was said before is not important.
Meanwhile, UPI is reporting that not only was there dishonesty leading up to the war, but that the Pentagon is covering up the true number of American casualties:
Nearly 17,000 service members medically evacuated from Iraq and Afghanistan are absent from public Pentagon casualty reports commonly cited by newspapers, according to military data reviewed by United Press International.
There is some good news, however. Washington sage Bob Novak is predicting a U-Turn in policy toward Iraq early in 2005 if Bush wins the coming election. Novak writes:
Inside the Bush administration policymaking apparatus, there is strong feeling that U.S. troops must leave Iraq next year. This determination is not predicated on success in implanting Iraqi democracy and internal stability. Rather, the officials are saying: ready or not, here we go.
Novak is pointing toward an obvious fact that whomever is elected in November is facing a deteriorating situation in Iraq, and the options there are two-fold. We can either put "more boots on the ground," which seems to be the option of John McCain, Dick Lugar, Chuck Hagel, Joe Biden, and the blood-thirsty necons. Or we can declare victory and come home. The latter option is looking increasingly enticing.